Restricting number of restricted cards. Pros/Cons.

[Rancor]

I know most of you have probably heard most of the arguements both for and against the notion that vintage has a high barrier of entry and it's own growth is stifled by it. You probably already made up your minds on this so I won't press the issue and I kindly ask that you refrain in engaging in that particular debate here. There are plenty of other threads for such a discussion as the overwhelming majority do seem to express atleast some concern.

I'm curious to hear though, what do you think would be the effects on vintage if the dci passed a rule that said that no deck may play more than X number of restricted cards?

MaRo has promised that Wizards would increase the support for vintage if the reliance and need for power cards was lowered. And encouraging Wizards to design cheap and effective cards for all the colors that specifically assist budget decks (artifact hosers, nonbroken card drawers, and global artifact hate) hasn't been very effective in the past.

The reason for this post is the recent revelation that such a restriction by no means goes against precedence. The number of restricted cards playable per deck has been regulated in the past!
 
Maze of Dreams

I'm not sure if you are aware that there is a precedent for this. Many players may not know that WotC has restricted the number of Restricted cards allowed in a deck before.

As a matter of fact there were slight tweaks to the play/draw rule. I ran across the actual info while doing research for my B/R list history (yes its ongoing but damn theres alot of holes in the info.)

These rules were imposed for AndCon '95, there were several changes to the B/R list in both T1 and T1.5 for this event and applied to both T1 and T1.5;

-----------------------------------------------------------
Experimental
Type 1 Super-Restricted
Tournament Format

A new class of cards is added, called Super-Restricted. Only one of each of these cards can be in a deck, and no more than four (4) Super-Restricted cards in total can be in a deck. In addition, at the beginning of a duel, each player must announce if they are using any of the Super-Restricted cards. If one player is, and the other player is not, the player without Super-Restricted cards automatically goes first.
Super-Restricted cards:

Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Falling Star
Time Walk
Timetwister
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mox Pearl

The Restricted list has the above cards removed, and the old-style Dual Lands added.

Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Experimental
Type 1.5 Tournament Rules
for AndCon '95
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

Type 1.5 rules are the same as Type 1 except as modified below:


The following cards are moved from the restricted to the banned list:
Ali from Cairo (AN)
Ancestral Recall
Black Lotus
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Tutor
Falling Star (LE)
Library of Alexandria (AN)
Maze of Ith (DK)
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Sol Ring
Timetwister
Time Walk
Wheel of Fortune

The following Ice Age cards are added to the restricted list:
Zuran Orb

The following Ice Age cards had been added to the restricted list, but were removed on Wednesday, 13 September 1995. These are no longer restricted:
Enduring Renewal
Jester's Cap
Jester's Mask
Zur's Weirding

``Summon Legend'' or ``Summon X Legend'' cards are no longer restricted to one per deck, however the rule of no more than four of any card in a deck still applies. Please note that only one of a particular ``Legend'' card may be in play at any time.


Nota Bene

These rules apply only to the tournament to be run at AndCon '95: no determination has yet been made about which (if any) Ice Age cards will be added to the regular Type I and Type II tournament rules.


Charles Keith-Stanley              werewolf@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison                  liaison@wizards.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Just some history and perhaps some food for discussion.

Shawn

There have been articles written on and comments made about this topic already that I'll cite below. But I think the argument deserves more debate and definately more articles written on it. Would anyone more familar with vintage be inclined to write one?

Pros

Would slow vintage down.

Would make it more accesible to budget players (a budget player can opt to play yawgie's will, strip mine, necropotence, demonic tutor and demonic consultation and it could easily be argued that the deck isn't really that much worse than a deck that plays a black lotus, mox sapphire, ancestral recall, library of alexandria, and time walk).

Would make more decks viable.

Would make type one more diverse and give it more room for variation and creativity.

Would reduce the reliance of the format on powered cards.

Would stop all the articles, topics and arguments we constantly recieve about how expensive it is to start playing vintage.

Would put to rest all concerns of critical mass once and for all.

Would allow currently restricted cards such as Fork and Lion's Eye Diamond become less significant, they can be unrestricted as well.

