[FREE ARTICLE] Vintage Avant-Garde: Is Vintage Too Fast?

[Delha]

Only mindtwist was banned.

And Time Vault.

And Channel. And Divine Intervention.

[credmond]

Cool. The historical facts you cite only make my argument stronger.

1) There is precedent.

2) Vintage remained vintage

3) Bannings for power level didn't run away and the gates of hell didn't open.

4) Vault will merely be going back to where it belonged.

[Delha]

Cool. The historical facts you cite only make my argument stronger.

1) There is precedent.

2) Vintage remained vintage

3) Bannings for power level didn't run away and the gates of hell didn't open.

4) Vault will merely be going back to where it belonged.

While banning was considered an acceptable option at the time, Wizards has clearly stated that is no longer the case.

There's precedent for having people drawn and quartered (or burned at the stake, or crucified, or whatever else), that doesn't mean it's a good idea to reimplement any of those policies.

Edit: Spelling

[credmond]

The premise of Brian's article is that there is something wrong that needs to be fixed in Vintage. Vintage has run afoul of where it should be as a format.

If you don't agree with that premise then you won't agree with any measures to fix Vintage since for you it ain't broke. So we can agree to disagree.

However, I think you are kidding yourself if you think there is nothing wrong with the status quo in Vintage. It's popularity is at an all-time-low and the kind of critiques that outsiders throw at it have too much of a ring of truth to them.

The ridiculous thing is I sincerely think its only a few edits from exploding in popularity.

[Delha]

Don't mistake my position for one claiming that Vintage is fine. I've posted a few different times (including in this thread, IIRC) that I feel the format is inherently crippled by it's principles. You're clearly willing to break those principles, and there are plenty of other people who stand with or against you on that. At the end of the day though, nothing anyone on this board thinks really matters. WOTC is in charge, and they are clearly unwillng to violate the notion of Vintage as the place where you can play "all your cards" (with the few noted exceptions which are banned for out-of-game reasons). The only time your opinion or mine matters is when we manage to sway the right people in Seattle.

Regarding your belief that Vintage is only a few steps from exploding in popularity, I'd say offhand that it's just one step away: Reprints. At risk of being tedious though, WOTC has put their foot down, and I don't forsee that changing anytime soon. Debate over how the current metagame impacts format health is trivial when one takes into consideration the barrier to entry. You can have the best, most engaging and entertaining game in the world, but you're never going to see a lot of takers when the price is comparable to that of buying a (used) car.

[diopter]

Which outsiders are saying what?
Data bricks clay etc.

[Troy_Costisick]

It's popularity is at an all-time-low and the kind of critiques that outsiders throw at it have too much of a ring of truth to them.

Say what?   I guess you weren't playing in the second half of '08 through the first half of '09.

[Shock Wave]

The premise of Brian's article is that there is something wrong that needs to be fixed in Vintage. Vintage has run afoul of where it should be as a format.

If you don't agree with that premise then you won't agree with any measures to fix Vintage since for you it ain't broke. So we can agree to disagree.

However, I think you are kidding yourself if you think there is nothing wrong with the status quo in Vintage. It's popularity is at an all-time-low and the kind of critiques that outsiders throw at it have too much of a ring of truth to them.

The ridiculous thing is I sincerely think its only a few edits from exploding in popularity.

Well said. Personally, I dislike Vintage for the first time in over 10 years. Flash didn't last long enough for me to actually begin to dislike the format, but the issues which I feel plague Vintage, many of which Brian has highlighted in his article, have driven me away from playing. While I doubt Vintage misses one player, I refuse to believe I am the only person who has been driven away. Vintage in Ontario (and I suspect Canada) is all but dead. We have 8-10 player events once a month, and sometimes we can't even that many. Some people here (myself included) flew to Amsterdam to play in the Legacy GP, but those same people (who enjoyed Vintage in the past) today will not drive an hour out of their way to support Vintage. Just some food for thought from north of the border.

