[Free Podcast] So Many Insane Plays # 23: The Vintage B&R List & More!

[Smmenen]

Getting back to form!  One of our best podcasts in a while, and a long-overdue topic.

http://www.mtgcast.com/mtgcast-podcast-shows/active-podcast-shows/so-many-insane-plays/so-many-insane-plays-23-possible-restrictions-and-unrestrictions

Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian discuss possible restrictions and unrestrictions in Vintage as well as the latest on You Make the Card.

 
Contact us at @ManyInsanePlays on Twitter or e-mail us at SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com

 
0:03:50: You Make the Card
0:11:00: Thirst for Knowledge
0:26:10: Flash
0:34:59: Balance
0:44:22: Library of Alexandria
0:52:50: Demonic Consultation
0:58:20: Fastbond
1:03:00: Windfall
1:06:45: Channel
1:11:00: Gifts Ungiven
1:16:27: Yawgmoth’s Bargain
1:23:42: Regrowth
1:30:25: Ponder
1:39:34: Trinisphere
1:45:10: Possible Restrictions

 

 

Your Hosts: Kevin Cron, Steve Menendian

Show’s Email: SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com

Show’s Twitter: @ManyInsanePlays

Enjoy!

[DubDub]

Thirst for Knowledge
I think the 'historic level of format dominance' cited stemmed directly from the simultaneous restriction of Gush, Flash, Ponder, Brainstorm, and Merchant Scroll immediately before.  Knocking out the diversity in blue decks OF COURSE led to the only replacement (which was bolstered by Tezzeret and Time Vault, yes) being 'dominant'.  Fundamentally the percentage of big-{U} stays roughly equal over time, and if it wasn't Thirst it would have been something else.

Steve said during the Flash discussion that probably only Merchant Scroll, and Brainstorm if it remained a problem without Scroll, should have been restricted instead of Gush, Flash, Ponder, Brainstorm, and Merchant Scroll.  If just Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm had been restricted the 'historic levels of format dominance' of Thirst would not have occurred.  This is similar to the repeated and continued banfest that is Modern.  They banned way too many cards, then the strategies those cards would have held in check were strong enough to warrant banning (in their estimation), and so on, and so forth.  Without the full slate of June 2008 restrictions Thirst would have been held in check.

At this point, besides changes from new printings, we have Gush back.  You two seemed confident that Flash could exist in the format if people were willing to accept some small % of turn-1 wins.  We have Preordain as a pseudo-Ponder.  Possibly, with Flash, the landscape could be one where Thirst isn't dominant.

Flash
I'm comfortable with the small % of turn-1 wins that Flash would cause.  Depends on whether others are there yet.

Balance
Seems like a safe unrestrict to me.  It's a very powerful card... that wouldn't overwhelm Vintage.  The worst thing it does is kill lands in my opinion, but to do so it has to take the hit of not playing many lands itself.  Compared to recurring Waste/Strip with Crucible it has a greater drawback.  And the discard mode doesn't concern me much: Dredge doesn't care, flashback/Snapcaster don't care, etc.

Library of Alexandra
Like Kevin said, overdue.  I don't think this would ever happen, FYI, because it's price would skyrocket.  It wouldn't just jump to $400 each, but far beyond that I'd say.

Demonic Consultation
I think this would be fine.  It's similar to Flash in that it would create super-fast combo kills, but I think we should be more lenient in that direction.  It's not my priority.

Fastbond
I think Fastbond does very dangerous things aside from just Gush.  I think draw-sevens and Planeswalkers are hugely powerful if lands become moxen.  I liken this to Workshops' mana denial in a way.  Workshops wants to have access to mana while you suffer under spheres, whereas Fastbond ignores the opponent's mana (outside of Waste-Crucible) and just focuses on one's own acceleration.  No way.

Windfall
Like Fastbond, on the play you get the first shot at playing lands/acceleration and then a 'free' refill.  No.

Channel
Starting to repeat myself.  No.

Gifts Ungiven
I'd like to see it.  A TON of things have been printed that both positively/negatively interact with Gifts.

Yawgmoth's Bargain
I think this could possiblybe unrestricted, but it would be lowest on my list.

Regrowth
I don't think the chain-regrowth Time Walk/Ancestral opening should be in Vintage.  It could also step into the Merchant Scroll role in Gush, provided a first Gush has been found.  Thinking about Regrowth, I wonder whether Treasured Find is playable in Vintage?  In particular, provided you have Underground Sea and Tropical Island, Treasured Find-Gush is the same cost-neutral draw engine.  Not being able to recur Treasured Find itself, does that matter?  Is   that much harder to generate than   ?

Ponder
I would unrestrict it, because I don't think Ponder is broken, and I don't think there's much danger in 1x Brainstorm, 4x Preordain, 1x Ponder, ?x Gitaxian Probe versus 1x BS, 4x Pre, 4x Ponder.

Trinisphere
Trinisphere is an easier turn-1 win than Flash, and it's too going too far in my opinion.  I think it also makes for more misery: games where neither player can play anything (if Workshop gets wasted), or one player doesn't play spells.  At least with Flash the game actually ends... the death is quick, not drawn out.


Conclusion
I think I would unrestrict cards in this order, provided at each step the Metagame was healthy:
1. Balance
2. Library of Alexandria
3. Ponder
4. Gifts Ungiven
5. Flash
6. Thirst for Knowledge
7. Demonic Consultation
8. Yawgmoth's Bargain

Also, note that the time period for the above schedule would be LONG.  I would want at least six months between unrestrictions, and at this point I wouldn't do anything before September 2013.  Of course, despite this tentative plan, an actual effort to unrestrict a group of cards would have to be reactive to new printings and metagame shifts.  If something gets printed that Storm combo plays as a four-of and vaults Storm to top-deck status, it's probably not a good time to also give storm Demonic Consultation, etc.

[brianpk80]

Nice podcast.

IMO, the safest unrestriction is Gifts Ungiven.  Even at the peak of its popularity, Gifts was very easy to hate out because it crutched too much on the graveyard.  Without Brainstorm & Merchant Scroll in this era of Dredge-boards, Workshops, Flusterstorm, and uncounterable Fish creatures like Thalia & Ethersworn Canonist, I don't see a Gifts engine being very attractive and even if it were, it would be very easy to keep in check.  

Regrowth can also come off the list.  It's only particularly potent w. Gush if Fastbond is already in play and to be frank, at that point it starts to look suspiciously win-more.  

Balance is an intrinsically broken spell like Tinker that generates a grossly disproportionate result to the investment.  When used properly, it's Armageddon, Wrath of God, and Mind Twist for .  The facts that the format can "adapt" or that "answers" exist aren't very convincing because that line of reasoning could be used to justify anything, whether it be 4 Black Loti, 4 Time Walks, or 4 Ancestral Recalls.  Many cards are restricted purely for power reasons even though they can be countered/answered.  Balance is one of them.  

Library of Alexandria should give pause because if it turned out to be overpowered and dominant, it would be hard to put the genie back in the bottle with a re-restriction due to the secondary market.  If even a few players acquired playsets for $1,800 and then saw the value plummet, that's likely to generate the kind of disgust that encourages selling out and quitting.  

