With Tezzeret dominating, what would it be safe to unrestrict?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I'm seeing a lot of different issues being conflated here, and I also think that's why sometimes people appear to have a disagreement when there really isn't.  I'm glad to see that most of those disagreements are being overcome, but honestly each these issues probably deserves it's own thread.  Here's what I'm seeing that's being talking about all at the same time:

1.  Mana Drain decks are making up a significant portion of the metagame.

2.  Some people feel that #1 is a bad thing.  Some people don't.

3.  Some view these decks mentioned in #1 aren't really Mana Drain decks, they're really Thirst For Knowledge decks.

4.  Some people feel we need to encourage the DCI to unrestrict cards on the B/R List to reign in Mana Drain.

5.  Some people feel we need to encourage the DCI to unrestrict cards on the B/R List because there are some cards on there that just don't belong on the B/R List anymore.

6.  Some people feel that a certain card or cards should be added to the B/R List.

7.  Some people feel that there should be certain cards immune from restriction.  Others disagree.

8.  Some people think that geographical regions should matter when discussing the B/R list.  Others believe the metagame as a whole should be examined.

I hold positions of one sort or another on each of these- sometimes those positions would seem contradictory since I'm talking about them all in the same thread.  For instance, I don't believe any cards including Force of Will, Mana Drain, Flooded Strand, or even Basic Island should be immune to restriction.  At the same time, I am strongly against restricting any cards at this time.  In the same thread, those ideas might appear to be in conflict.  However, in separate threads, they could be articulated and understood quite easily.

Anyway, I don't know how that contributes to the discussion, but hopefully it will just help to illuminate more the points I made above.

Peace,

-Troy

[Tha Gunslinga]

If you look at January tournament results, you have:
129 Mana Drains
120 Thirsts
53 Dark Rituals
52 Workshops

So Drain is seeing more play than the other two "pillars" of the metagame combined.  That's one mighty unbalanced metagame.


December:
248 Mana Drains
199 Thirsts
78 Dark Rituals
64 Shops

So Drain is by far dominant.  And if you look at the tournaments samples, US tournaments make up 50%, with non-US making up the other half, so while Drain may see slightly less play outside the US, this is by no means a US-only phenomenon.

[Smmenen]

allright, but we have to clarify: In Europe there are alot less tournaments then in USA. (and if it's a global statistic, the % of the european decks have much lower presens)

What on earth gives you that idea?  You are in gravely mistaken.   

@ Troy.

If just Gush were unrestricted, it would not be playable, except perhaps in some very janky, meadbert inspired turboland deck that would be awful.   Even if Ponder were unrestricted as well, I am skeptical that Gush would be playable.

Let me explain why.   Gush is not a benefit unless you can run a really low mana base.  If you have to run a traditional mana base, you will be drawing too much mana off Gush.   As a result, you  need to be able to keep 1 land hands with Gush decks.   Ponder and Braistorm made this possible.   Without either card, you can't really do that, and Gush isn't good enough. 

[Purple Hat]

If you look at January tournament results, you have:
129 Mana Drains
120 Thirsts
53 Dark Rituals
52 Workshops

So Drain is seeing more play than the other two "pillars" of the metagame combined.  That's one mighty unbalanced metagame.


December:
248 Mana Drains
199 Thirsts
78 Dark Rituals
64 Shops

So Drain is by far dominant.  And if you look at the tournaments samples, US tournaments make up 50%, with non-US making up the other half, so while Drain may see slightly less play outside the US, this is by no means a US-only phenomenon.

That doesn't show dominance though.  It could easily show that mana drain gets played more.....which we already knew.  If in the US we're seeing tournaments that look like:

35% tezz
20% fish
10% workshop
10% storm
5% other

so in that metagame we should EXPECT drain to make up more than the other "pillars" combined.  Mere incidence does not establish dominance.  It's a falacy to only look at top 8 data and then say "oh, x is dominant because it makes up some % of top 8's."  I think we should unrestrict a bunch of stuff because I don't think it will matter, but that's a whole seperate argument.  My general feeling about the current meta is that many of the natural predators of drain decks are not being heavily played, resulting in a high representation of drains in top 8's.

[Qube]

allright, but we have to clarify: In Europe there are alot less tournaments then in USA. (and if it's a global statistic, the % of the european decks have much lower presens)

What on earth gives you that idea? 

Idea? You do not believe that in the USA are more tournaments?

[zeus-online]

Without either card, you can't really do that, and Gush isn't good enough. 

Gro-A-Tog:
4 Underground Sea
4 Tropical Island
5 Fetchlands: Polluted Delta/ Flooded Strand - feel free to make one an Island
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
4 Brainstorm
3 Sleight of Hand
3 Merchant Scroll
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Cunning Wish
4 Force of Will
4 Misdirection
3 Counterspell
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Gush
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Fastbond
1 Regrowth
1 Berserk
4 Qurion Dryad
3 Psychatog

Sideboard:
3 Naturalize
1 Emerald Charm
1 Ebony Charm
3 Smother
2 Submerge
2 Compost
3 Duress

Here's your own list* from back when GAT first emerged, while you did run 3 scrolls back then i remember plenty of lists with 2 or so.

I'm not going to say that gush would be dominant, but unplayable? Hardly.
It would definetly be weaker, using cards such as sleight of hand or opt to replace the lost brainstorms and ponders, since i'm sure you'd still need about 8 cantrips or so for the mana base to work.

Doomsday would probably use gush again if it was unrestricted....

But neither of these things would be too scary IMO, which makes it much safer now then it was when they last unrestricted it.

Anyway, it's a stupid discussion (about gush) for two reasons: DCI won't unrestrict it again (atleast not so early) and it seems like most people are alright with unrestricted gush, merely discussing if it would be unplayable or used in a few decks.