[voltron00x]

Vintage is never going to "explode" in popularity, guys.  I hate to break it to you.  What it can be, and I think actually is right now, is a sustainable niche format that is a lot of fun for the people willing to deal with (or who, gasp, ENJOY) its peculiarities (which will prevent it from ever being mainstream).

[forests failed you]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

[Shock Wave]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. The only way Wizards will take a serious approach to properly policing this format is if there is a financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if Vintage on MODO takes off (and I really think it will), I think we will see the biggest and best Vintage format we have ever seen (perhaps if only online).

[Marske]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. The only way Wizards will take a serious approach to properly policing this format is if there is a financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if Vintage on MODO takes off (and I really think it will), I think we will see the biggest and best Vintage format we have ever seen (perhaps if only online).

As nice as this sounds, nobody is going to invest the same stupid amount of money getting all the Vintage staples online with FoW being 100+ dollar card AND keeping a playable paper based collection... What's going to happen to all the cards that would flood back into the market if everybody massively quits playing Vintage? Are they even going to flood back into the market?

I for one have no interest in either selling my power (too much sentimental value) or rebuying it online, so for me it would simply mean not playing Vintage anymore unless there are constant drafts firing where you could realistically get the full set of cards together without shelling out 1000 bucks.

[honestabe]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. The only way Wizards will take a serious approach to properly policing this format is if there is a financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if Vintage on MODO takes off (and I really think it will), I think we will see the biggest and best Vintage format we have ever seen (perhaps if only online).

As nice as this sounds, nobody is going to invest the same stupid amount of money getting all the Vintage staples online with FoW being 100+ dollar card AND keeping a playable paper based collection... What's going to happen to all the cards that would flood back into the market if everybody massively quits playing Vintage? Are they even going to flood back into the market?

I for one have no interest in either selling my power (too much sentimental value) or rebuying it online, so for me it would simply mean not playing Vintage anymore unless there are constant drafts firing where you could realistically get the full set of cards together without shelling out 1000 bucks.

With the exception of Force of Will being outrageous, most other Vintage staples are pretty cheap on modo; a lot of people draft Master's Editions, but the price of Force keeps a lot of people out Classic and Legacy.

Fastbond: $1.50
Library of Alexandria: $5.50
Yawgmoth's Will: $4.50
Mana Crypt: $5.50
Blue Duals: $15-22

Reprinted Power would likely be as rare as the afore mentioned restricted Vintage cards, and would likely fetch a price similar (though I'm sure a little higher if for no other reason than it is power).  The real problem with Vintage getting popular online is that Force of Will is $100+, and WoTC has said that it will never be released in another Master's Edition.

[voltron00x]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. The only way Wizards will take a serious approach to properly policing this format is if there is a financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if Vintage on MODO takes off (and I really think it will), I think we will see the biggest and best Vintage format we have ever seen (perhaps if only online).

As nice as this sounds, nobody is going to invest the same stupid amount of money getting all the Vintage staples online with FoW being 100+ dollar card AND keeping a playable paper based collection... What's going to happen to all the cards that would flood back into the market if everybody massively quits playing Vintage? Are they even going to flood back into the market?

I for one have no interest in either selling my power (too much sentimental value) or rebuying it online, so for me it would simply mean not playing Vintage anymore unless there are constant drafts firing where you could realistically get the full set of cards together without shelling out 1000 bucks.

With the exception of Force of Will being outrageous, most other Vintage staples are pretty cheap on modo; a lot of people draft Master's Editions, but the price of Force keeps a lot of people out Classic and Legacy.

Fastbond: $1.50
Library of Alexandria: $5.50
Yawgmoth's Will: $4.50
Mana Crypt: $5.50
Blue Duals: $15-22

Reprinted Power would likely be as rare as the afore mentioned restricted Vintage cards, and would likely fetch a price similar (though I'm sure a little higher if for no other reason than it is power).  The real problem with Vintage getting popular online is that Force of Will is $100+, and WoTC has said that it will never be released in another Master's Edition.