Would take away MaRo's reasons for not holding more santioned tournaments (high barrier to entry, sheer speed and power of vintage, lack of players who have cards needed to play vintage).[/list:u]

Cons

A few decks will need to adapt and certain combo decks like the newer versions of long and the new turn one winning charlabelcher decks will be shut down entirely. [/list:u]

I suspect that the growth in vintage due to the easier entry for budget players who can't compete with the acceleration that the solomoxen provide would pull back in many of the players who have left magic altogether, that've stopped buying cards and updating their decks and this growth would actually increase the value of power cards.

There is little reason to believe any decks would significantly suffer from this. They would evolve a bit. Keeper would have fewer high costing cost spells. But any acceleration it loses will be made up by the fact that none of the decks are as fast any more.

[Rancor]

If you have any doubts on the notion that vintage will soon be degenarate and domanted by combo, read this...
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14849

Also read this thread for a more indepth insiteful explanation of this idea and it's effects.
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14850

A Starcitygames Article:

Fixing Type 1: Why Restricting Individual Cards in Type 1 Doesn't Work, And An Alternate Solution
by Bill Colgan

The original "restrictions" occurred when the rules changed to allow only four copies of a card in a deck. Before that, first-turn wins could be constructed with twenty copies each of three different cards, none of which were land. Though such a deck would cost five figures to build today, the key card (Black Lotus) was not even thought to be that good at the time. The four-copy restriction brought sanity back into the game and allowed more room for designers to create new and interesting cards.

This worked for a while but after a time a couple of things happened. With the new and interesting cards, many of the stronger effects were reworked into different mechanics or different costs to create new twists on the game. Smart deck designers could now get around the four-copy restriction by using four copies of two or three different cards that produced the same effect. To fix this, the restriction strategy changed again. On top of the four-copy restriction, certain cards were now limited to one copy per deck. This was used to bring the copies of the powerful cards down to reasonable levels.

This also worked for a while, but again started to break down. We now have thirty expansions giving us over six thousand unique cards to work with. The number of unique cards producing similar effects with different mechanics and twists has grown again. We are at the point (or are quickly approaching it) that further restrictions of the strong cards will not prevent smart deck designers from creating degenerate decks. This brings the Type 1 community to a crossroads.

It was acknowledged when Types 1, 1.x, and 2 were created that the card pool was becoming too large. Type 1 was to remain the format where any card that was printed could be used (except, of course, ante cards and manual dexterity cards). This is what defines Type 1 and should be maintained if at all possible. How then can the format be protected from the degeneracy of the ever-growing card pool without the outright banning of cards.

I would suggest that the best way of doing this would be to have another layer of restrictions on top of the one card per deck restriction. For starters, the easiest one to postulate would be a Moxen Rule. To protect the investment of those who already own the original five Moxen, I would propose to limit the total number of cards with Mox in the name to five per deck. This would also have other beneficial effects beyond preventing decks that contain ten Moxen like we are seeing right now.

First, it would allow newer players to enter the Type 1 format relying upon the substandard Mox Diamond and Chrome Mox to create decks that, if not quite as good, at least approach the acceleration available to the power player. Encouraging new players to the format is necessary to keep the format strong. Also, it would allow card designers to experiment further with Mox-like cards without having to worry about the overabundance of Moxen to the Type 1 card pool.

The other categories of top-level restrictions would require more thought. Draw Seven, Take Another Turn, Trade Life for Cards, Add Three Mana to Pool, and Search Library for a Card are all categories that will need to be addressed. Using this strategy, I'm sure we could come up with the right rules that would protect the value of our power cards while making it easier for new players to enter into Type 1 tournaments.

In spite of the recent growth in the Type 1 community and the format's newfound popularity, it remains important to continue to recruit new players, and fixing the card restriction structure should help in that effort.

[Rancor]

Nichlem:

"The thing about T1 is that it's where players get to play all their broken combos. If a combo deck becomes too powerful, certain cards are restricted. This is usually fine.

But great problems arise when restrictions are 'dismissed'. One tutor in a deck, Demonic Tutor say, would be fine. But there are other versions of this card which counteract the idea of restriction. Vampiric Tutor, for example.' Draw 7s' also have the same problem. As do Moxen, and other various effects.

Since blocks aren't rotated, the power level of T1 can only increase. Imagine it in ten years. Let's say 3 more fast mana cards were printed and restriction, 3 more restricted tutors and a couple other misc. powerful cards. That's another 8 cards that speed up decks quite a great deal more. Eventually, even if you restricted every card decks would still be degenerate, as there would be another duplications of effects that it wouldn't matter.

