[Free Podcast] So Many Insane Plays Podcast Episode 49: B/R List Update

[CHA1N5]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-49-october-2015-banned-restricted-list-update/

Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian dig through the extraordinary Banned and Restricted List update for Vintage: it’s justification, historical perspective, and potential impacts on the format.

0:01:00: Announcements
0:02:00: Banned and Restricted List History
0:08:50: Chalice of the Void
0:36:15: Dig Through Time
0:55:00: Thirst for Knowledge
1:21:45: Predictions
1:53:15: Listener Feedback
Total runtime: 1:59:37

[Dice_Box]

Do you feel Karn, Silver Golem gains any benefit with the unrestriction of Thirst? To speak of big mana decks and large Mox decks, does it look like he might see some small returns?

[Hrishi]

Loved this episode. A lot of the historical perspective which was brought up in relation to Thirst was particularly fascinating.

[CHA1N5]

Do you feel Karn, Silver Golem gains any benefit with the unrestriction of Thirst? To speak of big mana decks and large Mox decks, does it look like he might see some small returns?

Doubtful: 7 mana is still not something that a decks plans for in terms of castable spells that aren't Tinker or Oath targets.

[tribet]

Karn is 5cc + 1 to activate.

I think Dice_Box is suggesting that Karn may come back to fight hungry mana moxen decks (like good old Shaman).

I still think Rod is where you want to be for the moment.

[voltron00x]

Do you feel Karn, Silver Golem gains any benefit with the unrestriction of Thirst? To speak of big mana decks and large Mox decks, does it look like he might see some small returns?

I think the question here is more about, what type of Workshop deck becomes popular post-COTV's Restriction? Karn played an important dual role as a finisher and a remover of mana sources in the past, both in aggressive decks and very control-oriented lists, but certainly as a finisher has been supplanted by more modern options like Forgemaster (and to no small degree, Lodestone Golem); though this also has to do with less Moxen being played by many blue decks in the format and Shop decks being less likely to be packed with max Smokestacks, Crucibles, etc.

My initial thought process was that there are likely three cards to consider right off the top based on those that have seen play previously.

One is Null Rod, which is exceptional at shutting down fast mana proactively, but doesn't play well with Ravager, Forgemaster or Hangarback, among others.

Two is Karn, which is excellent for ending games quickly and for reactively eliminating fast mana sources.

Three is Ratchet Bomb/Powder Keg, which can sweep away fast mana and Mentor/Pyromancer/Bridge tokens, Oath of Druids, Delver of Secrets, etc.

It is worth noting of course that options two and three don't play nice with option one. I suspect that will become a key point of differentiation between Workshop archetypes. Null Rod will punish Moxen proactively much better than those other options, with the side benefit of potentially harming other Workshop decks that rely on activated Artifact abilities. Conversely aggressive Workshop decks could easily use something like Bomb to sweep away fast mana or other low-mana threats, relying on sideboard cards to protect against combo and Oath.

[CHA1N5]

Karn is 5cc + 1 to activate.

I think Dice_Box is suggesting that Karn may come back to fight hungry mana moxen decks (like good old Shaman).

I still think Rod is where you want to be for the moment.

Oops, it's pretty clear to me now that I saw Silver Golem and read Liberated!

Weak.

That said: I think Null Rod will be central to successful Workshop decks, for the foreseeable future.  Karn is not synergistic there and I doubt he'll see play.

[Prospero]

Karn is more playable post Chalice's restriction than it was before, but it still suffers from the issue of Dack Fayden.  I thought Karn was close to unplayable before, so this isn't saying much.  

With the restriction of Chalice of the Void, Dack became more powerful against Workshop decks, as one of the key cards that helped deny a blue pilot their ability to play him during the first few turns has now been nixed.  Shop decks had already been moving towards threats that were relatively immune to Dack (i.e. Batterskull and Arcbound Ravager), in large part due to the tremendous difficulty in answering him.  

I don't think anyone loves Karn more than I do, but Karn is one of the best targets that a Dack pilot could hope to steal.  Not only does it stand in front of your Lodestones, or nearly all creatures you run (protecting Dack, and allowing Dack to use his +1 ability more times than you'd like), it also kills your Moxen and (for those of you running it) makes your equipment awful.  