The price of FOW has really crushed MTGO Legacy, and WOTC has done nothing to change the stated policy that FOW will not be reprinted.  Vintage stands no chance of success unless FOW is available and at least somewhat reasonably priced (probably under $75).

FOW not withstanding, Vintage on MTGO would be a huge boon for the format, no doubt about it.  I absolutely agree it would help sustain Vintage, and might result in some attendance boost, but won't solve all the things that keep Vintage a niche format.

[ilpeggiore]

I've posted a few different times (including in this thread, IIRC) that I feel the format is inherently crippled by it's principles.

it's always been.

Once, there was only a colossus. Fish e zoo players complained about the stp they had to play maindeck to fight it. [the problem is thinker but the trouble is the combination of colossus+tinker in the last 10 years]

People today complain about the 6 cards plan against dredge. And in the trini-meta complined about all the artifact hate they had to play.

[MaximumCDawg]

I think that there is a real possibility that when Wizards prints power online that there could be a resurgence of Vintage being played, if only online.  If it is the case that there are real Vintage tournaments being played online, and often, I think it is very likely that the DCI would take a more hands on approach to policing the format in a way that makes it more friendly to tournament players.  I also think that if people played the format online, there is also a chance that if they don't hate it they might play IRL.  Another reason I think that making a few changes might be a step in the right direction.

I think I've just figured out why folks are fired up about Bazaar - and his nothing to do with Bazaar's innate power level.  It has everything to do with why people are scared of letting Lotus Vale play how it reads.  It's plain and simple institutional bias in favor of the Alpha power and against more recent decks of similar power level.  (Pardon to others in the thread who have probably come to the same conclusion in different words.)

If you're concerned that Vintage is too fast / degenerate, why on God's green Earth would you look favorably on re-printing Power?  As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, while Yawgwill/Tinker/Oath/Shop might be pretty degenerate, it's the presense of Power - particularly Lotus - that leads to alot of this speed.  If you don't run Power, suddenly Tinker (1) is not as fast; and (2) requires some actual deck-building decisions to make sure you have critical mass of artifacts.  Without Lotus, Yawgwill isn't free and doesn't result in UUU anymore.  Shop decks lose the ability to consistently dump a Lodestone or Panther on turn 1, unless they make some serious sacrifices.  All of these degenerate cards remain degenerate without Power, don't get me wrong (and see Legacy) but the speed you are complaining about goes away pretty fast once you don't use them.

What's the odd man out?  What is the one overpowered Vintage wincon that does NOT take a serious hit if you take Power out of the equation?  Dredge!  Sure, some Dredge decks use Power, but it can function very well without em.  People in the Thread-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named classified this concept as the Blue deck players bashing on the Dredge players, but I think it's more basic - it's the Power players bashing on decks without Power.

I'm not suggesting that people who dislike Bazaar are conciously deciding that they like the degeneracy of Moxen and dislike Baazar (and potential degenerancy of Vale and Co.).  I think, instead, that Vintage is a format that has come to be so defined by Power that the insanity they bring to the format is simply accepted.  It's just always been that way.  It is far easier to question change than to question deep-seated assumptions about how the format should work.

As far as Vintage being too fast, then, the real answer is to ban Power.  That's the real culprit.  The entire metagame is warped around finding and protecting a certain instant that costs U and draws alot of cards, around having to deal with at least six free artifacts that can accellerate mana or storm count at any time, etc.  You hit that, you slow down the format.  But, then it wouldn't be Vintage.  And that's really the point, isnt it?

[Delha]

I think I've just figured out why folks are fired up about Bazaar - and his nothing to do with Bazaar's innate power level.  It has everything to do with why people are scared of letting Lotus Vale play how it reads.  It's plain and simple institutional bias in favor of the Alpha power and against more recent decks of similar power level.  (Pardon to others in the thread who have probably come to the same conclusion in different words.)