So a solution could be to restrict you to only 1 card of a certain genre. ONE "Mox". One "Lotus. One " raw 7" etc. Sure, some cards wouldn't be played if you could play a strictly better one, but that is true of many other cards. This leaves no cards "banned". However, T1 is meant to be degenerate as such, and if you want a non-degenerate unlimited format, play 1.5. More on that...

Another is to ban cards. Yawgmoths Will being restricted means nothing if it can be tutored out easily to win you the game. This I wouldn't mind, but not yet.

... this (the current policy of restricting cards also) has the problem of banning a lot of cards in 1.5, especially ones that didn't need to be. What's the problem with that? Because as T1 becomes more overpowered, 1.5 however is becoming silly by having a lot of balanced cards banned, thus removing the option of a non-degenerate Vintage format This leaves us with two unplayable Vintage formats. The solution? Just seperate the lists? 1.5 SHOULD probably be played over T1, as it is a balanced version of it. Unfortunately, it is tied to the fate of T1. It could be treated like it was Standard or Extended in terms of bannings. This would give it a real boost and wouldn't cost much, as well as keeping a lot of cards playable (if T1 is degenerate and T1.5 is unplayable, many otherwise good cards become useless when they rotate out of Extended). And cheaper too!"

[Rancor]

From Starcityarticle by Dr. Sylvan:

At the time, Forsythe quoted me advocating the banning of Tolarian Academy - and while my targets have changed names, my position has not. In the format that has been referred to as "the dustbin for all of R&D's mistakes," there are some cards that only become dumber over time, and eventually restrictions just don't have the weight to hold back a card. At all. Since The Mana Drain has been the nexus of the public debate, it only makes sense that I'll be quoting some of the best-phrased points made there while I try to form a cohesive argument for the necessity of a change in B&R policy for the format.

Type 1 is a sanctioned format. A sanctioned format needs to have some semblance of balance, even in a format like Type 1 where enormous game swings are expected as a regular feature of gameplay. For someone carefully reading The Mana Drain and StarCityGames, it has become apparent that an increasing number of people find additional restrictions to be borderline irrelevant to the format's speed and power - and this is before Mirrodin has generated consistent data regarding the impact of strong new cards which have received reduced attention thanks to Chalice of the Void (which, at this point, has an uncertain impact).

Let's look at a list of all the unrestricted cards in Stephen Menendian, a.k.a. Smmenen's Burning Desire.
4 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
3 Chromatic Sphere
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Brainstorm
4 Burning Wish
1 Tendrils of Agony
(Plus sideboard hosers, mostly one-ofs, with four Xantid Swarms and another Tendrils.)

Thirty-four cards maindeck. (It's a good thing he managed to only use half of the restricted list; I'm sure I wasn't the only one concerned that my monitor doesn't have a higher resolution.) Those lands are virtually unrestrictable, and pretty easily replaced if they somehow were. If Cycling: 1 is broken, I think that would be a good day to cry about Magic, so Chromatic Sphere is unrestrictable, despite its high synergy with this deck. Duress and Brainstorm are some of the things fighting against combo from the other side of the table.

LED, Dark Ritual, Burning Wish, and Tendrils of Agony are the only remaining unrestricted cards that have any potential for restriction. So, even if we assume there is no present way to replace the slots these can't take up if restricted, then we're left with the thought that if Wizards prints one more accelerant or one more tutor (Chrome Mox and Spoils of the Vault, anyone?), we return to the zone where even people who can stomach hard combo are annoyed. Even after all of these speed-demon cards are restricted, there will be a decreasing number of components needed to resurrect the same consistency Burning Desire is capable of. Also, Dutch-Tendrils (The Perfect Storm) is already a very strong deck using neither Burning Wish nor Lion's Eye Diamond. I seriously doubt we can, with any sort of certainty, say that R&D will never permit any good search or acceleration out of the printer again.

(Just for the record, Brad Granberry, a.k.a., Rico Suave's post-Mirrodin build with four Lion's Eye Diamonds, four Spoils, and four Chrome Mox elicited the following comment from "Grand Inquisitor":

"I playtested this deck after running forty games with TPS and Long.dec. It is a completely different animal. I am a mediocre combo player, at best, and I was able to win turn 1 about 60% of the time. Once I mulliganed down to four cards, and still went off first turn. I feel with more practice and an intimate knowledge of the synergies of the deck, I could push that percentage to 75% with ease."