If there were going to be a metagame where Karn was playable, Dack would need to be more easily answered by the Shop decks, or not played by the large swaths of blue decks that run him now.  Additionally, the blue decks in the field would need to be Big Blue and not Delver/Mentor/Pyromancer variants that we see now.  Karn doesn't want to be blocked by tokens, especially because the decks that usually generate tokens are the kinds of decks that don't run the full complement of Moxen.  

Finally, as Shop decks are now going to need to crutch on Null Rod to make up for the loss of Chalice, they're likely going to look to move away from creatures that use activated abilities to gain value.  There will be less Kuldotha Forgemasters and Steel Hellkites, there will be more Wurmcoil Engines.  

Five mana answers to Moxen aren't answers.

[Aaron Patten]

While watching videos I've seen people name lotus more often than dack with a blind revoker.  Is this a glitch?

[voltron00x]

I think Dredge was pretty reasonable during the 4x TFK era. It had to be fast via Fatestitcher and disruptive via COTV, but it was extremely competitive despite seeing not a lot of play. At least in the NE, there also wasn't a devoted school of consistent Dredge players as developed over time. The fact that Tezz players had to devote cards for the mirror as well as Shops and Fish meant that sideboard space was constantly squeezed, as well.

Also just to note that I did enjoy this quite a bit, and it was a nice reminder of the era in which I first started playing Vintage as well (Late 2008). Great work guys.

[Shax]

Excellent podcast, thank you Steve and Kevin!

[diophan]

While watching videos I've seen people name lotus more often than dack with a blind revoker.  Is this a glitch?

I'm not sure what videos you are referring to, but if the opponent's mana is sufficiently taxed so that they are nowhere near casting a dack, it's often the case that a lotus is the only thing that will give them the ability to do something relevant before they die.

More on topic: This announcement seems to either be a case of shaking up the meta for the sake of shaking it up, or the DCI just listened to Randy. I do think that if you restrict chalice and dig but leave thirst restricted then gush decks completely take over the meta.

In alternate B&R realities, is there a way to restrict lodestone and not kill workshops? What if you restricted lodestone, dig, and dack?

[Islandswamp]

While watching videos I've seen people name lotus more often than dack with a blind revoker.  Is this a glitch?

I'm not sure what videos you are referring to, but if the opponent's mana is sufficiently taxed so that they are nowhere near casting a dack, it's often the case that a lotus is the only thing that will give them the ability to do something relevant before they die.

More on topic: This announcement seems to either be a case of shaking up the meta for the sake of shaking it up, or the DCI just listened to Randy. I do think that if you restrict chalice and dig but leave thirst restricted then gush decks completely take over the meta.

In alternate B&R realities, is there a way to restrict lodestone and not kill workshops? What if you restricted lodestone, dig, and dack?

I know this isn't entirely relevant, as the format was different, but the "Classic" format that predated Vintage on MTGO had Lodestone Golem on its restricted list. I think that since Mishra's Workshop was online and in classic, and there was no Lotus/Moxen for the other decks to keep up, Workshop decks just became the distinctly best deck. If people were able to play Workshop decks successfully in that environment, then perhaps the deck could survive in Vintage with one Golem, but I think that restricting a creature would set a scary new precedent.

Also, I think that most workshop decks are just greater than the sum of their parts. One Lodestone Golem by itself is usually not a problem for me, when that was my opponent's first and only sphere I just bolt it, but taken with all of the other overlapping prison elements the card becomes quite formidable. I think that any blue mage who thinks they don't have to respect Mishra anymore have a rude awakening in their future 

I'm really excited to listen to this, but I'm still working my way through the last one. Finally Steve and Kevin are making a ton of content, just as my free time has diminished! Still, I'd rather have too much than not enough...

[Montolio]

@ IslandSwamp

As someone who played alot of Workshops in the MTGO Classic format. Once they restricted LSG the deck was dead and so was the format shortly there after.
If you restrict LSG in Vintage the deck will be absolutely on the tier 2 level.

[MtgVector]

Another great cast, and I couldn't agree more with all of your points. I was especially concerned with how poorly the explanation from Wizards was, and how opaque and vague it read. I really wish they would support their views with data, results, statistics, etc.

I would like to add a point to the discussion: do you believe that the existence of Vintage of Magic Online will accelerate the rate at which changes are made to the B&R list?