Flash doesn't need to be unrestricted.  It doesn't make sense to resurrect cards that emphasize the worst aspects of the format for the sake of diversity.  Diversity is not always good.  If a restaurant puts a tray of ostrich feces in a breakfast buffet, that buffet by definition has a more diverse array of options but one can hardly say it makes a better buffet.  

I'd much rather see more viable answers printed to Workshop than a restriction, but since Wizards doesn't seem to be getting the hint, I'd be fine with LSG getting the axe.  I agree it's a better candidate than Chalice of the Void.  

The worst and most embarrassing parts of Vintage are the first turn Workshop lockout, Key+Vault, and Tinker, for all the reasons we know well; they're "coin-flippy," negate meaningful choice, and reward luck rather than skill.  I'm sympathetic to that fact that Time Vault has had its market value increase after it was unnecessarily errata-ed for the gazillionth time into what it is now so I wouldn't want to screw over anyone who owns one now by banning it.  Tinker on the other hand has only gotten worse w. Blightsteel.  There was a lot of support for banning it even before then.  If there's a movement to disinfect the format of the no-brainer LSG lockouts, it would be an opportune time to balance that by axing Tinker in the other pillar.  I'm confident the net result would be a more enjoyable skill intensive format for all players in all pillars.    

[Smmenen]

Balance is an intrinsically broken spell

Even if that's true, and I don't think it is -- we don't restrict or ban cards for some intrinsic quality, but because of their measurable effects.   Tinker wasn't nearly as broken in 2003 as it is today.  It wasn't until Darksteel Colossus was printed that people really started using Tinker accross the entire format.  

When used properly,

Yes, but that use may be nearly impossible or highly difficult to achieve.  We can't stop the analysis by saying "When used properly..."  Rather, that's the beginning of hte conversation. 

[brianpk80]

Even if that's true, and I don't think it is -- we don't restrict or ban cards for some intrinsic quality, but because of their measurable effects.  

Is this a distinction without a difference?  IE Black Lotus isn't restricted because it produces 3 mana of any color for ; it's restricted because it lets you cast spells costing up to 3 mana more than you otherwise would have had. 

Tinker wasn't nearly as broken in 2003 as it is today.  It wasn't until Darksteel Colossus was printed that people really started using Tinker accross the entire format.  

So what do you think of restricting LSG and banning Tinker simultaneously? 

[Smmenen]

Even if that's true, and I don't think it is -- we don't restrict or ban cards for some intrinsic quality, but because of their measurable effects.  

Is this a distinction without a difference?  IE Black Lotus isn't restricted because it produces 3 mana of any color for ; it's restricted because it lets you cast spells costing up to 3 mana more than you otherwise would have had. 

No, it's a meaningful distinction because it means the the argument that says "X card is inherently broken or overpowered" is insufficient to justify restriction.  Thereby, we can actually have a meaningful discussion and debate without trying to determine the semantic meaning of those vague and ambiguous terms.

Tinker wasn't nearly as broken in 2003 as it is today.  It wasn't until Darksteel Colossus was printed that people really started using Tinker accross the entire format.  

So what do you think of restricting LSG and banning Tinker simultaneously? 

As a general matter, I don't like changing more than one card on the B&R list at a time. 

[brianpk80]

No, it's a meaningful distinction because it means the the argument that says "X card is inherently broken or overpowered" is insufficient to justify restriction. 

It just seem to require an arbitrary distinction between negativity attributed to a broken card's inherent brokenness versus negativity attributed to a broken card's "measurable effects." What, for instance, would be the measurable effects of unrestricting Mox Sapphire that weren't just as easily attributable to it being inherently broken?

As a general matter, I don't like changing more than one card on the B&R list at a time. 

In succession then? 

[Smmenen]

No, it's a meaningful distinction because it means the the argument that says "X card is inherently broken or overpowered" is insufficient to justify restriction. 

It just seem to require an arbitrary distinction between negativity attributed to a broken card's inherent brokenness versus negativity attributed to a broken card's "measurable effects." What, for instance, would be the measurable effects of unrestricting Mox Sapphire that weren't just as easily attributable to it being inherently broken?

It's the opposite of arbitrary.   It's empirical.  Calling something "intrinsically broken" versus measuring the metagame effects in term either % of turn 1 kills or % of Top 8s defines the difference between arbitrary versus empirical. 

Empiricism allows for decisions not based on semantic claims, like "brokeness" or "power", and their inherent ambiguity 

To any person who claims X is inherently broken, anyone else can claim the exact opposite, and there is no good, widely accepted way to distinguish between the validity of those claims without resorting to subjective opinion.   That makes it a dead end for discussion.   

on the other hand, if someone says: Flash or Trinisphere contribute to X% of turn one wins or Thirst contributes to X % of Top 8s.  You can't simply make the opposite claim without showing contrary data. 

As a general matter, I don't like changing more than one card on the B&R list at a time. 

In succession then? 

[/quote]

I also don't support banning in Vintage for reasons other than ante or dexterity.  (I would unban shahrazad). 

[BC]

I support the restriction of Lodestone Golem.  And for anyone who doesn't know, I am primarily a Workshop player.  I think it would make the format a lot more balanced.  I'm surprised it has lasted this long without restriction.

[brianpk80]

It just seem to require an arbitrary distinction between negativity attributed to a broken card's inherent brokenness versus negativity attributed to a broken card's "measurable effects." What, for instance, would be the measurable effects of unrestricting Mox Sapphire that weren't just as easily attributable to it being inherently broken?

It's the opposite of arbitrary.   It's empirical.  Calling something "intrinsically broken" versus measuring the metagame effects in term either % of turn 1 kills or % of Top 8s defines the difference between arbitrary versus empirical. 

The point I was making here is that if one demonstrates 4x Mox Sapphire decks occupying 95% of T8's, that effect is directly related to the fact that it's a CC artifact that generates .  It would be reasonable to conclude we would not see the same results if Mox Sapphire cost .  The power level of a card cannot be surgically separated from the "effects" it causes.

Empiricism allows for decisions not based on semantic claims, like "brokeness" or "power", and their inherent ambiguity 

Broken is colloquial for overpowered relative to the expected value an investment should generate.  It's mathematical.  For instance, "Draw 3 cards" is "overpowered" at but underpowered at .

To any person who claims X is inherently broken, anyone else can claim the exact opposite, and there is no good, widely accepted way to distinguish between the validity of those claims without resorting to subjective opinion.   That makes it a dead end for discussion.   

The exact opposite can't be plausibly claimed though because a card's power level, while not always simplistic or free of context, does has an objective quantifiable basis. 

on the other hand, if someone says: Flash or Trinisphere contribute to X% of turn one wins or Thirst contributes to X % of Top 8s.  You can't simply make the opposite claim without showing contrary data. 

Saying it "contributes" is potentially thorny as well though, since some percentage of those turn one wins can be attributed to Mishra's Workshop, Ancient Tomb, presence or lack of FoW/Mindbreak Trap/Pacts, etc.  Thus alternative claims could be made without showing contrary data.  I understand your intent here but it's dishonest to say that this approach has a more empirical basis than one that considers a card's power level as a factor. 

Additionally, when you start discussing restriction due to dominance of a card like Thirst for Knowledge, it requires that we put Force of Will in a magical category based on pure sentiment that immunizes it from potential restriction even though it demonstrates greater dominance in results.  When it reaches that point, the whole exercise can't maintain a pretense of scientific objectivity and the credibility is lost. 