FyreStar:

The restriction philosophy is flawed to begin with. Cards that are too powerful skew the game away from skill and towards luck. Restriction of a card reduces that skew but does not eliminate it. As time goes on and more cards are printed, we're obviously going to end up with good cards that look just slightly different, and they get restricted too. Wheel of Fortune restricted? No it isn't; the other three copies just have different names: Timetwister, Windfall, and 'Tinker for Memory Jar.' What the hell does that solve?

Precisely. The term "critical mass" has been added to The Mana Drain jargon with a specific implication of a card pool big enough that it can't be slowed, but I would like to make it a specific term referring to "the point where restricting additional cards has little to no impact on the consistency and speed of a deck or metagame."

I believe we are at or perilously near critical mass. Burning Desire has shown us the way of the future: There are enough ways to break the rules that they barely exist anymore for a Type 1 combo deck. Granted, I didn't play during Combo Winter - but I've never seen a deck before where drawing the eye-popping three-land hand was considered a serious blow to the probability of that hand being playable (even Gro decks and ten-land Stompy don't hate drawing their land as much as this).

I think I've laid the foundation of a syllogism pretty clearly:

(1) If restrictions can't hurt combo, it's not possible to check it by presently available means.
(2) Restrictions will soon have no impact on combo.
Conclusion: Combo will soon be totally unchecked.
Wizards of the Coast and virtually every player have in the past demonstrated consistent support for eliminating incredibly fast combo from every environment, often including Type 1. But the tool for us has always been restriction, and that has always been enough... Until now.

[Rancor]

Please contribute your own thoughts on this and your own pro/con list.

And please, someone with a better understanding of vintage write up an article on this proposal.

There have been so many articles on critical mass, on the inaccessability of vintage to budget players, on the lack of serious type one players due to this high barrier, on the limited number of power cards to go around, on the lack of support Wizards gives type one, on the inability of budget decks to be able to compete with the raw speed offered by the solomoxen combined with cards like ancestral recall and time walk and yet none that directly offer up the easiest method in which to resolve all these issues. A way that has previous precedence no less!!

[Rancor]

Mrieff:

These are what I would call the main advantages:

Effect on T1 players
- Makes budget players much more competitive
- Makes T1 more accessible as a format moneywise
- Will not hurt the interest of collectors/owners of P9
- Will place more emphasis on cards from newer sets
- Is supported by themanadrain, T1 largest community

Effect on the T1 format
- Will make T1 slower
- Will introduce more variety in card choices
- Will introduce more variety in colors played, less blue
- Will introduce more skill in deckbuilding
- Removes some of the randomness of T1
- Hurts the right decks, combo, without collateral damage
- Respects that fundamental nature of T1, playing with brokenness, intact
- Gives Wotc more space in designing new cards for T1

Effect on the effectiveness of the B/R list
- Will allow cards to leave restricted list
- Removes the (possible) need of banning Y’will
- Is easily remembered, without pages of rules text or a new large list
- Future restrictions have a much larger impact on decks
- Number of restricted cards allowed can be easily adjusted when needed

This suggestion is not all-or-noting. Its impact can be adjusted by simply adjusting the number of cards. The question of timing (should it be done now?) should be reprashed as how many restriced cards should be allowed? Setting a number like 30 will not impact todays decks, but will be a safeguard for the future. Using 20 or so will only kill long, and 10 would have a major impact.

The question whether Wotc will consider it, is important and part of the pro/con story. Our suggestions have a much better chance of being implemeted when they allign with Woct criteria and preferences. Most of these we know from their T1 articles.

It would indeed be great is someone could write an article, as I think the suggestion merits the effort. Maybe my checklist could be a starting point?
If we write a good article and Wotc accepts, we have scored as a community and increase our influence. It would also be a great way to overcome our Berserk and XXXXst random "ban/restrict card y for no reason!!" failures.  