You mentioned in your cast how long has it been since multiple cards were restricted/unrestricted in Vintage, and that there is large amount of data available to Wizards/DCI for carrying out their decisions. I couldn't help to have flashbacks of what happened to Legacy after it was introduced to mtgo, i.e. the metagame would rapidly converge and the most dominant decks will stay a top, while the lower tier decks were rapidly being displaced from the Daily results. Perhaps you may recall the dreadful explanation for banning Mystical Tutor in Legacy, which was "too many were playing the card in the tournament practice room". Albeit it almost sounds like something taken out from The Onion, don't forget that during that era, mtgo had barely introduced Legacy and the cardpool was incomplete, meaning that tournaments were moderetely firing and most players were prepping for paper tournaments on the tournament practice room. Wizards/DCI have access to an enormous amount of data that is invisible to the public, and I am a firm believer that by the use of this data they will implement further and quicker changes to the B&R list.

[Loukayza]

I don't think there's enough volume of results for MTGO to impact B&R changes, but it probably didn't help in the last VSL, when I think it was eFro that had 3 CotV played in him in the first 2 turns, i think at 0, 1, and 2, and I think he might have just rage-quit that game but the details are a bit hazy now. Buehler seemed to mention his disdain for chalice over the entire course of the season.

I know DCI sets the list, but I'm sure there are some people speaking up at Wizards that get back to the DCI and have some influence.

[Islandswamp]

@ IslandSwamp

As someone who played alot of Workshops in the MTGO Classic format. Once they restricted LSG the deck was dead and so was the format shortly there after.
If you restrict LSG in Vintage the deck will be absolutely on the tier 2 level.

That's good to know, I only know a tiny amount about that format, it existed when I wasn't playing magic. I'm on record as saying that I think workshops are important the balance of the format.

[serracollector]

To balance the format we need a deck that doesnt allow other decks to cast spells? Seems not ok to me.... Im glad chalice is gone.

[tribet]

To balance the format we need a deck that doesnt allow other decks to cast spells? Seems not ok to me.... Im glad chalice is gone.

At the end of the day, I doubt very much that Chalice restriction will bring more "fun" or "diversity" to the format (which is what I think you were alluding to in some other recent threads).

For example, I'm not sure that playing versus Defence Grid all day will be more fun than playing versus Chalice. Yes, you get to cast some preordain or bears on your T1 or T2, but the only faint difference will be: "Believing that you're alive" vs "Knowing that you're dead". Same/same but different. More fun? I think not.

I think it's naive to believe that by weakening prison deck we'll go back to a more natural circle: Combo<Aggro<Control<Combo. They said it themselves: "They want people to cast moxen" and I think that in no time Ucontrol will be all over this. It's not even funny. With Rods & Hurkyl's everywhere, aggro will basically just be Dredge. Matchups will probably be boring as hell and be prepared for: "Crap, you got Leyline of Sanctity again!", "Ahah!! Mindbreak Trap you!"

In the end, we are probably trading "coin-flippy" for "lopsided". I liked it when I was working within given parameters that Shop was imposing on the format. It felt somewhat comfortable, even when losing against it. Once again, a single restriction would have probably helped the whole format: Misstep. Less Misstep => more MD flex slots (aka Spell Pierce, Snare, Thoughtseize, Nature's Claim...) => more MD hate for Shop => more % for the rest of the format (Rituals, etc...)

[serracollector]

I cannot disagree with you there I think Mental Misstep should be restricted as well. I was not kidding when I posted in the br thread that now they just needed to restrict Mental Misstep and unrestrict Mana Vault or Lotus Petal and the format would be more exciting for most people I think. This helps combo mud tinker and belcher decks all at once as well as possibly making other decks more viable (like MUC with trinket mage and consecrated sphinx and four Mana Vault seems fun).

[Smmenen]

I'm really excited to listen to this, but I'm still working my way through the last one. Finally Steve and Kevin are making a ton of content, just as my free time has diminished! Still, I'd rather have too much than not enough...

We need a break, so this will probably be the only content for a while

I'd like to have our 50th podcast be on Gush, so I'm going to probably wait at least a month or two before we record the next.

[data]

I've listened to your podcast twice now.  I enjoyed it greatly, and wanted to offer constructive feedback.  Throughout the episode, you emphasized that you were analyzing WotC's logic as detailed in their B/R post.  I feel several important things fell through the cracks or didn't get sufficient time concerning chalice, based on the method of analysis used.  I wanted to suggest what I consider to be the most important issues (and to say something about dig, but I'll do that at the end).