I also don't support banning in Vintage for reasons other than ante or dexterity.  (I would unban shahrazad). 

I don't share that view.  As far as I'm concerned, the door has already been opened by the power-level bannings of Mind Twist, Channel, and Time Vault, the cherry-picking of cards for errata or failure to harmonize with modern rules that accomplishes the same card neutering objective, and capricious bans like Shahrazad.  We have different ideal objectives, yours being "diversity" and prioritizing short B&R lists while my ideal objective would be to increase the strategic depth and enjoyment of the game we play on weekends.  In my view, diversity isn't necessarily good (classic example being 7 favors of feces v. 2 flavors of ice cream) and rewarding skill + promoting interactivity is more important than focusing on whether 0.2384% or 0.2386% or 0.2381% of the game's ~12,000+ distinct cards are banned/restricted.     

[Smmenen]

It just seem to require an arbitrary distinction between negativity attributed to a broken card's inherent brokenness versus negativity attributed to a broken card's "measurable effects." What, for instance, would be the measurable effects of unrestricting Mox Sapphire that weren't just as easily attributable to it being inherently broken?

It's the opposite of arbitrary.   It's empirical.  Calling something "intrinsically broken" versus measuring the metagame effects in term either % of turn 1 kills or % of Top 8s defines the difference between arbitrary versus empirical.  

The point I was making here is that if one demonstrates 4x Mox Sapphire decks occupying 95% of T8's, that effect is directly related to the fact that it's a CC artifact that generates .  

Sure, it is - but it's related to many other things as well.   I've written about this extensively elsewhere (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19114_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Eternal_Issues.html -- Scroll down to "Myth of Power" ) , but it is not the characteristics of a card that matter, but how those characteristics interface with the characteristics of other relevant cards in the system - cards you run and cards you will face.   The power of cards is not -- however counter-intuitive this might seem -- intrinsic.  I will not go into this now, since I've covered it so well elsewhere.  

Your objectivist, acontextual analysis is fairly recognizable in Magic history -- particularly 1994-1998, but has been fairly well discredited in modern Magic.  There is a reason people no longer talk that way in Wizards or in high level Magic theory.  Thank god for that. 

It would be reasonable to conclude we would not see the same results if Mox Sapphire cost .  The power level of a card cannot be surgically separated from the "effects" it causes.

No - but the power doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is the effects.  The effects can be directly measured.   Power is utterly relative and inherently imprecise.  Black Lotus wouldn't be that great if basic lands tapped for 5 mana, and casting costs started at 8.  

I try to avoid using the term "power" in Magic because it is so contested and contestable.  That's why I look at things that can be quantified and clarified: % of Top 8s, etc.  

Empiricism allows for decisions not based on semantic claims, like "brokeness" or "power", and their inherent ambiguity  

Broken is colloquial for overpowered relative to the expected value an investment should generate.  It's mathematical.  For instance, "Draw 3 cards" is "overpowered" at but underpowered at .

That's not power.  It's only overpowered in a context, which takes account of other spells.   That's why its inherently imprecise and contested.   It's a terrible term to use in this context.  Again, old debate.

To any person who claims X is inherently broken, anyone else can claim the exact opposite, and there is no good, widely accepted way to distinguish between the validity of those claims without resorting to subjective opinion.   That makes it a dead end for discussion.  

The exact opposite can't be plausibly claimed though because a card's power level, while not always simplistic or free of context, does has an objective quantifiable basis.  

Disagree with the broader point: Card power so deeply embedded in context that it's objective, quantifiable basis is meaningless without that context.  Which, in my view, makes it meaningless to talk about power.  

on the other hand, if someone says: Flash or Trinisphere contribute to X% of turn one wins or Thirst contributes to X % of Top 8s.  You can't simply make the opposite claim without showing contrary data.  

Saying it "contributes" is potentially thorny as well though, since some percentage of those turn one wins can be attributed to Mishra's Workshop, Ancient Tomb, presence or lack of FoW/Mindbreak Trap/Pacts, etc.  Thus alternative claims could be made without showing contrary data.  I understand your intent here but it's dishonest to say that this approach has a more empirical basis than one that considers a card's power level as a factor.

Agree to disagree here.  

Additionally, when you start discussing restriction due to dominance of a card like Thirst for Knowledge, it requires that we put Force of Will in a magical category based on pure sentiment that immunizes it from potential restriction even though it demonstrates greater dominance in results.  When it reaches that point, the whole exercise can't maintain a pretense of scientific objectivity and the credibility is lost.  

What about basic Island, Polluted Delta or Underground Sea?  Same thing.  It's not pure sentiment that insulates Force.  

I also don't support banning in Vintage for reasons other than ante or dexterity.  (I would unban shahrazad).  

I don't share that view.  As far as I'm concerned, the door has already been opened by the power-level bannings of Mind Twist, Channel, and Time Vault, the cherry-picking of cards for errata or failure to harmonize with modern rules that accomplishes the same card neutering objective, and capricious bans like Shahrazad.  We have different ideal objectives, yours being "diversity" and prioritizing short B&R lists while my ideal objective would be to increase the strategic depth and enjoyment of the game we play on weekends.  In my view, diversity isn't necessarily good (classic example being 7 favors of feces v. 2 flavors of ice cream) and rewarding skill + promoting interactivity is more important than focusing on whether 0.2384% or 0.2386% or 0.2381% of the game's ~12,000+ distinct cards are banned/restricted.    

What you call feces I might call ice cream.  That's the problem.  There is no neutral or objective way to distinguish between feces and ice cream in terms of Magic decks.  Listen to our podcast, and you will see.  I'm fine with Flash.  Others might not be.  

I would note that the referencing in our podcast in the Balance discussion that alluded to older players targeted players like you Brian.  Kevin called it "reverse nostalgia."  

I'm only opposed to the unrestriction of Balance because I don't want to wipe out creature decks entirely, but I think the tactic would be a safe unrestriction in modern Vintage.  It would actually be quite interesting.  And I would add a note that I played when you could play 4 Balance.  I just think it's too difficult to implement a great Balance deck in Vintage.  That deck would be 5c Stax, and I think it would be fair.  I would love to see a 5c Stax deck with 4 Balance.  

[brianpk80]

Sure, it is - but it's related to many other things as well.   I've written about this extensively elsewhere (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19114_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Eternal_Issues.html -- Scroll down to "Myth of Power" ) , but it is not the characteristics of a card that matter, but how those characteristics interface with the characteristics of other relevant cards in the system - cards you run and cards you will face.   The power of cards is not -- however counter-intuitive this might seem -- intrinsic.

The results produced by those characteristics interfacing with other cards in the system would not be the same without the characteristics of a given single card.  It's a multivariable result but the characteristics of each individual variable have an obvious relevance that doesn't need to be cavalierly dismissed.   

Your objectivist, acontextual analysis is fairly recognizable in Magic history -- particularly 1994-1998, but has been fairly well discredited in modern Magic.  There is a reason people no longer talk that way in Wizards or in high level Magic theory.  Thank god for that. 

Ooooh, snap.  Are these the same people who didn't understand why Abrupt Decay gets played in Vintage but Whispering Madness does not? 

No - but the power doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is the effects.  The effects can be directly measured.   Power is utterly relative and inherently imprecise.  

