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

[Smmenen]

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.

I agere with you.   When I said that my analysis doesn't mean that the DCI was wrong to restrict "cards in June" I meant that my anaylsis doesn't mean that they were wrong to restrict anything in particular.    Clearly, my anaylsis does mean that they were wrong to restrict all five cards.

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

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

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

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.

I agere with you.   When I said that my analysis doesn't mean that the DCI was wrong to restrict "cards in June" I meant that my anaylsis doesn't mean that they were wrong to restrict anything.    Clearly, my anaylsis does mean that they were wrong to restrict all five cards.

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

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

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

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

Now my prefered deck archetype preys on Drain decks, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut.  But I honestly enjoy a more diverse metagame- even if I don't win as often.

Peace,

-Troy

[Sextiger]

Unrestrict Gush/Brainstorm/Ponder/others, then we probably see a return to more combo based decks which get beat out by Workshop which then...etc etc.

[Nehptis]

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. 

You hit the nail on the head.  And this is why I've taken a break from MTG.  I have no interest in participating in this metagame.

It's really a shame though that we are in this metagame.  Cards like Tezz and strategies like R/G beatz, Oath 2k9, etc are pretty interesting.  But, because of the horrible decision to bring Vault/Key back into the metagame these strats and cards get diminished behind Mana Drain based decks with an easy kill.

I think Tezz is a nicely designed card and I'd love to see it battle in a metagame without Vault/Key.

[Sean Ryan]

Here are a few questions to Ponder.

If Vault-Key was eliminated do you think Painter-Grindstone would take it's place? 

Do you think Drain decks as a percentage of top8s would decrease, or merely be replaced by Painter, Slaver, ect? 

Is it the combo itself that is problematic or the percentages of top8s that lends you to consider restriction?

Is there something inherently wrong with a "best deck" metagame?   

How would you compare Yawgmoth's Will and Tinker to the Vault-Key combo? 

If it is correct to say that Vintage decks can be divided into those that abuse Will & Tinker vs those that try to beat Will & Tinker, are we actually facing a structural characertisic to the format where the "cream rises to the top?"*


*Will & tinker, blue and black cards in general, being the most broken things you can do in magic inevitably becoming the dominant strategy equiavalent to a "best deck" metagame, decks that abuse Will/tinker vs decks that exploit their weaknesses.

 

[Smmenen]

Here are a few questions to Ponder.

If Vault-Key was eliminated do you think Painter-Grindstone would take it's place? 

Do you think Drain decks as a percentage of top8s would decrease, or merely be replaced by Painter, Slaver, ect? 
 

I think you hit the nail on the head here.   It was something I was thinking yesterday in response to Nehptis point about Vault-Key.

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

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

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

Is there something inherently wrong with a "best deck" metagame?   

 

No.  Not inherently.   However, it is important to judge DCI action for hypocracy and consistency. 

The legitimacy of its decision making often turns on how consistent it is.   The DCI has restricted Gifts when it was only about 17% of Top 8s.  It restricted the Gushbond engine when it is was only 25%ish of top 8s.   Tezzeret is nearly at that level alone.

Here are a few questions to Ponder.

Is it the combo itself that is problematic or the percentages of top8s that lends you to consider restriction?
 

False dichotomy.  It's both.

The actual impact on the tournament scene HAS to be a factor.   If a deck does not make up any percentage of top 8s, a case cannot be made for restriction, no matter what the 'theory' is.   

For example: If Flash put up ZERO Top 8s, then the case for its restriction would have been absurd, to say the least.   Even if in "theory" it could win a ridiculous proportion of games on turn one, the failure to actually do so is a 100% defense to restriction in a *tournament* format.   However, Flash was about 8% of top 8s, and even higher (what was it, 17%) in one bimonthly metagame breakdown. 

[zeus-online]

I think it could be refreshing to try Type1 without Will, tinker and key/vault....Maybe also with no tendrils. Just to see how things turn out.

I'm pretty sure that cutting off the best win conditions would slow things down....But that would probably just reinforce drains though.

The only thing i don't like about type1 right now is that the decklists are closer to highlander then ever before.

I sure hope drain never gets the axe though....

/Zeus

[Guli]

I value statistics. But I also want to point out that even if the numbers say drain.dec is doing well this doesn't mean for 100% is correlates with whatever is being claimed. I don't think any scientific study is done about this. Just some analysis from a couple of guys who happen to be respected (and with reason, props) but seriously do any of you really think that you ruled in every factor here? If it was a bunch of computers playing the game calculating every possible route/move (comparing to chess here) and playing the best moves every single game then I could say those statistics could be used to BEGIN speaking of a 'best deck'.