In the interests of disclosure, I support the restriction of chalice, for a variety of reasons that I don't believe were closely examined.  Let me go through these in turn.  The first, and most powerful characteristic of chalice is it's capacity to transform normal hands with one lock piece on turn one into hands with two lock pieces on the first turn.  With two mana, you can play chalice 0 and sphere of resistance, or chalice 0 + chalice 1, and with four mana you can play chalice 1 + sphere.  Two and four mana are not startling amounts of first-turn mana for a workshop deck and compare favorably to the double sphere plan (5 mana).

The ability to deploy multiple locks on the first turn is relevant because it tends to set an opponent back so far that, unless shops starts missing early land drops or runs out of threats, the game ends up being over in short order with no chance to react. These situations occur far more frequently than first turn tinker, or first turn vault/key, because shops used to get four chalices in addition to eight spheres and four golems, and because shops often had the mana to play all the relevant cards.

This all feeds into a discussion of force of will.  Force is often a huge tempo swing for the blue pilot when it resolves, in that it can blank an entire turn of progress for shops.  But if you forced a sphere only to see chalice 1 resolve, you can find yourself having traded two-for-one for the least valuable threat on the first turn (which, in many cases, was sphere).  This gave shops amazing resilience to first turn counters in a much larger proportion of its hands than other decks had.

Added to this was the flexibility of chalice extended beyond the first turn, enabling shops to blank some of the most potent threats its opponent could deploy.  Furthermore, and unlike the sphere effects, multiple chalices were complimentary, and could entirely shut out an opponent.  This flexibility and synergy, at a low cost, was deadly.  And it bears mention that shops, with its power to create huge amoutns of mana, was best-positioned to take advantage of this characteristic.

Finally, I believe chalice can be deployed at two casting costs that are relatively low impact for shops players -- 0 and 1.  Chalice for 0 is narrower, typically executed when on the play on turn 1.  It's only potential downside is that you draw many moxen which you cannot then deploy, because you are able to deploy all your starting moxen before chalice even goes on the stack.  Because I believe the marginal utility of moxen decreases over time (accelarents tend to matter most on the first turn or two), this isn't in practice all that bad.  At 1, it only shuts off 1 commonly played card in the shop mainboard (sol ring).

This point is even weightier, however, because there isn't much opportunity cost for shops when the plan is to play chalice at 0 and 1.  What I mean by that is there are not a lot of great cards that support the lock strategy which shops wants to play at 0 and 1 that chalice prevents them from registering with.  You could argue that goblin welder and mental misstep are in this category, but I don't buy it, in part because I doubt shops will start main decking either in the post-restriction meta. 

There is more that can be said, but my point is that the restriction of chalice is eminently defensible, and I didn't get several of the above points from your podcast.  At best, I think it will lead to the return of a previously absent archetype (Grixis big blue, and friends), without actually removing any other central archetype.  We're all waiting to see if it was the right decision, and time will tell.

Concerning Dig, I have a more neutral observation.  The way you and others have evaluated restrictions is based on their direct and immediate impact on vintage, and their likely impacts in the near future.  This results-based approach to restriction policy is surely required, but I don't believe it is the only criterion wise restriction policy should be based upon.  The reality, I think, is that there are *so many* amazing blue cards on the restricted list that every restriction going forward is just piling on.  Using just the cards on that list, with minimal supplements from unrestricted cards, most blue decks have an extremely powerful core draw/search engine.  Utilizing what I have referred to as "results-based" logic, it may be that, one day, cards of equal power to ones on the restricted list will not even be considered for restriction, because there are already enough good draw/search cards that people only want one or two of what otherwise would have been restriction worthy.  Arguably that is exactly where dig sat for close to a year.

This is relevant because the restriction of dig, along with other cards, had only minimal impact, reducing the number of digs in most decks from two or three to one, in my view because of the already large number of cards on the restricted list that achieve the draw/search goals that dig does.  This minimal impact does not imply, in my view, that the restriction was questionable or unwarranted.  Cards can be deserving of restriction even if they only show up as two or three ofs.  Now, it is a fair criticism that my position prizes consistency over results.  There may be situations where I would violate the mode of thinking I have just outlined to achieve or prevent a particular result.  However, I believe that in instances such as this one, where the downside of restriction seem so minimal, we should endeavor to keep policy decisions consistent and in line with one another.  In my view this logic counsels in favor of restricting dig.