Power is relative but not unquantifiable.  Magic is a math-based system. 

What about basic Island, Polluted Delta or Underground Sea?  Same thing.  It's not pure sentiment that insulates Force.  

But it is and it's also sentiment that excuses fetchlands, duals, and even basic lands.  It demonstrates that using statistical "dominance" as a metric for restriction is a suspect process because the amount of asterisks required to excuse lands, Forces, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Confidant and so forth makes the process an arbitrary sham with a host of capricious exceptions rather than a straightforward application of an algorithm. 

What you call feces I might call ice cream.  That's the problem.  

That doesn't refute the notion that diversity is not always desirable. 

I would note that the referencing in our podcast in the Balance discussion that alluded to older players targeted players like you Brian.  Kevin called it "reverse nostalgia."  

I heard that line, yes.  I wasn't bothered by it.  Is it your position that persons who have played Vintage for 20 years are uniquely incapable of understanding the format?   

[Smmenen]

Sure, it is - but it's related to many other things as well.   I've written about this extensively elsewhere (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19114_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Eternal_Issues.html -- Scroll down to "Myth of Power" ) , but it is not the characteristics of a card that matter, but how those characteristics interface with the characteristics of other relevant cards in the system - cards you run and cards you will face.   The power of cards is not -- however counter-intuitive this might seem -- intrinsic.

The results produced by those characteristics interfacing with other cards in the system would not be the same without the characteristics of a given single card.  It's a multivariable result but the characteristics of each individual variable have an obvious relevance that doesn't need to be cavalierly dismissed.   

Cards only produce effects in a context.  Those effects can only be measured in that context.  Necro's power is not stable accross formats.   We can see this by observing its behavior from 1995-2013.   The card is the same, but it's power level changes dramatically over time.   From 1995-1999, Necro was very different than when Donate was printed.  A card's objective characteristics are basically irrellevant to the question of power, which is only measurable in a relative context. 

Again, read my article on the myth of power.

Your objectivist, acontextual analysis is fairly recognizable in Magic history -- particularly 1994-1998, but has been fairly well discredited in modern Magic.  There is a reason people no longer talk that way in Wizards or in high level Magic theory.  Thank god for that. 

Ooooh, snap.  Are these the same people who didn't understand why Abrupt Decay gets played in Vintage but Whispering Madness does not? 

Oooh, snap. You just dismissed what i said without refuting it.

No - but the power doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is the effects.  The effects can be directly measured.   Power is utterly relative and inherently imprecise.  

Power is relative but not unquantifiable.  Magic is a math-based system. 

Actually, Magic is a logic based system of logical connectives.  It's a series of statements that interface. 

What about basic Island, Polluted Delta or Underground Sea?  Same thing.  It's not pure sentiment that insulates Force.  

But it is and it's also sentiment that excuses fetchlands, duals, and even basic lands.  It demonstrates that using statistical "dominance" as a metric for restriction is a suspect process because the amount of asterisks required to excuse lands, Forces, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Confidant and so forth makes the process an arbitrary sham with a host of capricious exceptions rather than a straightforward application of an algorithm. 

No, it's not sentiment.  Sentiment doesn't prevent Polluted Delta from being banned.  Perception does. 

What you call feces I might call ice cream.  That's the problem.  

That doesn't refute the notion that diversity is not always desirable. 

Nor do you establish that point with your analogy.

I would note that the referencing in our podcast in the Balance discussion that alluded to older players targeted players like you Brian.  Kevin called it "reverse nostalgia."  

I heard that line, yes.  I wasn't bothered by it.  Is it your position that persons who have played Vintage for 20 years are uniquely incapable of understanding the format?   

No.  But it does suggest that players who came of age during the height of Balance may be less capable of objective analysis regarding it.

That (Erik Lauer specifically, is my gues) is why it took so long to get Land Tax unbanned in Legacy. 

[MaximumCDawg]

This whole argument is a little silly.  I'm not sure I understand what you're both disagreeing about.  Brain is correct in that certain cards, like Balance, clearly do more than is fair for their casting cost.  But Steve is right that this is not really why you ban cards; you have to see if the overpowered cards actually matter to the metagame before you ban them. 

Here's a great example.  What if they printed Supergoyf, a vanilla 10/10 for 1G.  Is that obviously overpowered?  You bet your sweet rear it is.  Would it break Vintage?  Honestly, who knows?  So, would it need to be banned?  Probably not, but you'd need to wait for RESULTS.

On the topic, Brian, you mentioned Mind Twist; isn't that unrestricted now?  And despite being "obviously" broken, it sees no play. 

[brianpk80]

Cards only produce effects in a context.  Those effects can only be measured in that context.  Necro's power is not stable accross formats.   We can see this by observing its behavior from 1995-2013.   The card is the same, but it's power level changes dramatically over time.   From 1995-1999, Necro was very different than when Donate was printed.  A card's objective characteristics are basically irrellevant to the question of power, which is only measurable in a relative context.  

I never said the context didn't matter; I already said that a card's power level was not "simplistic or free of context."  As I see it, both a disputed card's text/casting cost (aka power level) and its context are relevant factors and you insist only the interplay between the card and its context matters, but somehow the card itself does not.  I don't see the value in that distinction.  

Your objectivist, acontextual analysis is fairly recognizable in Magic history -- particularly 1994-1998, but has been fairly well discredited in modern Magic.  There is a reason people no longer talk that way in Wizards or in high level Magic theory.  Thank god for that.  

Ooooh, snap.  Are these the same people who didn't understand why Abrupt Decay gets played in Vintage but Whispering Madness does not?  

Oooh, snap. You just dismissed what i said without refuting it.

You mischaracterized my position as acontextual, dismissed it as passe', and then gloated that it's unpopular among some unidentified in-crowd of "high level Magic theor[ists]."  What exactly should I refute here?  

Actually, Magic is a logic based system of logical connectives.  It's a series of statements that interface.  

Logic is math.

No, it's not sentiment.  Sentiment doesn't prevent Polluted Delta from being banned.  Perception does.  

Honestly, how can one claim on one hand that power-level is too nebulous and subjective to quantify while appealing on the other to a conclusory pronouncement on perception v. sentiment?  Pot, meet kettle.  

Nor do you establish that point with your analogy.

It was illustrated earlier by the ostrich droppings in the breakfast buffet.  

No.  But it does suggest that players who came of age during the height of Balance may be less capable of objective analysis regarding it.

By the time I started playing competitively, Balance was already restricted so this doesn't apply here.  Insinuations of prejudice could theoretically be used to disqualify anyone who's played or played against a particular archetype from expressing a view and the end result would be that only persons who have never played a game of Vintage could serve as authorities on the matter, so... let's keep that Pandora's Box closed.  

But Steve is right that this is not really why you ban cards; you have to see if the overpowered cards actually matter to the metagame before you ban them.  

He is right about that.  What I don't agree with is that this necessitates refraining from even considering an individual card's power level.

On the topic, Brian, you mentioned Mind Twist; isn't that unrestricted now?  And despite being "obviously" broken, it sees no play.  

It's not a Human.  