/Zeus

*http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/4552_Gardening_In_Vintage_How_To_GroATog_And_Clip_A_Lotus.html

[Smmenen]

If you look at January tournament results, you have:
129 Mana Drains
120 Thirsts
53 Dark Rituals
52 Workshops

So Drain is seeing more play than the other two "pillars" of the metagame combined.  That's one mighty unbalanced metagame.


December:
248 Mana Drains
199 Thirsts
78 Dark Rituals
64 Shops

So Drain is by far dominant.  And if you look at the tournaments samples, US tournaments make up 50%, with non-US making up the other half, so while Drain may see slightly less play outside the US, this is by no means a US-only phenomenon.

That doesn't show dominance though.  It could easily show that mana drain gets played more.....which we already knew.

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data.    Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

 If in the US we're seeing tournaments that look like:

35% tezz
20% fish
10% workshop
10% storm
5% other

Talk about armchair sociology!   Did you make this stuff up?   

Tez decks are right now 24% of top 8s, world wide, but Mana Drain decks are 45% of top 8s.  If that isn't dominance, then nothing is ever dominant.

The percentage of Mana Drains in top 8 is almost Double [/i] the amount of Gushes seen in the entire time it was legal from June 20, 2007 to June 20, 2008.

If Gush decks were dominant, then Mana Drain decks are twice as dominant.   

so in that metagame we should EXPECT drain to make up more than the other "pillars" combined.  Mere incidence does not establish dominance.  It's a falacy to only look at top 8 data and then say "oh, x is dominant because it makes up some % of top 8's."

Fallacy?  That's not a fallacy (even if that weren't a misuse of the term) -- that's the entire MEANING of dominance.   That's how the DCI decides to ban things in other formats, aka Affinity. 

In any case, if you Top 8 data isn't your thing, try this statistic on for size:  Tezzeret decks won HALF of every tournament of 33 or more players in November and December.    The number of Mana Drain victories was even higher! 

If Mana Drains aren't dominating, then nothing has ever dominated any format ever, and nothing should have ever been restricted in Vintage for dominance.   

allright, but we have to clarify: In Europe there are alot less tournaments then in USA. (and if it's a global statistic, the % of the european decks have much lower presens)

What on earth gives you that idea? 

Idea? You do not believe that in the USA are more tournaments?

Of course not.   It's untrue. 

In terms of tournaments of 33 or more players, the number of European tournaments DWARFS the number of American tournaments.  In fact, the number of European tournaments is far greater than the number of tournaments around the entire world.  In November and december, the ratio of European tournaments of 33 or more players was 3-1.   In September and October, it was merely 2-1.

What if we count tournaments of 32 or less players? 

The number of European touraments in December was 10 out of a total 18 tournaments reported worldwide.  And November?  The number of European tournaments were 9 out of 20.    If we count all tournaments, the number of American and European touraments are roughly the same number.

I have no idea why you would think there are "alot less" tournaments in Europe than the USA.

Without either card, you can't really do that, and Gush isn't good enough. 

Gro-A-Tog:
4 Underground Sea
4 Tropical Island
5 Fetchlands: Polluted Delta/ Flooded Strand - feel free to make one an Island
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
4 Brainstorm
3 Sleight of Hand
3 Merchant Scroll
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Cunning Wish
4 Force of Will
4 Misdirection
3 Counterspell
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Gush
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Fastbond
1 Regrowth
1 Berserk
4 Qurion Dryad
3 Psychatog

Sideboard:
3 Naturalize
1 Emerald Charm
1 Ebony Charm
3 Smother
2 Submerge
2 Compost
3 Duress

Here's your own list* from back when GAT first emerged, while you did run 3 scrolls back then i remember plenty of lists with 2 or so.

I'm not going to say that gush would be dominant, but unplayable? Hardly.
It would definetly be weaker, using cards such as sleight of hand or opt to replace the lost brainstorms and ponders, since i'm sure you'd still need about 8 cantrips or so for the mana base to work.

That deck was from 2003!  And it has FOUR Brainstorms? If only Gush were unrestricted, it would be unplayable in a Grow deck. 

Gush is not good unless you can run a really low mana base.  If you have to run a traditional mana base, you will be drawing too much mana off Gush.   That's why Gush decks didn't run full moxen, and never ran more than 14 lands.   

As a result, you  need to be able to keep 1 land hands with Gush decks.   Ponder and Brainstorm made this possible.   Without either card, you can't really do that, and Gush isn't good enough.

Even WITH four ponde and four Gush, I doubt Grow concept would be playable, and without Ponder I doubt Gush would see more than a tiny amount of top 8 action. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

Idea? You do not believe that in the USA are more tournaments?

50% of the tournaments that morphling.de reports are from the US, and 50% are outside the US.

[Smmenen]

Idea? You do not believe that in the USA are more tournaments?

50% of the tournaments that morphling.de reports are from the US, and 50% are outside the US.

Pretty close, but not quite.

There are some percentage that frequently come from Tokyo, the Philippines (Manilla), and Canada. 

But yes, there are not alot more USA tournaments than European tournaments.   There are roughly the same amount.  But if you count only mid- or large-sized tournaments, the ratio of European tournaments to US tournaments is about 3-1. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

Well, I looked at the first two pages, and it was evenly split between the US and outside the US.  Now, Europe isn't the entirety of the "outside the US" category; there are Canada, Tahiti, the Philippines, etc.

[Harlequin]

@Gush, Ponder and Drain.

I've said it before in other threads, but In my oppinion the restriction of the card ->Gush<- did more to kill Tidespout Oath than any other deck. The real power of GAT was merchant scroll.  Merchant Scroll could trump many anti-gat stratigies for example chalice at 1.  