I think you think you know more than you actually do. By the logic you've presented here, people should have been screaming about restricting Bazaar years ago. Also, I'd bet good money that you're (again) flat out wrong about Lotus Vale. I consider bannings and pillar restriction to be an entirely independent issue from Lotus Vale, and am quite confident that I am among the majority in doing so.

[MaximumCDawg]

I think I've just figured out why folks are fired up about Bazaar - and his nothing to do with Bazaar's innate power level.  It has everything to do with why people are scared of letting Lotus Vale play how it reads.  It's plain and simple institutional bias in favor of the Alpha power and against more recent decks of similar power level.  (Pardon to others in the thread who have probably come to the same conclusion in different words.)

I think you think you know more than you actually do. By the logic you've presented here, people should have been screaming about restricting Bazaar years ago. Also, I'd bet good money that you're (again) flat out wrong about Lotus Vale. I consider bannings and pillar restriction to be an entirely independent issue from Lotus Vale, and am quite confident that I am among the majority in doing so.

I don't get why you're so unrepentingly hostile, Dehla.  Here, as in everywhere else, I never claim that my opinions are iron-clad correctness.  I just express an opinion and provide my reasoning.  Just about every time, you come in with an ad hominem against me, personally (i.e. "you think you know more than you actually do.")  If I'm wrong, great, show me your data, but let's not go the way of the last Bazaar thread here.

Anyway, no, people had no reason to scream about Bazaar until it actually started winning events.  As you recall, most articles on Vintage until this year discussed Dredge as a deck that was always good but would never win anything.  Now it has - and what is the reaction? Suddenly, there's a big thread on TMD about restricting Bazaar.  People complain that it is a one card combo that wins too fast.  Wouldn't you expect this reaction if people who were comfortable with Power winning tournies are suddenly faced with non-Power winning?

If the question is a hostility to new degenerate cards or decks, then it's absolutely the same thing as the reluctance to let Vale and Co. act as they are printed.  It's the hostility towards there being yet more degenerate cards in the format.   I'm sure there is a discussion to be had about how much is too much, which is basically the point of the OP's article, but the prejudice in favor of the P9 and against other cards of similar power sure seems like it plays a part.  Someone is making a choice that only X amount of degeneration is good for the format, and the P9 are allowed to stay to count towards that value.  Then, we get people talking about keeping cards down using Eratta (Vale) or banning existing cards that have gotten "too good" (Bazaar).

[serracollector]

I personally don't think vintage is too fast.  Vintage is fast because it is vintage.  Is bazaar restrictable?  Its a land that provides free draw, what else do we have to compare it to?  Library of Alexandria.  Its been restricted since....I dono...forever?  And don't give me the crap about LoA provides CA, while Bazaar doesn't.  Cards in grave are just as good as in hand (if not better, look at Minus 6, WGD, Slaver, Dredge, and the like).  I personally don't think bazaar should get axed due to dredge's speed, but I do think it should be considered restrictable simply based on what it does in general, lets you draw extra cards every turn for free.  LoA got the axe years ago, why has bazaar not?

[Delha]

I don't get why you're so unrepentingly hostile, Dehla.  Here, as in everywhere else, I never claim that my opinions are iron-clad correctness.  I just express an opinion and provide my reasoning.  Just about every time, you come in with an ad hominem against me, personally (i.e. "you think you know more than you actually do.")  If I'm wrong, great, show me your data, but let's not go the way of the last Bazaar thread here.

I get on your case because you keep using irrational arguments, especially ones that we've been over already.

In the other thread, you claimed that "Vintage is far, far, more interactive than other formats". In my mind, this absurd statement was already debunked two threads ago. I told you why you were wrong, you never disputed my reasoning. I don't think it's unreasonable that I expected the issue was closed. I also don't think it's unreasonable to be annoyed at the fact that I had to go back and repeat the same arguments all over again.