But yea the game IS played by humans who make a lot play mistakes (even if they think they aren't). So in that context we could say that taking a drain deck to a tournament does give you the most chance to get in that top 8 if you relatively play decent moves and make good decisions during the game.

I am not saying that all of those accomplished players are bad in this game, i just try to point out that chances are that a lot of mistakes are being made and that the true potential of this game is most likely not explored yet and that the concept of 'best deck' should not be linked to the results of tournaments. The results can be used (and they are) to for example anticipate or prepare or whatever you want to write about it but in no way the results should be taken as actual proof to back up an illusion.

[Smmenen]

I value statistics. But I also want to point out that even if the numbers say drain.dec is doing well this doesn't mean for 100% is correlates with whatever is being claimed.

Do you understand/know what my methodology is?  I do not say that for the purpose of dismissing your statement, but am genuinely curious if you understand my claims, since that's what you are skeptical of. 

[Diakonov]

The DCI's case for the restriction of Trinisphere is an example that complicates the theory behind what constitutes restriction, and I do think that there is less methodology used by the DCI than one might think.  Sometimes it almost seems whimsical, such as Ponder & Gush (which as Steven has explained probably wasn't necessary in the absence of Brainstorm and Scroll).  This particularly applies to Vintage, IMO, unlike banning in Standard where you can more easily track and chop abusive engines.

Personally, I disagree about Mana Drain being the culprit and I do think it rests on Vault/Key, but as mentioned, this is very difficult to prove.  For the sake of this thread let's assume that Drain is the problem.

Looking backwards, the DCI has a history of axing non-interactive engines, which logically happens to correlate with winning frequently.  Although, this is not always the case, as mentioned above with the restriction of Trinisphere.  My memory could be false here, but I don't remember Trinisphere ever dominating the tournament scene in a way that even comes close to Tezzeret, but I am certain in remembering that their reasoning for restriction was "less interaction = less fun."

This is going out on a limb, but perhaps the DCI fears what would happen if Drain got the axe.  If we were correct about Drain's leverage, is it not likely that Dark Ritual would become rampant in its absence?  As much as a tempo-swinging counterspell comes across as non-interactive, I think it's possible that the DCI prefers this over the non-interactivity of Grim Long.  It's not a guarantee that it would become dominant, but even the possibility might make them timid.  Just a theory.

[hitman]

This is going out on a limb, but perhaps the DCI fears what would happen if Drain got the axe.  If we were correct about Drain's leverage, is it not likely that Dark Ritual would become rampant in its absence?  As much as a tempo-swinging counterspell comes across as non-interactive, I think it's possible that the DCI prefers this over Grim Long.  It's not a guarantee that it would become dominant, but even the possibility might make them timid.  Just a theory.

The problem with this statement is, Long-style decks thrive in a Mana Drain heavy environment.  If Drains got restricted, people would be encouraged to play decks that are harder for combo to beat, like aggro-control and prison. 

Mana Drain is just fine unrestricted.  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable.  Drain decks are the majority of Vintage player's petdeck.  Because Mana Drain is as powerful as it is, this petdeck archetype is also very competitive.  Fewer players have an affinity for Ritual-based, Workshop-based and Bazaar-based archetypes. 

Honestly, I think the DCI leaves Mana Drain alone because they believe it's the standard of what Vintage should be.  I think it's the standard.  It has inherent power that will always be strong enough in Vintage but is not overly powerful to warrant action against the card.  Players realize this too and have been attracted to these characteristics.  We like to play interactive games in general but don't want to get blown out by anything.  In one card, we generally get what we expect out of the format, powerful and interactive plays.

I'm not praising Drain because I'm biased towards it either.  I've adopted Rituals as my petdeck.  I do believe that Drain is perfectly fine but realize what it represents to most players and what that means in regards to the content of tournaments that many players attend because of the fun, not the prize and "glory".

[Smmenen]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

[Purple Hat]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

Except that I can name, off the top of my head, several prominent vintage players who have preferences like this: Gush, Drain, anything else.  So when gush is unrestricted they play gush, when gush is restricted they play drain.

[LordHomerCat]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

Except that I can name, off the top of my head, several prominent vintage players who have preferences like this: Gush, Drain, anything else.  So when gush is unrestricted they play gush, when gush is restricted they play drain.