Piggybacking on what Steve was saying, Oath has one of the lowest curves of all decks (dredge aside).  Also considering that some of the earliest TSOath decks opted to run 3x Misdirrect or Toughtsieze and zero drains.  It also rarely had room for a full set of Merchant Scrolls (typically squeezing in 2-3).  Finally after you play an oath, you basically don't care about your lands in play - gush converts lands in play into delicous playable spells.

Brainstorm and Ponder did damage to the consistancy of TSOath.  But I think people are sometimes blinded by the "OATH = BRAINSTORM BACK A DUDE" mentality.  Yes brainstorm was great in oath, but it's primary role was to find oath/orchard.  You almost never 'saved it' until you had a creature worth putting back.  This is actually because if you ran 2 or 3 tyrants and got one in hand - sometimes you wouldn't even want to put it back.  If you run the flashback cards you want oath to "cut deep."  The deeper the cut the easier the win is.  There were times with brainstorm that I opted not to return a creature.

Personally, with Gush and Ponder off the list, I would make a good attempt to bring back TSOath.  And from what I know about the deck, it would likely be a major contender.  With Gush alone I think it would still be possible, but not as major.  

As an afterthought, I think the restriction status of Ponder would determin if I went with drain in TSOath or not.  If ponder was unrestricted I would probably go back to 3x Misdirrect/Seize.  With Ponder restricted I think I would probably be almost forced to run Drain to support whatever complimentary engine I choose (outside of Gush/Fastbond).  

[Troy_Costisick]

allright, but we have to clarify: In Europe there are alot less tournaments then in USA. (and if it's a global statistic, the % of the european decks have much lower presens)

What on earth gives you that idea?  You are in gravely mistaken.   

@ Troy.

If just Gush were unrestricted, it would not be playable, except perhaps in some very janky, meadbert inspired turboland deck that would be awful.   Even if Ponder were unrestricted as well, I am skeptical that Gush would be playable.

Let me explain why.   Gush is not a benefit unless you can run a really low mana base.  If you have to run a traditional mana base, you will be drawing too much mana off Gush.   As a result, you  need to be able to keep 1 land hands with Gush decks.   Ponder and Braistorm made this possible.   Without either card, you can't really do that, and Gush isn't good enough. 

I definately see your point there, and I'd have to agree.  Although I just thought of Strategic Planning.  Would that be a good substitute for Ponder?  You could run a cantrip/tutor package of something like

4 Strategic Planning
4 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Frantic Search
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Mystical
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor

That's really off topic for this thread; I probably shouldn't have brought it up.  But looking back over your rationale, Stephen, I think you make a solid point.

Peace,

-Troy

[oneofchaos]

I'd sooner see XYZ restricted then drain.  Dark rituals and workshops aren't in the spotlight now, but if you restrict drain they sure will be...

[Smmenen]

@Gush, Ponder and Drain.

I've said it before in other threads, but In my oppinion the restriction of the card ->Gush<- did more to kill Tidespout Oath than any other deck. The real power of GAT was merchant scroll.  Merchant Scroll could trump many anti-gat stratigies for example chalice at 1. 

Piggybacking on what Steve was saying, Oath has one of the lowest curves of all decks (dredge aside).  Also considering that some of the earliest TSOath decks opted to run 3x Misdirrect or Toughtsieze and zero drains.  It also rarely had room for a full set of Merchant Scrolls (typically squeezing in 2-3).  Finally after you play an oath, you basically don't care about your lands in play - gush converts lands in play into delicous playable spells.

Brainstorm and Ponder did damage to the consistancy of TSOath.  But I think people are sometimes blinded by the "OATH = BRAINSTORM BACK A DUDE" mentality.  Yes brainstorm was great in oath, but it's primary role was to find oath/orchard.  You almost never 'saved it' until you had a creature worth putting back.  This is actually because if you ran 2 or 3 tyrants and got one in hand - sometimes you wouldn't even want to put it back.  If you run the flashback cards you want oath to "cut deep."  The deeper the cut the easier the win is.  There were times with brainstorm that I opted not to return a creature.

Personally, with Gush and Ponder off the list, I would make a good attempt to bring back TSOath.  And from what I know about the deck, it would likely be a major contender.  With Gush alone I think it would still be possible, but not as major. 

As an afterthought, I think the restriction status of Ponder would determin if I went with drain in TSOath or not.  If ponder was unrestricted I would probably go back to 3x Misdirrect/Seize.  With Ponder restricted I think I would probably be almost forced to run Drain to support whatever complimentary engine I choose (outside of Gush/Fastbond). 

One other thing that I forgot to mention.    Part of the reason the Gush-Bond engine was so powerful is because you could basically "go off" on turn one or two with Fastbond by spooling Gushes, Scrolls, Ponders, and Braistorms.   With Brainstorm and Scroll just restricted, you can't do that without alot more development first or unless you are within a yawg will, at which point you should be able to do that anyway. 

[JACO]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's).

If Mana Drains aren't dominating, then nothing has ever dominated any format ever, and nothing should have ever been restricted in Vintage for dominance.

From the statistics provided, it certainly seems that Mana Drain is performing quite while the past couple of months. But let's take a step back for a second and look at the rest of your statistics. Look at the majority of cards that are the most played (from your own statistics):
1. Force of Will (220)
2. Polluted Delta (167)
3. Flooded Strand (135)
4. Mana Drain (129)
5. Underground Sea (121)
6. Thirst for Knowledge (120)
7. Wasteland (107)
8. Tormod's Crypt (101)
9. Duress (97)
10. Chalice of the Void (84)

Mana Drain is played in great numbers, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GOOD BLUE CARD.
Force of Will (at almost a 2 to 1 ratio to Mana Drain)
Polluted Delta
Flooded Strand
Mana Drain
Underground Sea
Thirst for Knowledge

The top 6 cards are Blue-centric. Blue is the best color in Vintage, and I would venture to say by and large that it's Vintage players' favorite color as well (also helping to determine what they will ultimately decide to play in tournaments). Mana Drain is good, but does it really need to be targeted by people who have trouble beating it?