[urza_insane]

People seem to forget what format they're playing... often might I add. This is TYPE 1 this is the format where anything is aloud and broken things ARE MENT TO HAPPEN. Every deck to date has had a weakness, all thats needed is for people to find it and exploit it. Nothing should be changed about the way type 1 is tun, its how its ment to be. If the DCI started putting limits on things or banning cards Type 1 would change into a totally different format and they would have to make another format where anything is aloud. Putting limits on cards is stupid and not in the spirit of Type 1. If you want less broken shit go play 1.5 The format your suggesting is simply Type 1.25

[Rancor]

Jakedasnake:

Banning some cards is fine, like Tolarian Academy, Tendrils of Agony, etc. But banning stuff like Yawgmoth's Will would just ruin what Type 1 is about. If powerful cards no longer exist because the format is too broken, I'd much rather play Extended. I get tons more people to play with, there are DCI organized tournaments, etc. The ability to have broken cards is what keeps Type 1 alive.

Urza Insane,

Most people agree that critical mass is an inevitability. We will reach the point where there are so many broken cards that even after all of them are restricted, a deck consisting almost entirely of such restricted cards would manage to win first turn. Long came close, Dutch Tendrils is the latest such incarnation capable of getting first turn wins a significant portion of the time. More powerful versions will soon pop up.

The above quote illustrates why banning cards in vintage is not an option. This leaves as the only alternate, to restrict the number of restricted cards playable per deck. This too is an inevitabity.

This way, you are still free to use whichever cards you want. And the games very much have a type one feel to them. Certain restricted cards can even be unrestricted in such an environment. Cards like LED, Fork, perhaps even cards like Fact or Fiction, may all be thrown off the list as they siphon much of their brokeness from the brokeness of the other restricted cards.

Keeper may need to adapt ever so slightly to play four colors or so. But this will only make the deck more consistent. And in a slower format overall, keeper would be as good as ever.

[Rancor]

TPS is doing exceptionally well in europe post restriction. And this is a deck that wins on first turn muct of the time as well. American players simply don't seem as dedicated to combo or dare I say it, as skilled at playing combo. Similarly, stax and weldermud variants (the nastiest of all the combo decks) consistently perform well and take several top slots elsewhere while stupid rogue decks often seem to dominate in the US. Why does it seem as though the US is behind Europe in magic? But alas, that's a discussion for another thread.

I think the fact that two more cards have to be restricted and yet the problem still seems to exist points to the notion that we are indeed approaching critical mass.

The discussion definately needs to take place. People in the vintage community need to get comfortable with the notion of passing a restriction on the number of restricted cards per deck. Because I am almost certain that before 2004 is over, a deck even more one sided than long, perhaps a variant on TPS, will make an appearence. And I doubt it'll be affected by a few more restrictions as much.

If we're not even comfortable discussing this issue now, how comfortable will we be when the inevitable arrives and we need to bite the bullet.

I'm not worried though, it'll have many positive impacts as well.

What sort of an impact do you think this restriction will have?

[Rancor]

Even while long was still around, TPS managed to win several top 8 slots in major tournaments. This better than anything illustrates the deck's power. 1st/2nd turn combo is alive and kicking and this is a bad thing because it reduces the game to solitaire.

Workshop is severely underrated since so few players have all the cards needed to play it. But in the tournaments where there were a decent number of workshop players present, it takes several top 8 slots. Heck in the largest tournament of 2003, prison decks took 4 of the 8 slots.

Mishra's Workshop

Antiquities Rare

Type: Land

Oracle Text, T: Add three colorless mana to your mana pool. This mana is usable only to play artifact spells.

Mishra's Workshop is essentially an permanent black lotus, in artifact based decks, and an unrestricted one at that! As such, it's rather difficult to get four copies of. Imagine how many people would be able to play a deck that uses 4 black lotus assuming that card was unrestricted as well and it becomes apparent why there are so few workshop decks in all but the largest tournaments. Saying that it's not broken because only decks that play many artifacts can abuse it is like saying that unrestricting black lotus and errating it to only generate one certain color of mana wouldn't be broken because the other colors can't use it. If anything, this makes the even more broken. I think we agree that when possible it is far better to make an archeatype more balanced than to kill it outright. If removing MW stops some decks from being too dominant, without hurting them significantly, then I think it's a good move.

The largest type 1 tournament on record by a LARGE margin was completely dominated by workshop based decks...