[Stormanimagus]

Steve, I think the point that Brian is trying to make is that, while there are "logical connectives" that form the basis of magic there are waaaay too many of them for any human to process the interactive power of single card in all possible contexts so as humans we come up with "rules of thumb." These rules of thumb must constantly be under scrutiny and we must be vigilante in our evaluation of cards lest we happen upon unwanted broken dominance of a single card/strategy. I'm pretty sure this is the way that the designers at R & D design cards and it should be the basis on which we players petition for bannings/unbannings. Let me give you a hypothetical example.

If we assume that   at instant speed to draw 3 cards is waay too broken in the Vintage context (and it has appeared to be such since the card Ancestral Recall's printing) and that it's advantage to cost ratio is the fundamental reason for its being restricted then can we assume that   for the same effect is now safe? Oh wait, we already have a card that is restricted that draws 3 AND makes you discard 1 (or 2 if no artifacts) for   . Now the comparison is not 1-to-1 because Thirst For Knowledge has an added potential bonus of being able to discard an artifact that you WANT to hit the yard, but I think common sense gameplay scenarios would lead one to realize that thirst was often just used for the Card Advantage of "draw 3 discard a mox you don't need on your opponent's end step." Given the relation to a known quantity I think we could safely say that a card that reads  " Instant Draw 3 cards" is too broken to see print in Vintage. At sorcery speed? Well that's a whole nother ballgame. Then we have to compare our new theoretical card to a card like Divination. R & D would have to think long and hard before printing anything that is strictly better than something else.

Now, I want to illustrate to you how silly your argument for a totally comprehensive "logical connectives" approach to analyzing magic is. Will there be corner cases where drawing 2 cards vs. drawing 3 cards is better? Sure, try having 2 cards left in your library and a knowing that 1 of those cards is Yawgmoth's Will. Then I'd rather draw 2 cards off a spell in my hand than 3. Does this mean that the draw 3 spell is NOT more powerful than the draw 2 spell? Hell no. Just use common sense. Brian is absolutely right in saying there is math in Vintage.

"Rules of thumb" in design are how R & D makes the cards of the game you love. Cards are not designed by machines (thank god), they are designed by humans. The flavor of the cards is designed by humans. Mistakes in card power and design are attributable to human error, but I'd rather have those mistakes and a flavorful game than a game that starts to look more like "Go" or "Chess." I think this is a major reason that players like Brian and myself can assume that Abrupt Decay will be playable in Vintage without all sorts of empirical data. It is the difference between those of us who look at cards through a design perspective and those who look at cards through a player's perspective. I see costs for effects and applications of those effects and say "why not?" You seem to look at credible/proven interactions within the format as it is now and ask the question "why?" If the card doesn't fit a context you see you seem to dismiss it too easily. I remember you and Kevin railing against Deathrite Shaman when it first came out as utterly useless while simultaneous saying there was promise in the new overload artifact kill spell. This demonstrated to me that you are just as in the dark (perhaps more) than the rest of us on design and that you really don't have the holy grail knowledge concerning "playable" vs. "unplayable."

At the end of the day Stephen, I think you need to stop trying to prove your claims to be the be all end all final truth of Vintage and simply seek out a clear and communicable way to describe the various interactions of the format to other players. You get lost in these logical arguments so deeply sometimes that I think you miss the forest for the trees. Judging power and playability in Vintage requires vigilance and constant updating, but it really isn't any more complicated than doing a little research on card interaction and cost/benefit analysis that doesn't change all that much over time.

-Storm

[MaximumCDawg]

Logic is math.

No, math is logic.    

And speaking of which, I'm still seeing alot of Walls of Text trying to precisely and logically analyze things that are really exceptionally simple: Yes, we can gauge if a card is likely too powerful from eyeballing it, but no, we can't justify banning it without empirical evidence that it's actually a problem in the metagame.*  What else really needs to be discussed on that topic?

* = Errata should work the same way, I think.  This is why we need to remove errata from Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, Soldevi Excavations, Heart of Yavimaya, etc. and see if they're a problem rather than just eyeballing them and assuming they would be.  Look'n at you here, Steve!

[Smmenen]

This whole argument is a little silly.

I agree.  I hate discussing power.   I try to avoid the topic, but it creeps in like an ugly mold, into these conversations all the time.  That's why I wrote my essay on "The Myth of Power."  

 I'm not sure I understand what you're both disagreeing about.

It's a matter of emphasis, I think.   While both card and context matter, to me, context is more important, while Brian's focus is more on the card itself -- as if cards have some kind of intrinsic power.  I think experience refutes that.   Card power level changes accross contexts and time.  

Necropotence is a fantastic example, but far from the only one.  Necro, at first, was just about pumping out dudes or hand/land disruption.  As such, it was fair.  You could run board sweepers and keep up with its card advantage.  It wasn't until good combo finishers (aside from Mirror Universe) were printed that Necro become a problem.  It wasn't until Donate was printed that you could Illusions/Donate.  That's why Necro was restricted in 2000.  Then, when Tendrils was printed, Necro became even more insane.  

The card Necropotence hasn't changed, but it's power level has MARKEDLY and DRAMATICALLY changed based upon its context.  That's why, to me, context is far more important than any intinsic qualities.  That is not to deny the importance of the stats of a card (it's casting cost, etc), but, if I sound hyperbolic, it's to dramatize the importance of contextual qualities which are immediately overlooked in the 'methodological individualist' frame of card power analysis.  

Lots of cards illustrate this idea.  Timetwister's power trajectory went on the opposite direction.  It used to be on the same power level, if not considered worse, than Ancestral or Time Walk because of its recursive capabilities.  In 1994/95, it would not be crazy to say that Timetwister was the best of the power blue.   Library's power is very context sensitive.   Ditto Bazaar, and Black Vise.  Black Vise was dominant in Type II, and is still banned in Legacy, but is unplayable in Vintage.  And on and on.

The truth is that power is a function of all inputs.  I hate the term because it conceals the importance of context by drawing attention to the characteristics of the card itself.  I also question its utility.  Few cards are directly comparable in terms of efficiency/effect.  Ancestral Recall/Concentrate or Time Walk/Time Warp is the 1% exception to the 99% rule.  

 Brain is correct in that certain cards, like Balance, clearly do more than is fair for their casting cost.

What is "fair"?  This only underscores my concerns with this kind of analysis.  Fair according to what standard?  The only available standard is context -- metagames/card pools/ etc.  How do we neutrally select such a context?  

I'll say this: Balance potentially does alot for a little bit of mana.  But it's conditionality is not trivial either.  While the card used to be hyped as a Mindtwist/wrath of god/armagedden, it was rarely all those things or those things identically.   Who is to say that Balance is overpowered?  Not me, and I would contest any claims as inherently problematic, open to critique, and difficult to support.  

 But Steve is right that this is not really why you ban cards; you have to see if the overpowered cards actually matter to the metagame before you ban them.  

Illustrating the main reason that talking about "power" is basically a non-sequitur, irrelelvant, and should'nt be part of hte conversation.  

On the topic, Brian, you mentioned Mind Twist; isn't that unrestricted now?  And despite being "obviously" broken, it sees no play.  

Yup.  It's not the only one.  There are lots of cards like that in the history of the game.  

Cards only produce effects in a context.  Those effects can only be measured in that context.  Necro's power is not stable accross formats.   We can see this by observing its behavior from 1995-2013.   The card is the same, but it's power level changes dramatically over time.   From 1995-1999, Necro was very different than when Donate was printed.  A card's objective characteristics are basically irrellevant to the question of power, which is only measurable in a relative context.  