All of these are essentially just support cards to people can play Ancestral Recall and Yawgmoth's Will. I would venture to guess that the same people calling for Brainstorm's restriction and Mana Drain's restriction will simply call for more restrictions once they find that they still can't beat Blue-centric decks.

[Diakonov]

@ Steve:

You have me convinced on Gush.  Regardless, we can never truly predict what would happen with an unrestriction.  I'm all for reducing the restricted list, but it would be safer to take it one step at a time--in other words, just start with Gush.  If it seems harmless enough, then take another step.

As far as a "diverse format" goes, it is tough to talk about without a good definition.  Not that I want to get into a semantics discussion, but I'm trying to make the point that you can have lots of Drain decks and still have a varied meta.  I agree that having a lot of "Tezzeret decks" could be considered unvaried, because that is a very specific archetype; but Drain itself, just like Force of Will, is a card that doesn't necessitate an exact strategy/archetype.  There are many ways it can be used, which translates to me as "diverse."

I should have been more specific with the point I was trying to make earlier: I do think that decks can be designed that will beat Tezzeret with some consistency.  Rich Shay recently built a deck (Remora) that makes it its job to eat Tezz decks, and it does a great job at that.  In fact, I predict that in a matter of time we will start to see more of those decks popping up in T8's.  Granted, it is another Drain deck, but its weakness is Fish!!  So, another point here, it is not that Drains themselves that are limiting the format diversity, it is only that fact that Drains happen to be part of Tezzeret's strategy.  I think we still need to wait a bit longer and see if anything comes around that can take Tezz down.

[Smmenen]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's)

Yes, that's what I meant.  The first sentece you quoted, "Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data." is trying to draw that distionction.  When I said "being played", I was referring to "in top 8s."

   

Mana Drain is good, but does it really need to be targeted by people who have trouble beating it?

I don't necessarily disagree.  But Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction, Gush, and Merchant Scroll were all restricted for being lesser offenders. 

As far as a "diverse format" goes, it is tough to talk about without a good definition.  Not that I want to get into a semantics discussion, but I'm trying to make the point that you can have lots of Drain decks and still have a varied meta.  I agree that having a lot of "Tezzeret decks" could be considered unvaried, because that is a very specific archetype; but Drain itself, just like Force of Will, is a card that doesn't necessitate an exact strategy/archetype.  There are many ways it can be used, which translates to me as "diverse."

That's one reason that in my stats I track both archetypes *and* engines.   

It was pointed out to me that although the format a year ago looked diverse by archetype, if you aggregate the engines, 25% of decks were workshop decks and 25% of decks were Gush decks.   

Still, even by archetype, Tez is at 24% of top 8s.    By comparison, Gifts Ungiven decks were 18%, and Gifts was restricted. 

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I think its generally accepted that there are a few cards that could safely be taken off the restricted list. Namely monolith, crop rotation, and entomb. It looks like the main cards up for discussion to be taken off are burning wish, ponder, flash, gush, regrowth, and enlightened tutor.

Burning Wish:
I don't think its a good idea to give Vintage another demonic tutor. I'm almost certain after a degree of testing with the gifted vintage minds around the world that 4 burning wishes would spawn 2-3 decks and improve a few others. There are just way too many busted sorceries worth wishing for. One could even keep Will maindeck and just sideboard some combination of Wheel/Twister/Walk/Tinker. It would give TPS almost a certain turn 2 draw-7 and give belcher 11 win conditions instead of the current 8. This isn't to say that the diversity would be a problem, I just think it would change the format from "how do we stop drains" to "how do we stop burning wish".

Ponder:
This seems to have been restricted as a panic button for brainstorm. There is clearly a large power swing between instant speed fixing your hand+digging+dumping fat and sorcery speed digging. I'm not sure how unrestricting ponder would affect the format but I think it would be healthy. I'm wondering why once it was restricted people didn't just move to serum visions as the next "dig 3 cards deep for 1 mana" spell. It seems like if Gush was unrestricted GAT/flash/oath can still run 6 "brainstormish" slots. This isn't to say the decks would be at the same power level but they would certainly be more consistant than brainstorm+ponder alone. With ponder unrestricted it goes up to 9 slots which should be enough to compensate (though obviously never replace) the 4bs/4ponder.

Flash:
Without Merchant Scroll Brainstorm, and Gush(maybe) the deck takes a major hit to consistancy and as statistics show us Flash was never as dominant as it was built up to be. It wouldn't hurt having another deck option around if the experts think that it could be kept in check reasonably well.

Gush:
Gush is an engine that could easily spawn many decks without necessarily being a problem itself. The only problem I see with this is what happens when the 4xGush/4xDrain decks start appearing.

Regrowth:
With regrowth unrestricted I can see regrowth.dec emerging. It would probably be some type of keeper with 10+tutors, a ton of singleton bombs and 4-8regrowth effects to keep the bombs coming. The problem is that once again, it would probably be a drain deck.

Enlightened Tutor:
This is the one card I think shouldn't be removed ever from this list. There are way too many insane enchantments and artifacts out there that are kept in check just barely by the restricted list. 40%+ of the top-8 would probably be some form of combo either based on ET->vault/key, ET->bomberman, or ET->Bargain/Necro.