There are definitely some number of those people (me included), but there are also lots of people who prefer Drain to even Gush (people still played Slaver in the Gush era for some reason).  If you were to look at the Gush era, you had some portion who went Drain, Gush and some portion who went Gush, Drain (in preference), and each group was playing their own favorite engine.  Now, you have both of those groups playing with Drains because for half of them, their top choice is not legal.  There is no way you can claim EVERY drain player would choose Gush over Drain, so giving them the choice can only add to the diversity as some people will keep their Drains while others will get their Gushes.

[Nehptis]

This article from WOTC is the closest we've come to having some type of tranparency into the DCI's decision process for Vintage.  I think it clearly states what is restrictable if need be (e.g., Drain and TFK) and what is not (Dark Ritual, Force of Will, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Mishra's Workshop).

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37717.0

[Purple Hat]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

Except that I can name, off the top of my head, several prominent vintage players who have preferences like this: Gush, Drain, anything else.  So when gush is unrestricted they play gush, when gush is restricted they play drain.

There are definitely some number of those people (me included), but there are also lots of people who prefer Drain to even Gush (people still played Slaver in the Gush era for some reason).  If you were to look at the Gush era, you had some portion who went Drain, Gush and some portion who went Gush, Drain (in preference), and each group was playing their own favorite engine.  Now, you have both of those groups playing with Drains because for half of them, their top choice is not legal.  There is no way you can claim EVERY drain player would choose Gush over Drain, so giving them the choice can only add to the diversity as some people will keep their Drains while others will get their Gushes.

I don't understand.  Are you trying to refute something I said by claiming that everything I said was true or are you trying to agree with me?

[zeus-online]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

I played GAT...Why did i play gat? Because drains got crushed and wasn't very good....I tried switching to the Gush-Tog deck you made with drains in it simply for the love of Mana drain.

Not saying that everyone is like me, but i'm guessing that there are more people who exchanged drains for gush not because they liked gush more or didn't like drains, but because they also like winning.

Another note: I almost didn't play vintage that year, since it wasn't nearly as "fun" for me.

[Smmenen]

  The reason it "dominates" is not because it is clearly the best strategy.  It's because most of us Vintage players have fond memories of the card, like to play it and is powerful enough to be viable. 

The problem with this argument is that it just doesn't hold up to the experience of June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008 where Mana Drains did not dominate the format, and were comparatively, a relatively modest proportion of top 8s, even if you could lists that ran 2 Drains. 

If Mana Drains dominance is not because it really is the best strategy but simply becuase of player preferences, then people would not have played Tyrant Oath, GAT, Flash, etc, and would have stuck to Drain strategies. 

I played GAT...Why did i play gat? Because drains got crushed and wasn't very good....I tried switching to the Gush-Tog deck you made with drains in it simply for the love of Mana drain.

Not saying that everyone is like me, but i'm guessing that there are more people who exchanged drains for gush not because they liked gush more or didn't like drains, but because they also like winning.

Another note: I almost didn't play vintage that year, since it wasn't nearly as "fun" for me.

But my point stands.

People -- not just you -- try to make the argument that the reason Mana Drains are dominating Vintage is not because they are truly just the best, but because people prefer to play them.

We have a full year of empirical evidence to refute that claim.   Mana Drains did not win very much, and people still played them.    Which, of course, suggests that Mana Drains are dominating now because, well, they are too good.   45% of top 8s being fueled by Mana Drain over 6 months is not healthy for the format, and every other Vintage restriction in the last 9 years has been restricted for lesser offense. 

[zeus-online]

Not saying that mana drain isn't hideously powerfull....Just trying to explain why drains where so low in the gush era. I'm fully aware of the power of drains. I think taking action against the card Mana drain is very wrong, since i'm sure vintage would loose alot of players. I'm all for nuking time vault, or unrestricting something to give the other decks the tools they need (Hopefully not trinisphere as i hate playing against that card...)

[Stormanimagus]

Not saying that mana drain isn't hideously powerfull....Just trying to explain why drains where so low in the gush era. I'm fully aware of the power of drains. I think taking action against the card Mana drain is very wrong, since i'm sure vintage would loose alot of players. I'm all for nuking time vault, or unrestricting something to give the other decks the tools they need (Hopefully not trinisphere as i hate playing against that card...)

I think unrestricting trinisphere and gush and mind's desire all at the same time would be a great move for vintage (they should also unrestrict garbage like dream halls and grim monolith but I think the whole vintage community is in agreement there) as it would shift the balance of power a bit back to shops while giving storm back one of its "oops I win!" weapons and breathing some life back into the gushbond engine ( though it will not be nearly as good sans BS, scroll, and ponder.

One other card that might be cool to unrestrict would be burning wish. Without unrestricting LED it may not completely bust Long open again but it would certainly spice up the metagame.