Here, I've gone over with you why Lotus Vale does NOT have power level errata, as well as why your definition of PLE was incorrect (which you may well still wrongly believe in). I've explained why I take the approach that I do, and why I feel maintaining original functionality is a good policy.

Yet here you are, claiming that in spite of all the other perfectly reasonable arguments that people have put forth, and that you alone have discerned a secret agenda behind the discussion over Bazaar AND Lotus Vale. Your claim carries the implication that all other arguments against Bazaar (or in favor of leaving Lotus Vale as is) are nothing but a front for players trying to maintain an old boy's club on behalf of the P9. Your claim says that you know players better than they know themselves, and that they unwittingly fall prey to this hidden motivation. That's a damn pretentious stance, and as one of the people who falls under your mass generalization, I am offended.

You want to know why I give you a hard time? It's because you throw our very poorly thought out arguments, then ignore when people explain why they're wrong. In this particular case, you even managed to get under my skin on a personal level, so you got bonus flak for that.

I personally don't think vintage is too fast.  Vintage is fast because it is vintage.  Is bazaar restrictable?  Its a land that provides free draw, what else do we have to compare it to?  Library of Alexandria.  Its been restricted since....I dono...forever?  And don't give me the crap about LoA provides CA, while Bazaar doesn't.  Cards in grave are just as good as in hand (if not better, look at Minus 6, WGD, Slaver, Dredge, and the like).  I personally don't think bazaar should get axed due to dredge's speed, but I do think it should be considered restrictable simply based on what it does in general, lets you draw extra cards every turn for free.  LoA got the axe years ago, why has bazaar not?

Cards in grave are just as good as in hand? So Memory Sluice is just a better Ancestral? Resolving Glimpse the Unthinkable is better than resolving Ancestral three times? Of course not. If this was true, nobody would be running Preordain over Breakthrough.

LoA is +CA, Bazaar is -CA. They are worlds apart.

[Diakonov]

If the question is a hostility to new degenerate cards or decks, then it's absolutely the same thing as the reluctance to let Vale and Co. act as they are printed.  It's the hostility towards there being yet more degenerate cards in the format.   I'm sure there is a discussion to be had about how much is too much, which is basically the point of the OP's article, but the prejudice in favor of the P9 and against other cards of similar power sure seems like it plays a part.  Someone is making a choice that only X amount of degeneration is good for the format, and the P9 are allowed to stay to count towards that value.  Then, we get people talking about keeping cards down using Eratta (Vale) or banning existing cards that have gotten "too good" (Bazaar).

This theory is crazy.  Vale is errata'd to work the way it was supposed to.  That is the only reason.  It has nothing to do with power level.

Your assumption that "people don't want to play against Dredge" = "people don't want powerful new interactions to compete with P9" is a faulty leap of logic.  Everybody thinks Snapcaster is great.  Innistrad saw the printing of Stony Silence and everybody commended it, and virtually the only thing it does is stop moxen.

If you listen to Brian's arguments, Dredge's issue isn't about degeneracy.  It's about format-warping.

[Joblin Velder]

If you listen to Brian's arguments, Dredge's issue isn't about degeneracy.  It's about format-warping.

Exactly. And that sort of logic can be difficult to dismiss entirely.

A very compelling article. Thank you for writing it.

[meadbert]

Regarding "Bazaar of Baghdad is a 1 card combo that means you do not have to play another spell to win."

So the issue here is not that a spell is not needed.  The issue is the speed.  Mishra's Factory also wins, but it takes 10 turns.
If my deck had 60 Mishra's factories then I would win on turn 6 without ever playing a spell and clearly that would not mess up vintage.

The issue is not Bazaar allowing a 0 spells played win.  The issue is Bazaar allowing a turn 2 Triple Therapy into Dread Return for the win.

A slower Dredge deck that wins on turns 3-5 can play a very constructive role in type 1.