If mana drain were restricted it would probably be safe to take off Gifts and Fact, with an increase in the security of removing Gush. There isn't any other card out there like Mana Drain that both does something by itself and also helps you do something later. Very few cards do both and I can't think of any as powerful. It simultaneously protects your combo while fueling it, similar to a painter that can be run in any deck. I don't think it should be restricted, as drain decks do have weaknesses. If people don't stop sleeving drains for tournaments however, there is a good chance they'll get the axe.

I find it interesting that the problem of vault/key seems to be underdiscussed. Drain decks are only as good as what they drain in to. A 4 mana 2 card combo (2 independantly useful cards I might add) that more or less wins the game on the spot is absurd. In the past few years it seems like Time Vault has been causing nothing but problems with the easy interactions, what about banning Time Vault? At least painter/stone takes 6 mana and could be reasonably kept in check with restricting the combo pieces, if not by the fact that painter is also vulnerable to creature hate as well as artifact hate. Just something to consider in my opinion.

[Diakonov]

That's one reason that in my stats I track both archetypes *and* engines.   

It was pointed out to me that although the format a year ago looked diverse by archetype, if you aggregate the engines, 25% of decks were workshop decks and 25% of decks were Gush decks.

This still leaves open the discussion of what people really constitute as diversity.  It would make for a good thread, so long as it doesn't digress, which it almost definitely would.

Still, even by archetype, Tez is at 24% of top 8s.    By comparison, Gifts Ungiven decks were 18%, and Gifts was restricted. 

Point taken.

P.S. - Your degree of access to tournament data and statistics is hilarious.  Props though.

[Troy_Costisick]

I think its generally accepted that there are a few cards that could safely be taken off the restricted list. Namely monolith, crop rotation, and entomb. It looks like the main cards up for discussion to be taken off are burning wish, ponder, flash, gush, regrowth, and enlightened tutor.

Heya,

Welcome to the Mana Drain!  I'm glad you registered for an account and offered your thoughts.  It think it is a little too early yet to make a statement like, "It's generally accepted..." but I appreciate your enthusiasm.  I think that we're working toward a consensus about various cards one way or another with regard to the B/R list.  I think that Stephen has made an excellent arguement for Gush.  I'm still waiting on truly great arguments on the others, and honestly, I'm holding off on talking about specific cards just yet.  It wouldn't be bad to get some more tournament data before making a final push for a series of cards to be released from the B/R.  However, it's threads like this and open minded people who comment in them that ultimately show the DCI that there is the will among the community to see a change to the environment.  Instead of shouting back and forth and staking out idealogical turf, we're working to understand each other's arguments and work out any differences.  I'm reluctant to say, "Yeah, monolith, crop rotation, and entomb are shoe-ins," but it is certainly visible in this individual thread that there is definately some movement in the overall thinking about them among those who are participating. 

Peace,

-Troy

[forests failed you]

I have only played one Vintage tournament since Shards of Alara and Tezzeret became legal in Vintage.  I piloted my UB Tezzeret deck to a top four split at the last RIW tournament, with three out of four players involved in the split also playing Tezzeret.  It was also interesting to me that there were only three Tezzeret decks in a field of almost thirty decks and they all made the top four.

Honestly, I don't really play very much Vintage anymore--but, having a lot of experience with the format over a prolonged period of time still gives me unique perspective to think about how the deck fits into the current format and compares to different periods in Vintage history.  In my opinion, the single most important thing about the Tezzeret deck is Time Vault and Voltaic Key.  (And yes, I realize this is an obvious observation).  The two card combo Key/Vault is simply the best victory condition in the format for a variety of reasons:  cost effectiveness, simplicity, and brokeness.  

If we look at the decks that historically have been very good in their time they all share a similar set of characteristics, which is that they all do something very broken, very quickly, and very consistantly.  Trinistax had Trinisphere to lock things up fast, Gifts had Gifts which won the game if it resolved, GAT had the Gushbond engine which won the game, and Tezzeret has Key/Vault which wins the game.  The key here is that each of these decks utilized the most devestating endgame plan available at the time and did it quickly and consistantly.  Trinstax could get a hard lock going in the first couple of turns, Gifts cast its namesake card and made a lethal Tendrils, and Gushbond tutored for Fastbond and drew 30 cards and attacked with a lethal threat.  

Tezzeret is similar to these decks in the sense that what it does is win the game in the most efficient and broken way possible via having the best set of win conditions, Key/Vault & DSC.  However, it is dissimilar because unlike the previous set of historical 'good decks' it isn't good because of any one particular card that is unrestricted and abused for the purposes of speed and consistancy.  The actual problem isn't that Tezzeret is too good of an engine, the problem is that Time Vault is simply the best possible victory condition in the format.  The problem (and I use the term problem very loosely) is that using Time Vault to take infinite turns has completely turned Vintage on its head in the same way that a storm count of 10 plus Tendrils turned the format on its head years ago.  The fact that Vault and Key is so cheap and so easy to set up and it actually wins the game is what is good about the deck.

I don't have a ton of experience with the deck.  However, my feeling was that the games where I cast Tezzeret and tutored for Time Vault felt pretty fair.  I couldn't really do it until turn 3 or 4 and my opponent got to take one turn with me pretty much tapped out.  The games that felt really unfair were the ones where I actually had a Voltaic Key or a Time Vault in my opening hand and could tutor for the other piece and win.  To a player who has been Draining spells and casting Yawgmoth's Will for years and years now that combo actually felt unfair, unfun and actually broken.

Here is the problem as I see it:  There isn't really a card that the DCI could nix that would really make much of a difference in stopping this deck.  The problem with the deck isn't that the shell is too good--the shell of the deck is pretty much just a Control Slaver shell, which has existed as a tier 1.5 deck for years; the problem is that Time Vault + Voltaic Key is a degenerate combo that in my opinion is more powerful and more efficient than Tendrils of Agony.  With that being said, I firmly believe that one of the best ways to fight against Time Vault and Voltaic Key IS Mana Drain.  