Thanks again for another great episode; after years of listening the quality of your broadcasts still impresses me.

[thecrav]

I'd like to have our 50th podcast be on Gush, so I'm going to probably wait at least a month or two before we record the next.

And have it come out at the same time as v2 of the book? I'M HYPED!

[saspook]

Listening to the podcast, I think you put too much weight on the frequency that a card/deck makes the top eight and instead should consider the frequency that the card/deck takes in the event.

Chalice may be like Sensei's Divining Top, where there is an element of it being semi- 'powerful', but to a lot of players it is very 'unfun' to play against.  And if that makes up a larger percentage of the lower tables, it can reduce retention among the newer players to the format.

[jcb193]

I enjoyed this podcast quite a bit, but I'm a sucker for B/R discussions.

You both seemed to advocate Cotv in the format, but just not for shops. Would you be in favor of a Cotv that uses a sunburst-style element instead of colorless?  Would that be a reasonable fix?  Just curious-

[Smmenen]

Listening to the podcast, I think you put too much weight on the frequency that a card/deck makes the top eight and instead should consider the frequency that the card/deck takes in the event.

Two quick points:

1) data on top 8s is much more abundant than appearances in events. Most TOs don't post every decklist in an event.

2) I would argue that decks that finish last place are not relevant in B&R list decisions, no matter how annoying/unfun they are to play against.  If new players are annoyed, but win, they aren't going to care.  If a deck can't win games, it shouldn't be an issue in B&R policy, imo, at least as far as "fun" goes.

We could construct many hypotheticals or thought experiments that illustrate the limits of this thinking.  

Chalice may be like Sensei's Divining Top, where there is an element of it being semi- 'powerful', but to a lot of players it is very 'unfun' to play against.  And if that makes up a larger percentage of the lower tables, it can reduce retention among the newer players to the format.

Top was not banned in other formats for being unfun, but for taking up tournament time.  Shahrazad has similar logistical concerns.  

[MTGFan]

@ IslandSwamp

As someone who played alot of Workshops in the MTGO Classic format. Once they restricted LSG the deck was dead and so was the format shortly there after.
If you restrict LSG in Vintage the deck will be absolutely on the tier 2 level.

How did people do well with Shops prior to Worldwake's printing?

[Smmenen]

@ IslandSwamp

As someone who played alot of Workshops in the MTGO Classic format. Once they restricted LSG the deck was dead and so was the format shortly there after.
If you restrict LSG in Vintage the deck will be absolutely on the tier 2 level.

People thought the same thing when debating whether Trinisphere should have been restricted. 

The main argument against restricting it is that it would kill Shops.  The irony is that Workshops performed *better* the 12 months after Trinisphere was restricted than the 12 months prior.  That was the year Roland Chang won the Vintage Championship, and Vroman won a huge SCG P9 Event with Uba Stax. 

I don't believe for a second that restricting Golem would demote Shops to a tier 2 level (if Chalice was unrestricted).

[evouga]

Similarly shops is nowhere near T2 with Chalice restricted and Golem unrestricted.

I agree with the above point, that T8 performance is one of, but not the only, consideration that might be taken into account when building a restricted list. One can perhaps argue that no card has been restricted in the past for making the format less fun and more frustrating for potential new players, despite not being dominant in T8-performing decks (though Trinisphere arguably fits that criteria) but that does not automatically imply that such cards *should not* be restricted. If you want to make that case, you will need to argue for it: it is certainly not self-evident.

[nedleeds]

If we had perfect data you would look at conversion rate. You would also weight results based on event size (number of rounds) and could come up with a much clearer view of cards that over or under perform relative to the field. But we don't have that luxury, even with MODO people have to send Twitter begs just to get the events to fire -- so the data isn't really impactful.

Looking specifically at champs, which this BNR was clearly based on. You could examine top 64 conversion into top 8. We have great data thanks to Jason. I personally think the high profile opining about chalice by the commentary crew during coverage had as much to do with the restriction as anything. They took subtle shots at workshop strategies through out the day, and into top 8 when discussing which match to feature rolled their eyes at the thought of watching a shop mirror. Which is fine I guess, some personal bias is expected. Dig then went as the other half of the hostage exchange. As the SMIP casters point out, replacing 1-2 Digs from another draw/filter from the library of blue 'stuff' is pretty straight forward.