I really think that UN restriction is the solution for this seemingly stagnant and one-sided metagame and not restriction. If this isn't done soon I may have to become a permanent GUW fish pilot as that deck p'owns in this metagame.

[Smmenen]

Dream Hall is unrestricted. 

[feyd]

What kind of serious bs are we, as players, putting up with?  Every time the DCI makes a move it turns out to be the wrong one.  Unrestricting gush only to restrict it again is bogus.  Give us a useable version of flash and then just restrict it anyways?  Taking away brainstorm because it found good cards? Kind of the point of the card...  And why the hell would they even think about restricting ponder to begin with?  What a bunch of boobs.
Why would anyone even consider proposing more restrictions when there are cards on the restricted list that have no business being on there to begin with?
If the DCI didn't neuter the crap out of storm, GAT, flash, and a slew of other archetypes then there would never be any belly aching about mana drain.  I read earlier that there would be a cascading effect so far as restricting cards goes....pretty much exactly what is happening here.  You castrate a handful of great decks...no wonder mana drain decks come in to fill the void.  I have always been a proponent of keeping the involvement of the DCI to a minimum, and this situation is no different.  No more restrictions are needed in this format...in fact I think the best thing would be to un-restrict some cards.  Hell...the DCI has historically had a blindfolded pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach to restrictions and bannings.  
Just because the DCI is in charge of restrictions and sanctioned events does not make them perfect.

[AmbivalentDuck]

The decision makers at WotC are generally very intelligent, very talented magic players who spend their working hours getting paid to think about magic.  Vintage isn't exactly the most profitable format, and so they have to justify spending time (money) thinking about it.  The reasoning articulating by WotC and Tom LaPille in particular is very sound.  Mana Drain metas can be fun...if you own Drains.

Merchant Scroll was long undervalued and possibly even underplayed.  WotC has avoided restricting it since their's always been a seemingly more egregrious offender.  The problem with instant speed blue draw + 4 Scroll was that it turned inconsistent engines into egregious offenders and nobody truly realized it until recently.  Honestly, they recognized the problem and dealt with it. They just went too far.  But they had to.  They couldn't leave one overpowered engine to dominate the meta.  And people played vintage (happily) back in the days of "The Deck" as the sole, dominating metagame contender without (much) complaint.

The community didn't exactly get together and lobby WotC to restrict just Merchant Scroll.  They did the best job they could with limitted information and time to gather it.  This isn't the carefully maintained Extended or Standard format.  This is vintage, and it's pretty much community maintained.  It's easy to blame WotC, but I don't see anywhere here jumping up and down shouting "told ya so!"  Nobody knew what the new meta would look like and many/most expected *slaver* to be the new dominant deck.

Stop looking to blame WotC or demand special favors (like reprinting P9) and suggest things they might actually listen to if the community has a clear concensus.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I would be very interested to see a TO host a tournament with a custom restricted list (since proxies make it non-sanctioned anyways) taking off cards that could create new archetypes that aren't busted like Gifts/Flash/Frantic Search/Gush/Grim Monolith/Ponder.

I don't think it would be a good idea to unrestrict Burning Wish since a new era Burning Long would just use Xantid/Duress effects to allow maindeck tutor->LED->Burning Wish->Will->win. Any one card that can put Yawgmoth's Will in your hand for 2 or less mana is more or less busted. Then again I could be wrong and the fact that it forces a sideboarded Will may make it worse than Grim Tutor. (which is already not run in playsets)

I would rather see Windfall unrestricted than Mind's Desire. Mind's Desire is already a huge bomb and it only gets far better in multiples like Fact or Fiction. Windfalls don't really get better in multiples unless your opponent already had a big hand and even regular draw-7s are weaker than a cast Desire on average.

I also agree that Trinisphere should remain on the restricted list. Turn 1 Trinisphere is just far too unpleasant. It makes Shop matches far too much about luck. There isn't really any skill involved in draw(cross fingers for lands or bounce)->land(hopefully)->go(please don't waste/strip).

Stop looking to blame WotC or demand special favors (like reprinting P9) and suggest things they might actually listen to if the community has a clear concensus.

I agree strongly with this statement. It is up to the players and TOs to gather information and present it to WotC through strong links like Smmenen (who has done a nice job gathering up the dominance %s for us). Then if they decide to blatantly ignore us (like during the last B/R announcement) there is a reason to take matters into our own hands. (possibly by even creating a TMD.com B/R list)

[hitman]

45% of top 8s being fueled by Mana Drain over 6 months is not healthy for the format, and every other Vintage restriction in the last 9 years has been restricted for lesser offense.