Mana Drain and Force of Will are both terrific cards and very powerful, but I don't actually think that either one is overpowered; but rather, I assume the opposite which is that having two powerful permission spells in the format actually helps to keep decks that try to goldfish under control.  In addition, I am pretty sure that they only deck in the format I would actually leave all of my Mana Drains in against would be Tezzeret, and perhaps Elves or something.  (I 6-0'd games against TPS at the RIW event and my plan was to board down to 2 Mana Drain).  Also, hitting Thirst would definately make the deck less potent, but it isn't like there are 10 other draw spells waiting to pop into that slot.  

The degenerate engine that Tezzeret abuses is actually just restricted Tutors for Time Vault.  Awkward.  It just seems awkward to restrict cards that have never been a problem before simply to try and knock the Tezzeret deck down a peg.  If this is the case and the objective is merely to make the deck slightly worse so that other decks can compete I would much rather see Thirst for Knowledge restricted than Mana Drain, as I think it is actually healthy in a format with Dark Rituals, Workshops and Goblin Charbelchers to have at least 2 good counterspells keeping things in check.  The problem is that even if the DCI restricts Mana Drain or Thirst for Knowledge Tezzeret is still going to be the best, because it does the most broken thing merely by having Key and Vault.  I think that if Key and Vault are here to stay the thing to do is have a good plan for beating Key Vault, or build a better Key Vault deck.

On the subject of Tezzeret dominating:

Firstly, Tezzeret, or rather the Key/Vault deck, is still a fairly new concept and people are still getting used to playing against it.  From experience, I can say that when Gifts was all the rage it took me a couple of tournaments playing my Control Slaver deck to learn how the match up actually worked, how I should sideboard against it, and which battles to fight.  Key/Vault as a victory condition is a completely different dynamic than anything Vintage has every seen before--2 cards, 4 mana, I win.  There are not a ton of Vintage tournaments so it takes players more time to get comfortable playing against a new deck, so perhaps as time goes by people will be able to adjust simply from gaining more experience playing against the deck.

Secondly, perhaps the problem isn't really that an old Control Slaver shell makes Time Vault/ Voltaic Key good--perhaps, (and more likely to me) it is the other way around--that Key/Vault is actually what makes the shell good.  One thing I have been wondering is why people are not playing Key and Vault in other decks?  It is so good all by itself that I think it would be pretty sick to just have Key and Vault in a Tendrils deck as a Victory Condition.  If Key and Vault are the best victory condition it is unlikely that the only archetype that it is good in would be Mana Drains.  Mana Drains got the edge because Tezzeret is a blue card, however I was largely unimpressed with Tezzeret in my deck and always boarded out my second copy of the card; in fact, would only play one if I were to play the deck again.  If I would have had a Morphling in my sideboard I would have felt more than comfortable with boarding out my other Tezz for it; as I felt the Tezzerets were very vulnerable and easy to hose (Pithing Needle, creatures).

Thirdly, people need to play better hate and have a better plan for defeating the deck.  There are tons of cards that would be very good against the Tezzeret deck that nobody is using at the moment, or that are simply under used.  Jester's Cap and Extract both seem like awesome ways to fight Tezzeret.  Also, the Gravestorm card seems pretty real to me.  I know that Aven Mindsensor would have beaten me, and Duress effects were really good.  And GORILLA SHAMAN WOULD HAVE ANHILATED ME EVERY TIME.  (But that is nothing new, nobody ever beats Gorilla Shaman in real life).

Anyways, just wanted to jump in with some of my thoughts on the subject.

I do agree that there are a bunch of cards on the restricted list that could probably come off, and I suspect that they will.  It is my assumption that Wizards is going to give Vintage a few new cards to play with every couple of months and make sure that things stay in Balance.  

TIME VAULT IS THE NEW TENDRILS:  Either beat it or join it because it is here to stay.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I think its generally accepted that there are a few cards that could safely be taken off the restricted list. Namely monolith, crop rotation, and entomb. It looks like the main cards up for discussion to be taken off are burning wish, ponder, flash, gush, regrowth, and enlightened tutor.

Heya,

Welcome to the Mana Drain!  I'm glad you registered for an account and offered your thoughts.  It think it is a little too early yet to make a statement like, "It's generally accepted..." but I appreciate your enthusiasm.  I think that we're working toward a consensus about various cards one way or another with regard to the B/R list.  I think that Stephen has made an excellent arguement for Gush.  I'm still waiting on truly great arguments on the others, and honestly, I'm holding off on talking about specific cards just yet.  It wouldn't be bad to get some more tournament data before making a final push for a series of cards to be released from the B/R.  However, it's threads like this and open minded people who comment in them that ultimately show the DCI that there is the will among the community to see a change to the environment.  Instead of shouting back and forth and staking out idealogical turf, we're working to understand each other's arguments and work out any differences.  I'm reluctant to say, "Yeah, monolith, crop rotation, and entomb are shoe-ins," but it is certainly visible in this individual thread that there is definately some movement in the overall thinking about them among those who are participating. 