I never said the context didn't matter; I already said that a card's power level was not "simplistic or free of context."  As I see it, both a disputed card's text/casting cost (aka power level) and its context are relevant factors and you insist only the interplay between the card and its context matters, but somehow the card itself does not.  I don't see the value in that distinction.  

I dispute that a card's characteristics outside of a context are relevant.   It is the context which gives those chracteristics meaning.  See my response above about the relative importance of context in ascertaining power.  

Actually, Magic is a logic based system of logical connectives.  It's a series of statements that interface.  

Logic is math.

Math is Logic.

No, it's not sentiment.  Sentiment doesn't prevent Polluted Delta from being banned.  Perception does.  

Honestly, how can one claim on one hand that power-level is too nebulous and subjective to quantify while appealing on the other to a conclusory pronouncement on perception v. sentiment?  Pot, meet kettle.  

It's not a conclusory observation.  It's an answer to your criticism that what insulates certain cards from B&R is simply sentiment.   One can perceive that Polluted Delta is not a problematic card in terms of metagame diversity, etc, doesn't create a dominant deck, etc.

Nor do you establish that point with your analogy.

It was illustrated earlier by the ostrich droppings in the breakfast buffet.  

Disagree.  Again, how is anyone, in a neutral way, to distinguish between "good" and "bad" decks.   I can't, and I don't see a neutral way to do so.  Hence, why I simply prefer diversity.  It's measurable, and neutral.

No.  But it does suggest that players who came of age during the height of Balance may be less capable of objective analysis regarding it.

By the time I started playing competitively, Balance was already restricted so this doesn't apply here.  Insinuations of prejudice could theoretically be used to disqualify anyone who's played or played against a particular archetype from expressing a view and the end result would be that only persons who have never played a game of Vintage could serve as authorities on the matter, so... let's keep that Pandora's Box closed.  

I'm just saying...

He is right about that.  What I don't agree with is that this necessitates refraining from even considering an individual card's power level.

How can you do that if you can't even tell me what a card's inherent power level is?  Again, I'm saying that that's not knowable outside of a context.

But Steve is right that this is not really why you ban cards; you have to see if the overpowered cards actually matter to the metagame before you ban them.  

Steve, I think the point that Brian is trying to make is that, while there are "logical connectives" that form the basis of magic there are waaaay too many of them for any human to process the interactive power of single card in all possible contexts so as humans we come up with "rules of thumb."

I'm all about heuristics and models for simplifiying information in a useful way.  I just don't think the term "power" is a good example of this.

Now, I want to illustrate to you how silly your argument for a totally comprehensive "logical connectives" approach to analyzing magic is. Will there be corner cases where drawing 2 cards vs. drawing 3 cards is better? Sure, try having 2 cards left in your library and a knowing that 1 of those cards is Yawgmoth's Will. Then I'd rather draw 2 cards off a spell in my hand than 3. Does this mean that the draw 3 spell is NOT more powerful than the draw 2 spell? Hell no. Just use common sense. Brian is absolutely right in saying there is math in Vintage.

I don't think you get what I mean when I say Magic is about logical connectives.  YOur mathmatical example has no relation to my point.  

Rule 104 sets out the parameters or conditions that must be met to win the game.   Not all of those are numerical.   They are a set of conditions that are described through logic.  If met, you win the game.  If not, you have not.  Therefore, everything you do in Magic is create logical connectives towards satisfying those conditions.  That's why Magic is a game of logical connectives.

"Rules of thumb" in design are how R & D makes the cards of the game you love.

A better way of putting is that they come up with models, and design appraoches.  

Cards are not designed by machines (thank god), they are designed by humans.

Maybe a computer program might design some sick as cards?  I don't see a problem with that.  Might be worth a run.

 The flavor of the cards is designed by humans. Mistakes in card power and design are attributable to human error, but I'd rather have those mistakes and a flavorful game than a game that starts to look more like "Go" or "Chess."

I play Magic like I play go and Chess, FYI

I think this is a major reason that players like Brian and myself can assume that Abrupt Decay will be playable in Vintage without all sorts of empirical data. It is the difference between those of us who look at cards through a design perspective and those who look at cards through a player's perspective. I see costs for effects and applications of those effects and say "why not?" You seem to look at credible/proven interactions within the format as it is now and ask the question "why?" If the card doesn't fit a context you see you seem to dismiss it too easily.

Then you haven't read my set reviews.  I pay particuliar attention to cards that I call novel or unique.  

I remember you and Kevin railing against Deathrite Shaman when it first came out as utterly useless while simultaneous saying there was promise in the new overload artifact kill spell.

Go back and listen to that segment.  I was praising Deathrite Shaman, and said it was playable.  It was Kevin who was dismissive.   This is not the first time you've attributed an incorrect position or opinion to me.

This demonstrated to me that you are just as in the dark (perhaps more) than the rest of us on design and that you really don't have the holy grail knowledge concerning "playable" vs. "unplayable."

Again, I said Deathright Shaman was playable, and even predicted it would appear in Top 8s.   If you want to find a card I was wrong about, it's not that one.  

At the end of the day Stephen, I think you need to stop trying to prove your claims to be the be all end all final truth of Vintage and simply seek out a clear and communicable way to describe the various interactions of the format to other players.

I'm fallible for sure, but of course i'm going to assert my views as if they are the truth.  If I didn't believe them, I wouldn't assert them.

[brianpk80]

I agree.  I hate discussing power.   I try to avoid the topic, but it creeps in like an ugly mold, into these conversations all the time.  That's why I wrote my essay on "The Myth of Power." 

I like your articles but with all respect I don't find "I already wrote about that" to be a very persuasive or conclusive form of response. 

While both card and context matter, to me, context is more important, while Brian's focus is more on the card itself -- as if cards have some kind of intrinsic power. 

It isn't though.  Context matters as much as the individual card and incidentally individual cards are what create  contexts.  I'm not saying one matters more than the other; I'm saying they both matter which contrasts your radical view that only context matters.  The approach you've proposed is absurd, ie, "Hey guys, today we're going to talk about restricting Lodestone Golem we cannot consider its ability text, power, toughness, casting cost, power or card type as factors in reaching any decision."

That is not to deny the importance of the stats of a card (it's casting cost, etc), but, if I sound hyperbolic, it's to dramatize the importance of contextual qualities which are immediately overlooked in the 'methodological individualist' frame of card power analysis. 

So now the truth comes out.  The position you advanced all day isn't what you actually believe; you were just being dramatic to prove a point.  Thanks for the retraction, CNN.   

The truth is that power is a function of all inputs.  I hate the term because it conceals the importance of context by drawing attention to the characteristics of the card itself.  I also question its utility.  Few cards are directly comparable in terms of efficiency/effect.  Ancestral Recall/Concentrate or Time Walk/Time Warp is the 1% exception to the 99% rule. 

I don't think that's true.  Scores of creatures lend themselves to objective comparisons; 2/2 First Strike for would be regarded as strictly inferior to 3/3 First Strike for even though corner cases may exist where the former is more advantageous (Meekstone).  But even those corner cases can be integrated into an analysis if need be.  The fact that certain elements of the game may be difficult to quantify does not mean they are impossible to quantify. 

While the card used to be hyped as a Mindtwist/wrath of god/armagedden, it was rarely all those things or those things identically. 