[credmond]

I still think the real card to target in the case of throttling Dredge is Serum Powder. Without Serum Powder, Dredge is required to play a more interactive game that uses mana and that cannot be certain that Bazaar will be in play.

Serum Powder is actually quite degenerate and comparable to a Turn 0 timetwister in the right deck. Its just that its degeneracy is only revealed fully in Dredge.

[diopter]

Sounds like playing REB was a bad metagame choice. You played moxes, if you had maindecked something like Mana Leak or Negate you may have completely nullified opposing Missteps.

I think that's pretty cool that you could have won with cards that cost more and do less. The opposite of fast.

[MaximumCDawg]

I get on your case because you keep using irrational arguments, especially ones that we've been over already.

In the other thread, you claimed that "Vintage is far, far, more interactive than other formats". In my mind, this absurd statement was already debunked two threads ago. I told you why you were wrong, you never disputed my reasoning. I don't think it's unreasonable that I expected the issue was closed. I also don't think it's unreasonable to be annoyed at the fact that I had to go back and repeat the same arguments all over again.

We continue disagree about that, but I don't always rush to add more words to The Internet over every disagreement.  I continue to suspect that Vintage has more interaction than Standard, for example.  I say "suspect" because I have not done an exhaustive analysis of top 8s or anything like that for the formats in question, and to my knowledge, neither have you.  But I'm not just conjuring this opinion out of whole cloth.  In Vintage, interaction starts on turn 0 and continues until the end of the game (spherelock or vault-key "ends the game").  Because each player likely has blowout cards that can turn a loss into a win in an instant (see Dredge winning last Worlds), there is no slow downward spiral.  Just because you win a fight over Ancestral doesnt mean the game is over - it means you're very far behind.  In Vintage, you have the tools to catch up.  

Your "lightsaber / knife fight" analogy mischaracterizes the situation because it assumes inflicting harm on your opponent is all that matters.  Sure, a wound inflicted by a Magical Space Lasersword is going to be more damaging than one from a penknife.  That doesn't necessarily imply that the street thugs are "interacting" more than Magical Space Knights are.  Instead of looking only at number of cuts, look at the tactics and strategy going on as each player tries to inflict them.  Each thrust, parry, and feint is an interaction.  Just because they don't all result in injury doesn't mean they don't exist.  In Vintage, the thrust, parries and feints involve hate cards, resource increasers like ancestral, hand disruption, resource denial, countermagic, and even very basic issues of reading your opponent or the deck and determining what is most likely to happen next.  

When I'm playing Vintage, I find that my graveyard tends to be quite heavy when the game is over.  Alot happened.  Even when I'm playing Hatebear X Deck - which is often - I typically have ten to twenty cards in there.  More if I'm playing a blue mirror.  When I play standard (full disclosure: not very often) I find I've gone through maybe ten cards.  On top of that, the lack of powerful, swingy cards in Sandard compared to Vintage means you're less likely to topdeck out of it.  I remember facing Cawblade; once they had a bird and sword on the field, and two more birds in hand, there was not much I could do.  Topdeck removal, meet topdeck countermagic.

For all of these reasons, yes, I think Vintage is more interactive.

Here, I've gone over with you why Lotus Vale does NOT have power level errata, as well as why your definition of PLE was incorrect (which you may well still wrongly believe in). I've explained why I take the approach that I do, and why I feel maintaining original functionality is a good policy.

Again, we disagreed and I moved on.  I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" anything.

We do mean different things by PLE, but I'm happy to use another term so I'm not stepping on toes.  Call it "anti-degeneracy bias."  That is, if the Oracle has a choice of different defensible interpretations of an older card - like Lotus Vale - then there is a bias in favor of the interpretation that is not degenerate.  Mr. Tebek admitted this is exactly what is going on with Vale - the text approach is certainly possible, but not used out of concerns for degeneracy. This is also at work when DCI is looking at the Banned and Restricted List, in a more overt way.  Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for the game is not what I'm getting at here.