Peace,

-Troy

Hey thanks good point. You're right we never know if in the next few months leading up to the b/r if something will come up to break those cards. I also agree with Stephen that Gush's unrestriction is viable in that it can raise the power level of some decks and raise people's interest in something other than mana drain for a while such as oath/gat/flash(maybe). However, I would still be worried about Gush+drain decks emerging. I also saw somebody posted about the unrestriction of LoA and strip mine. In my opinion unrestricting strip mine would kill drain decks and push the metagame into strip mine decks vs anti-strip mine decks as there are so many synergistic cards out there that its a viable strategy even with wasteland instead of strip. As for library, I don't think it should ever come off. In fast metagames it doesn't do much but if it shifts to a slow metagame libraries would (in my opinion) dwarf even shops in power. Its not necessarily the fact that they do a lot at the moment its the fact that in an instant they can become a powerhouse. Lately Vintage seems to have shifted to pushing the clock faster and faster, but we never know what the next set can bring us.

@forests failed you:

I agree with your assertion that time vault/voltaic key is the best win condition in vintage right now. However, I disagree that going after drain is the problem as others have said. I think it is pretty reasonable to construct a deck to abuse the combo without sitting back to drain into it. You said it yourself that the deck felt most broken when you started with one combo piece in hand and tutored up the second to just win. In my opinion time vault needs to get the banhammer since restricting the individual pieces does almost nothing to the deck as you put it and this was not how time vault was meant to be used. At the very least re-errataing vault to stop it from being banned should be considered. This reminds me of back when flame/vault was running rampant and the simple interaction was enough to cause a power-level errata.

[Akuma]

I think it is funny that there are a lot of people saying that Mana Drain is dominant, blah, blah, blah. Couple of things:

1) I agree with forests failed you, the actual power of these so-called Tezz decks comes from Time Vault / Voltaic Key, the rest of the deck is just Control Slaver 1.5. I don't think restrictions will do much of anything anymore. Every noob I have ever come across has always thought that Vintage was just "restricted list + mana" deck, I always told them they were wrong, but now all I can tell them is that they are almost correct, Vintage = restricted list (blue, black and artifacts only) + mana.

2) If people had not been little b*tc*es before, crying for the restriction of EVERYTHING that was remotely useful in this format (Trinisphere, Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction, Flash, Brainstorm, Gush, etc.), we would have a better format today. Of course Mana Drain is the best now, everything that was competitive has been restricted. Looks like Vintage is "Restrict everything until Mana Drain is the best, then restrict Mana Drain".

I hope we see NO RESTRICTIONS for a LONG TIME, and UNRESTRICTIONS NOW!

Once again, I would like to reiterate how much I loathe the current state of this format (are you reading any of this WotC?).

[Purple Hat]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's)

Yes, that's what I meant.  The first sentece you quoted, "Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data." is trying to draw that distionction.  When I said "being played", I was referring to "in top 8s."

but Steve my point is exactly that the ONLY stats we're looking at are top 8 stats.  Because of that we can't really evaluate whether drains are overperforming, underperforming or performing exactly the way we would expect.  Without statistics on the field we don't know whether or not these top 8 results are representative of the breakdown in the field.  This was why I created the hypothetical field where Drains make up a significantly larger portion of the metagame than other decks in order to illustrate the fact that a deck can easily make up a large percentage of top 8's without actually over performing just because it is being played so heavily.

[Diakonov]

@ forests failed you:

I agree with you 100% on everything you said.

Time needs to pass before we panic about Tezz.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's)

Yes, that's what I meant.  The first sentece you quoted, "Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data." is trying to draw that distionction.  When I said "being played", I was referring to "in top 8s."

but Steve my point is exactly that the ONLY stats we're looking at are top 8 stats.  Because of that we can't really evaluate whether drains are overperforming, underperforming or performing exactly the way we would expect.  Without statistics on the field we don't know whether or not these top 8 results are representative of the breakdown in the field.  This was why I created the hypothetical field where Drains make up a significantly larger portion of the metagame than other decks in order to illustrate the fact that a deck can easily make up a large percentage of top 8's without actually over performing just because it is being played so heavily.

In addition to that it could just be that the best players are playing drains. Even if drain.deck is better than the other decks out there that doesn't mean the top8 is accurate. I mean if those drain decks in the top 8 didn't have to play against a single hate deck in the swiss and it was just mirror or favorable matches then of course you'd expect to see the deck perform well. Should it turn out that theres no reasonable hate deck out there for drains that can also do well against other decks then I think drains are a problem. However, I bet in those top 8s or maybe even the general swiss pool there was an adequate lack of decks with favorable drain match ups. By the statistics being put down here I'm surprised some form of fish isn't running rampant destroying those decks.

[bluemage55]

2) If people had not been little b*tc*es before, crying for the restriction of EVERYTHING that was remotely useful in this format (Trinisphere, Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction, Flash, Brainstorm, Gush, etc.), we would have a better format today. Of course Mana Drain is the best now, everything that was competitive has been restricted. Looks like Vintage is "Restrict everything until Mana Drain is the best, then restrict Mana Drain".

I'm inclined to fully agree with this point, even if I take issue with the inflammatory manner in which it was posted. 

The most recent wave of restrictions are directly responsible for the Mana Drain metagame we see now: without Brainstorm, Ponder, Merchant Scroll, or Gush, what better engine is left to run than Mana Drain -> Thirst for Knowledge?

Whereas before, many sorts of blue decks were viable relying on Brainstorm, and another subset could use Scroll -> Gush, there's only one viable blue engine now (TfK), so obviously we're going to see lots of it and the cards that work well with it (Drain + artifact shell e.g. Tez).

[Stormanimagus]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's)

Yes, that's what I meant.  The first sentece you quoted, "Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data." is trying to draw that distionction.  When I said "being played", I was referring to "in top 8s."

but Steve my point is exactly that the ONLY stats we're looking at are top 8 stats.  Because of that we can't really evaluate whether drains are overperforming, underperforming or performing exactly the way we would expect.  Without statistics on the field we don't know whether or not these top 8 results are representative of the breakdown in the field.  This was why I created the hypothetical field where Drains make up a significantly larger portion of the metagame than other decks in order to illustrate the fact that a deck can easily make up a large percentage of top 8's without actually over performing just because it is being played so heavily.