That was the objective of the Balance deck though, with its Zuran Orbs and Racks. 

 Who is to say that Balance is overpowered? 

And who's to say that Squire is underpowered?  Maybe it's mysteriously brilliant. 

Math is Logic.

Logic breaks down into binary which is math.   

It's not a conclusory observation.  It's an answer to your criticism that what insulates certain cards from B&R is simply sentiment.   One can perceive that Polluted Delta is not a problematic card in terms of metagame diversity, etc, doesn't create a dominant deck, etc.

If you're using dominance as your sole criterion and you don't restrict Polluted Delta, something else is polluting the analysis.  Perhaps that is the sentiment that we don't restrict non-utility lands in Vintage.  It could not be any plausible perception because if the numbers speak for themselves and some perceptions are at odds with that, those perceptions are objectively incorrect.   

Disagree.  Again, how is anyone, in a neutral way, to distinguish between "good" and "bad" decks.   I can't, and I don't see a neutral way to do so.  Hence, why I simply prefer diversity.  It's measurable, and neutral.

It's not necessary to identify any particular deck as "good" or "bad" because simply demonstrating the possibility that diversity can yield a net negative undercuts your assumption that diversity is beneficial in all cases. 

I'm just saying...

You're "just saying" that my opinion on Balance should be invalidated because I'm handicapped by having followed the game for 20 years, even though I never played against a Balance deck.  Well then... I hereby disqualify you from discussing Spore Frog. 

I'm fallible for sure, but of course i'm going to assert my views as if they are the truth.  If I didn't believe them, I wouldn't assert them.

You can't reconcile this with "if I sound hyperbolic, it's to dramatize the importance of contextual qualities." 

Noah's post contains a lot of insight and constructive wisdom.  It's healthier to admit a mistake in a recreational setting than to embark on a litany of increasingly absurd positions that only serves to demonstrate that there exists a preposterous chain of reasoning that might somehow abstractly excuse the initial error. 

[Smmenen]

I agree.  I hate discussing power.   I try to avoid the topic, but it creeps in like an ugly mold, into these conversations all the time.  That's why I wrote my essay on "The Myth of Power."

I like your articles but with all respect I don't find "I already wrote about that" to be a very persuasive or conclusive form of response.

Nor should it -- the content of the article should be.  I've written multiple articles directly on this point.

While both card and context matter, to me, context is more important, while Brian's focus is more on the card itself -- as if cards have some kind of intrinsic power.

It isn't though.  Context matters as much as the individual card and incidentally individual cards are what create  contexts.  I'm not saying one matters more than the other; I'm saying they both matter which contrasts your radical view that only context matters.  The approach you've proposed is absurd, ie, "Hey guys, today we're going to talk about restricting Lodestone Golem we cannot consider its ability text, power, toughness, casting cost, power or card type as factors in reaching any decision."

Actually, far from being absurd, I think that's exactly the right approach.

When consider whether to restrict Lodestone Golem, I don't think we need to consider most, if any, of its characteristics.  All we need to know is its effects -- either on locking players out of hte game on turn one or in terms of top 8%.

That is not to deny the importance of the stats of a card (it's casting cost, etc), but, if I sound hyperbolic, it's to dramatize the importance of contextual qualities which are immediately overlooked in the 'methodological individualist' frame of card power analysis.

So now the truth comes out.  The position you advanced all day isn't what you actually believe; you were just being dramatic to prove a point.  Thanks for the retraction, CNN.  

[/quote]

That's not a retraction -- it's entirely consistent with what I've said in this thread.  Context matters, and I am illustrating its importance as a counterpoint to the emphasis on a cards given characteristics.

The truth is that power is a function of all inputs.  I hate the term because it conceals the importance of context by drawing attention to the characteristics of the card itself.  I also question its utility.  Few cards are directly comparable in terms of efficiency/effect.  Ancestral Recall/Concentrate or Time Walk/Time Warp is the 1% exception to the 99% rule.

I don't think that's true.  Scores of creatures lend themselves to objective comparisons; 2/2 First Strike for would be regarded as strictly inferior to 3/3 First Strike for .

Yes, but that's the minority of cases.  A small minority of cards are strictly inferior to other cards.

even though corner cases may exist where the former is more advantageous (Meekstone).  But even those corner cases can be integrated into an analysis if need be.  The fact that certain elements of the game may be difficult to quantify does not mean they are impossible to quantify.

I think the challenge is much greater than you believe.

While the card used to be hyped as a Mindtwist/wrath of god/armagedden, it was rarely all those things or those things identically.

That was the objective of the Balance deck though, with its Zuran Orbs and Racks.

Yes, objective, but it very rarely does all three simultaneously: discarding ALL cards in hand, destroying ALL lands, and destroying ALL creatures.

Who is to say that Balance is overpowered?

And who's to say that Squire is underpowered?  Maybe it's mysteriously brilliant.

Squire is strictly inferior to other cards that exist.  Restricted, Balance sees almost no play in Vintage.  Maybe it's not that broken after all.

It's not a conclusory observation.  It's an answer to your criticism that what insulates certain cards from B&R is simply sentiment.   One can perceive that Polluted Delta is not a problematic card in terms of metagame diversity, etc, doesn't create a dominant deck, etc.

If you're using dominance as your sole criterion and you don't restrict Polluted Delta, something else is polluting the analysis.  Perhaps that is the sentiment that we don't restrict non-utility lands in Vintage.  It could not be any plausible perception because if the numbers speak for themselves and some perceptions are at odds with that, those perceptions are objectively incorrect.  

If you listen to the podcast, you'll notice three criteria that come up over and over again:

1) dominance (strategic diversity)
2) contributes to t1 kills
3) consolidates or reduces tactical diversity (this was the thrist discussion)

Polluted Delta doesn't doesn't do any of these.  

Disagree.  Again, how is anyone, in a neutral way, to distinguish between "good" and "bad" decks.   I can't, and I don't see a neutral way to do so.  Hence, why I simply prefer diversity.  It's measurable, and neutral.

It's not necessary to identify any particular deck as "good" or "bad" because simply demonstrating the possibility that diversity can yield a net negative undercuts your assumption that diversity is beneficial in all cases.

Yet, you can't make that demonstration....

I'm just saying...

You're "just saying" that my opinion on Balance should be invalidated because I'm handicapped by having followed the game for 20 years, even though I never played against a Balance deck.  Well then... I hereby disqualify you from discussing Spore Frog.

No, I'm saying it's possible that your experience of Balance may undercut it, not that it in fact does...

I'm fallible for sure, but of course i'm going to assert my views as if they are the truth.  If I didn't believe them, I wouldn't assert them.

You can't reconcile this with "if I sound hyperbolic, it's to dramatize the importance of contextual qualities."

Noah's post contains a lot of insight and constructive wisdom.  It's healthier to admit a mistake in a recreational setting than to embark on a litany of increasingly absurd positions that only serves to demonstrate that there exists a preposterous chain of reasoning that might somehow abstractly excuse the initial error.

What mistake am I supposed to admit?  Noah said I said Deathrite Shaman was unplayable.  Go listen to that segment and you'll hear me advocating for it while Kevin dismisses it. He's wrong.