If there is an anti-degeneracy bias - and I have a hard time seeing how there isn't one - then the question becomes how much degeneracy people will tolerate in a format.  A few powerful cards is fine and good, but too much degeneracy is bad.  In most formats this comes up when single strategies or cards dominate and warp the whole format (affinty, skullclamp, cawblade).  Legacy goes further and bans cards so degenerately undercosted that they would virtually all be must-plays if allowed.  

Vintage has a big healthy appetite for degeneracy.  Unlike Legacy, we accept the fact that many of the decks in the format have the same 30 - 40 cards, and all competitve decks except one have at least the same 6 - 9.  But, even so, perhaps there is a tolerence beyond which there's too much degeneracy and the format suffers.  That's what the OP seems to be complaining about, in my mind.  "Too fast" is not really accurate given the actual pace of games in Vintage - "too degenerate" is probably more like it.  If there is a tolerence, then the existence of the Power 9 and kin are certainly gobbling much much of that tolerence, leaving less for other cards like fixed Vale, Bazaar, etc.  

If thats tl;dr, then:

(1) I suggest everyone including WotC has an anti-degeneracy bias, perhaps not conciously and perhaps for very good reason;
(2) This bias suggests that, all else being equal, a card will be interpreted in a non-degenerate way; and
(3) This bias also suggests that even Vintage has a tolerance for degeneracy, of which the Power 9 consume most.

[meadbert]

Just in terms of theoretical power level Serum Powder is restrictable.  It is as powerful or more powerful than Timetwister.

Tangent - Unrestricting Twister could be very hard on Dredge!

Anyway I actually think that the fact that Ichorid dodges both mana Denial and counter spells is a good thing because it hurts decks that focus on hardcore mana denial or that relies on counterspells to lock you out.
Basically I consider forcing Shop decks to run creatures and have some sort of clock a good thing.
I also consider it a good thing that Dredge limits how much countermagic control can run.
The problem with Dredge is is its speed.  A dredge deck that runs Crop Rotations and Breakthroughs would be worse, but its goldfish would be just as good.  You would move towards a direction where every blue deck ran 4 Mental Misstep as Dredge hate.  Dredge might start to run Mental Misstep to protect Crop Rotation.

Then Shops would be much better off on the play, but worse off on the draw.  Basically you could Waste their turn 1 Bazaar only to watch in horror as Breakthrough on turn 2 wins it for them.  On the other hand turn 1 Resistor/Thor/Golem could lock Dredge out of its Crop Rotation.  The result is a matchup that depends more on the coinflip.

I still believe a Serum Powder Dredge list with a turn 3-5 goldfish would be the way to go.  To get there restrict Dread Return and Fatestitcher.

[nataz]

The main problem I have with all of the "too good/too fast" arguments is the greediness in deck selection. I think it's clear that all of these strategies, dredge included, can be beat fairly simply with the available card pool in vintage (see the million or so 1cc-2cc answers for BSC).

The only reason why dredge is so good is that people refuse to make main deck concessions to it. Vintage players are greedy. They want to play their control/answer everything deck and then get mad when its not possible. 1 card in your MD does not = a strategy.

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't? Why is it healthy to say "no" to spells on the stack, but not to effects in the graveyard? There are tons of spells that you can use to respond to every dredge trigger.

The only reason why dredge is so linear is because players like Brian refuse to play decks or pursue strategies that interact with it.

In order to do that, they would have to move away from their precious blue counter spell decks, and then suddenly its not "vintage" anymore.

If people put any pressure on dredge at all it would be forced to adapt to a slower, more spells, more land based deck (see turtle dredge). But god forbid we give the metagame time to shift. Better we just ban things until the meta game freezes allowing the same reactive controlling strategies to dominate the format.  

  

[honestabe]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

[AmbivalentDuck]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?