In addition to that it could just be that the best players are playing drains. Even if drain.deck is better than the other decks out there that doesn't mean the top8 is accurate. I mean if those drain decks in the top 8 didn't have to play against a single hate deck in the swiss and it was just mirror or favorable matches then of course you'd expect to see the deck perform well. Should it turn out that theres no reasonable hate deck out there for drains that can also do well against other decks then I think drains are a problem. However, I bet in those top 8s or maybe even the general swiss pool there was an adequate lack of decks with favorable drain match ups. By the statistics being put down here I'm surprised some form of fish isn't running rampant destroying those decks.

Yeah, the time for Extract or Hide/Seek may finally have come.

[Troy_Costisick]

Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data. Dominance is a threshold based upon how often a deck/engine is played.  What did you think it means? 

The threshold for dominance is roughly 35%-40% of top 8s.    That's the standard set in the first Gush era, when GroAtog decks were dominating, and they were 36% of top 8s.

Steve, I'm not sure that domininance means how often a deck is played, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. In Vintage there frankly isn't enough testing or regular play done by most people to determine which decks are the best, so they often just go with their gut or an old standby (Mana Drain, Grim Tutor, or whatever is in vogue that month). I believe what you meant was what has performed (and thus made Top 8's)

Yes, that's what I meant.  The first sentece you quoted, "Purple hat, the statistics being cited are not general tournament data, they are top 8 data." is trying to draw that distionction.  When I said "being played", I was referring to "in top 8s."

but Steve my point is exactly that the ONLY stats we're looking at are top 8 stats.  Because of that we can't really evaluate whether drains are overperforming, underperforming or performing exactly the way we would expect.  Without statistics on the field we don't know whether or not these top 8 results are representative of the breakdown in the field.  This was why I created the hypothetical field where Drains make up a significantly larger portion of the metagame than other decks in order to illustrate the fact that a deck can easily make up a large percentage of top 8's without actually over performing just because it is being played so heavily.

You absolutely raise a good point, Purple Hat, that Steve only examines the top 8's*, but my initial reaction to what you wrote is, "So what?"  I don't see, at the moment, whether or not Mana Drain decks are underperforming or overperforming really matters when it comes to analyzing the current meta.  Currently, Mana Drain decks make up 45% of the of top 8 decks in the metagame (according to the way Stephen does his statistical analysis- and for the purposes of this specific discussion, let's limit the deck pool to that if, it's okay with you).  Alright, let's assume that 45% is an underperformance when compared to the entire field.  That might mean that Mana Drain decks make up 60% of the field out there.  If 3 out of 5 decks that show up at a tournament are running the same single card engine, wouldn't that cause you to raise an eyebrow?  Conversely, let's say that the 45% is actually an underperformance compared to the whole.  That might mean that 20% of the field is making up 45% of the "prize" round of tournaments and around 50% of the tournament winners.  If that were the case, if 20% of the players out there were winning 50% of the tournaments, wouldn't that be striking to you?

Basically what I'm saying is, you definitely raise a good point.  There is more than one way to look at a metagame.  However, my counterpoint is whether you look at the entire field or just the top 8's, it is plain to see that Mana Drain decks are winning in staggering numbers compared to any other engine or archetype in the past.  Historically, whether these decks are underperforming or overperforming is irrelivant.  There is very little with which we can draw a comparison to what is going on now.  Mana Drain decks are completely skewing any analysis of the current meta- that is if you want to examine Decks That Win.

Peace,

-Troy

*Compiling all the data for the top 8 decks bi-montly is a herculean effort as it is.  Expecting Stephen to go beyond what he already does is asking quite a bit, IMHO.  If someone is really that keenly interested in compiling the data for all decks that enter tournaments of 33+, then I would encourage him or her to hunt down those reports and compile that information themselves and share it with the community so we can all learn from it.

[nineisnoone]

If you look at January tournament results, you have:
129 Mana Drains
120 Thirsts
53 Dark Rituals
52 Workshops

So Drain is seeing more play than the other two "pillars" of the metagame combined.  That's one mighty unbalanced metagame.


December:
248 Mana Drains
199 Thirsts
78 Dark Rituals
64 Shops

So Drain is by far dominant.  And if you look at the tournaments samples, US tournaments make up 50%, with non-US making up the other half, so while Drain may see slightly less play outside the US, this is by no means a US-only phenomenon.

While all numbers decreased percentage wise, relatively:
Drain fell by 48%
Thirst fell by 40%
Ritual fell 32%
Shop fell 19%

Setting Shop as the baseline (19%)
Ritual retained the most of it's percentage, losing only 13%
Thirst lost nearly twice as much as Ritual did, losing 21%
Drain lost over twice as much as Ritual did, losing 29%

If there was something inherently dominant about the card, there should be some external reason to explain why Drain is losing so much of its percentage.  We can say "maybe they just want to play something other than Mana Drain", but if we assume that then the numbers are irrelevant anyways because we are assuming that people don't play the best decks.

If there is a trend of dominance assuming a competitive market (which is necessary), the presence should be increasing.  But instead it is decreasing.  While the initial dominance is indication of something, this second fact suggests that it is not an inherent problem but rather a short term market fluctuation... something like Ponder/Brainstorm/Merchant Scroll/Flash being restricted, Tezzeret being printed, and Time Vault being unerrated. 

Again, numbers are fine and dandy.  But numbers are inherently logical.  If the conclusions we draw are unsubstantiable by logic (and so far mostly people just state the the numbers prove their conclusions without any logically ties), then that likely suggests that there is something wrong with your conclusions.

Grossly wrong on the math.