Far from being increasingly absurd, my claims are remarkably consistent: context matters, and it matters alot more than any kind of "power" analysis, which is irrelevant to B&R list discussion, in my view, and worse, a rabbit hole.  

[MaximumCDawg]

Fascinating minutiae, gents.

You still sound like you're both quibbling about nothing.  Power is a question of degree and context.  Balance isn't "fair" because it has an effect out of proportion to its cost as measured by its comparators.  Look at Restore Balance, for example.  Or Armageddon / Mind Twist / Wrath of God.  It's not hard to see that they wouldn't print Balance as written today.  But, yes, context matters too.

Which brings me to the subject of what people really want to talk about - breaking Squire.  Turns out that there is no other 1/2 for 1W without abilities in all of Magic: The Gathering.  I think -- correct me if I am wrong -- that this is because the reserve list locked any other creature out of those stats.  So, there is something unique about squire.  So Squire breaks the format once they print something like, "You win the game if you control a 1/2 white creature with no abilities and mana cost 2."  Context becomes awfully relevant if this is the case!

Both of these ideas are hard to pin down, which is why Steve is correct to look for actual data in the metagame to see how cards actually shake out.  Vintage in particular can absorb cards that might wreck other formats.  This is also why he shouldn't have such a knee-jerk reaction to Lotus Vale, to hit a dead horse again.

[Smmenen]

Fascinating minutiae, gents.

You still sound like you're both quibbling about nothing.  Power is a question of degree and context.  Balance isn't "fair" because it has an effect out of proportion to its cost as measured by its comparators.  Look at Restore Balance, for example.  Or Armageddon / Mind Twist / Wrath of God.  It's not hard to see that they wouldn't print Balance as written today.  

But my point is that being efficient doesn't make something fair.  Fair is a very subjective concept, and I have no idea what that means.   

Which brings me to the subject of what people really want to talk about - breaking Squire.  Turns out that there is no other 1/2 for 1W without abilities in all of Magic: The Gathering.  I think -- correct me if I am wrong -- that this is because the reserve list locked any other creature out of those stats.  So, there is something unique about squire.  So Squire breaks the format once they print something like, "You win the game if you control a 1/2 white creature with no abilities and mana cost 2."  Context becomes awfully relevant if this is the case!

I actually already had a similar thought before you posted this.  Similar phenomena happen all the time.  Tinker before Mirrodin or Bazaar before Dredge.

[MaximumCDawg]

But my point is that being efficient doesn't make something fair.  Fair is a very subjective concept, and I have no idea what that means.  

Yeah, fair is totally subjective.  I'm using the term to mean something like "appropriately costed compared to similar cards" or something like that.  The definition is fuzzy.  Fortunately, it doesn't have to be precise, because tournament results and data should drive decision on the banned list, not these fuzzy impressions.  I think you agree on that.

[Smmenen]

But my point is that being efficient doesn't make something fair.  Fair is a very subjective concept, and I have no idea what that means.  

Yeah, fair is totally subjective.  I'm using the term to mean something like "appropriately costed compared to similar cards" or something like that.  The definition is fuzzy.  Fortunately, it doesn't have to be precise, because tournament results and data should drive decision on the banned list, not these fuzzy impressions.  I think you agree on that.

Indeed.

[CHA1N5]

"Power" or "Efficiency" or "Fairness" cannot exist without context.

Is the Queen of Spades Powerful?

Even if a Magic card could be quantified in terms of Power, that quantification would need to change for every deck, tournament and metagame that the card exists in.  We have tried to take the macro scope as much as possible on the topic in the show, while keeping in mind the micro anomalies that are relevant.

[evouga]

Very nice podcast, guys.

I've been arguing for years that Balance, Library or Alexandria, and Regrowth are perfectly safe to come off the restricted list. Great to hear these ideas get serious thought.

[Samoht]

Very nice podcast, guys.

I've been arguing for years that Balance, Library or Alexandria, and Regrowth are perfectly safe to come off the restricted list. Great to hear these ideas get serious thought.

Library is not safe to come off the ban list. Every blue deck would instantly have to have 4 in it (either MD or SB) or instantly lose to any deck that did. It's pretty absurd when you start stacking triggers of LoA's. People have almost never experienced it before, and thus don't appreciate how absurd it is. Even 1 LoA is almost a death knell in the Blue mirror now. Imagine multiples. By diluting the Blue decks it would just empower Shops/Dredge.

[vaughnbros]

Very nice podcast, guys.

I've been arguing for years that Balance, Library or Alexandria, and Regrowth are perfectly safe to come off the restricted list. Great to hear these ideas get serious thought.

Library is not safe to come off the ban list. Every blue deck would instantly have to have 4 in it (either MD or SB) or instantly lose to any deck that did. It's pretty absurd when you start stacking triggers of LoA's. People have almost never experienced it before, and thus don't appreciate how absurd it is. Even 1 LoA is almost a death knell in the Blue mirror now. Imagine multiples. By diluting the Blue decks it would just empower Shops/Dredge.

Yeh I couldn't agree more.  Double library openers is a big no thank you.

Why would we ever want to take balance off?  The card is pretty much just as good if not better than windfall, yet I'm sure none of you would even consider taking that off.

Regrowth would probably see no play even if its taken off the list.  I'm not entirely sure why its taken this long to unrestrict it.

[MTGFan]

Here's something to put power into context:

Squire 1W
1/2

Say that all other 1/1s cost 3 or more mana, and all other 2/2s cost 4 or more mana, and there were no creatures in the game with more than 2 power or 2 toughness. Squire would be the best creature in the format.

Now that's pretty drastic a set of requirements, but consider that in the old times, Serra Angel was considered the most efficient creature that a control deck could play. Right now, it's barely playable outside of casual. Power changed due to the relative change in the attributes of other creatures.

Now let's consider Balance.

Balance 1W

Each player chooses a number of lands he or she controls equal to the number of lands controlled by the player who controls the fewest, then sacrifices the rest. Players discard cards and sacrifice creatures the same way.

What if Wizards started to push the Planeswalker type really hard, even more so than they do now? What if all of the most powerful permanents in Vintage that you'd want to play were Planeswalkers, and nobody played creatures *at all*?

Coupled with the preponderance of artifact mana, and you have a card (Balance) that basically does nothing more than Hymn your opponent if you have less cards than him in your hand. I don't think that's even playable in that particular format that I described.

Power is always a completely relative concept.

[evouga]

vaughnbros, what does "[Balance] is pretty much just as good if not better than windfall" even mean? The two cards play very different roles and would be used by very different decks. I can't think of any meaningful way to directly compare them.

Library is not safe to come off the ban list. Every blue deck would instantly have to have 4 in it (either MD or SB) or instantly lose to any deck that did. It's pretty absurd when you start stacking triggers of LoA's. People have almost never experienced it before, and thus don't appreciate how absurd it is. Even 1 LoA is almost a death knell in the Blue mirror now. Imagine multiples. By diluting the Blue decks it would just empower Shops/Dredge.

So Library would play a role similar to that of Flusterstorm currently, which gives you a leg up in the mirror but is pretty terrible vs the rest of the field. With Library unrestricted, blue mages would have to choose between metagaming for the mirror, at the cost of extremely weakening their mana base (Stephen and Kevin discuss this well in the podcast), or metagaming for other archetypes instead. I don't see a problem with that, and I certainly don't buy that 4x Library would become an autoinclude.