I find it hilarious that you've been vocally against many, if not most, of the DCI's restrictions since 2000-whatever and still use the argument that since such-and-such erroneous restriction occurred, let's use that as an argument for another erroneous restriction.  Are you trying to kill Vintage all of a sudden with the lower-the-proxy count-tournaments and jumping on the "Pat Chapin solution for Vintage" bandwagon that he talked about last year?  Do you honestly think that Bazaar-based, Ritual-based and Null Rod-based archetypes can't compete with Mana Drain???  For a Vintage expert who has espoused the superiority of Dark Ritual against Mana Drain decks, you sure are pouring on the Drain hate all of a sudden.  How can the other archetypes not cut it with Mana Drain?  Just because the DCI doesn't know what they're doing with the restricted list doesn't mean their previous mistakes are a basis for future ones. 

But my point stands.

We have a full year of empirical evidence to refute that claim.   Mana Drains did not win very much, and people still played them.    Which, of course, suggests that Mana Drains are dominating now because, well, they are too good.

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

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

[mike_bergeron]

I would be very interested to see a TO host a tournament with a custom restricted list (since proxies make it non-sanctioned anyways) taking off cards that could create new archetypes that aren't busted like Gifts/Flash/Frantic Search/Gush/Grim Monolith/Ponder.

Myriad Games ran a yawg-less will tourney, which I participating in, and you can find the results on this website.  Creating a TMD B&R would cause more confusion and pain than it is worth.  Most people here cannot even agree to the name of a particular deck, and you want them to review the B&R list?  Disaster.  

I also think restricting mana drain would do a ton of short term damage to vintage.  This card, above all others, was the 'vintage' card I always thought of, because I started playing magic getting beat down by keeper style decks.  

[Smmenen]

45% of top 8s being fueled by Mana Drain over 6 months is not healthy for the format, and every other Vintage restriction in the last 9 years has been restricted for lesser offense.

I find it hilarious that you've been vocally against many, if not most, of the DCI's restrictions since 2000-whatever and still use the argument that since such-and-such erroneous restriction occurred, let's use that as an argument for another erroneous restriction.  Are you trying to kill Vintage all of a sudden with the lower-the-proxy count-tournaments and jumping on the "Pat Chapin solution for Vintage" bandwagon that he talked about last year?  Do you honestly think that Bazaar-based, Ritual-based and Null Rod-based archetypes can't compete with Mana Drain???  For a Vintage expert who has espoused the superiority of Dark Ritual against Mana Drain decks, you sure are pouring on the Drain hate all of a sudden.  How can the other archetypes not cut it with Mana Drain?  Just because the DCI doesn't know what they're doing with the restricted list doesn't mean their previous mistakes are a basis for future ones. 

But my point stands.

We have a full year of empirical evidence to refute that claim.   Mana Drains did not win very much, and people still played them.    Which, of course, suggests that Mana Drains are dominating now because, well, they are too good.

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

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

I'm so glad you made some of these points, so that I can use them as a counterpoint for an upcoming article.  You nicely captured the arguments *and* feelings of that side of the debate.

Just as a point of clarification, however, I am not advocating for the restriction of Mana Drain.   My point is more subtle than that: it's simply that DCI policy is grossly inconsistent.  That restrictions of Gush, etc made on the basis of format dominance (and Gifts, Fact, etc) occured when those archetypes were seeing roughly half as much play *or less* as Mana Drain decks do in top 8s today.   In short: Mana Drain decks right now dominate Vintage more than anything ever has since we have been keeping data.   My preference would be unrestrictions, although, not those suggested.  I think that Flash, Gush, and Burning Wish should be unrestricted.  And perhaps Ponder as well.

[arctic79]

The B&R list is a catch-22.  If a card is restricted mearly on its prescence in top 8's, 6 months later another card will replace it and then be on the chopping block, where does it end? With Tidings as the best card draw available?  If anything the Vintage Community needs to advocate Wotc for a complete overview of what is on the list and why.  Most certainly many cards deserve to be there, but many could/should be removed from the list and still leave us with a balanced format.

[Smmenen]

The B&R list is a catch-22.  If a card is restricted mearly on its prescence in top 8's, 6 months later another card will replace it and then be on the chopping block, where does it end?

That's not really true.   It's not usually the case that a particular engine makes up nearly 50% of top 8s for a prolonged period of time. 

[Hero]

The B&R list is a catch-22.  If a card is restricted mearly on its prescence in top 8's, 6 months later another card will replace it and then be on the chopping block, where does it end?

That's not really true.   It's not usually the case that a particular engine makes up nearly 50% of top 8s for a prolonged period of time. 

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