Massa T8, 139 players, 2003-10-12

1. TNT
2. Hulk Smash
3. Lock & Stock (Stax)
4. Rector Trix
5. Rector Tendril
6. Stacker (mono-Brown)
7. Stacker
8. Lock & Stock (Stax)

Common cards (Cards that have been considered worthy of restriction at one point or another and other common powerful cards, all restricted cards were multiplied by four)
8 Academy Rector
3 Cunning Wish
8 Dark Ritual
2 Deep Analysis
12 Duress
11 Force of Will
2 Intuition
4 Mana Drain
3 Meditate
20 Mishra's Workshop
3 Stifle
4 Yawgmoth's Will

And this is before the full potential of the powerful mirrodian artifacts like Chalice of the Void and Mindslaver were realized. It stands to reason that once post Jan restrictions kick in neutering Long and the Mirrodian artifacts along with the powerful artifacts from Dark Steel and Fifth Dawn come into use, Workshop based decks will be close to unstoppable.

In addition, the general pattern seems to be that the larger the tournament, the more workshop decks that make top 8.

That could be an indication of the fact that the only reason that workshop isn't such a large presence is because it's such a hard card to get that all but the largest tournaments have enough workshop players to begin with.

This rule will not destroy any decks except for ones that use just about every restricted card in the book to pull out turn one/two wins. I've seen version of keeper that only use 8 or so restricted cards. There are many variation keeper that only use two or three colors and very few restricted cards, so even keeper could survive with four or five restricted cards. And keeper isn't the only form of control deck. There are several control decks and variations on keeper that only play three colors or so and thus use very few restricted cards.

But the rule would slow the format down a bit. Those degenerate combo decks that you say will dominate in an environment without keeper (and in reality, three color keeper will be alive and kicking) are precisely the decks that will be hurt not being able to play with a bunch of restricted cards.

And it would make budget more viable and the game more diverse and exciting. A deck that plays tutors, will, necropotence etc won't be neccesarily inferior to a deck that instead plays moxen in these restricted slots. The former has a better late game and the later a better early game. If you want to build a budget deck with a better early game instead, you could just as easily play sol ring, mana vault, mana crypt, strip mine in the restricted card slots and not lose much in the way of speed.

If somehow one particular deck does emerge as superior in this environment like psychatog did a few months ago and long did recently (both by using many many restricted cards by the way), a restriction would quickly slow it down.

Many of the current restricted cards can even be unrestricted. Cards like Fork or even the infamous Fact or Fiction wouldn't be nearly as powerful without being able to pack a full set of moxen, ancestral recall, and time walk. People would actually be able to play with more of their cards in such an enviroment, not less.

Combo is all about speed. Most of the cards on the restricted list are there because they really boost the speed or they let you tutor for combo pieces. Combo would be weakened greatly if the number of restricted cards playable in a deck is restricted.

Control thrives in a slower format. And aggro thrives in a format where control is powerful. In general budget decks thrive in a slower format as well. And cheap restricted cards that while not as powerful are still almost as powerful as power cards like balance, strip mine, necropotence, yawgie's will, tutors, chrome mox, sol ring, mana vault, and mana crypt help budget thrive even more.

Thanks to such cards, budget can thrive even if the number of restricted cards per deck is capped off at something as high as six (10% of the total deck)!!!

And if budget thrives in Vintage, Vintage WILL grow as a format, Vintage will act as a haven for players who are sick of other formats and would otherwise quit magic etc. It will make magic healthy and strong. And it will help Wizards of the Coast. It is after all loyal vintage players who recruit the most number of new players into the game. Vintage players do buy several packs of good sets like onslaught and mirrodian for the good cards like nantuko shades, chalice of the voids etc. Collectors and stores too will see the value of their cards rise as current vintage players become more dedicated to it and play it more.

Once vintage grows and becomes slightly less broken and more budget friendly, Wizards can hold santioned vintage tournaments. This will also generate a lot of money.

It's a win win solution. Everyone comes out the better for it.

Nichlem:

The reality is, eventually T1 is just going to be too fast.

Every new fast mana card speeds up decks just a little faster. Every powerful card (like the storm mechanic) that gets printed adds a little more to the format. It's inevitable that eventually, decks will be able to run almost completely on restricted cards. Restricting at the point is futile, since there are so many powerful cards out there it won't matter.

Thus, I think a restriction limit of 10 would work. There are still combo decks, still control decks, still the fast Type 1 we're used to. You can still use all the P9 in one deck. But the playing field is now levelled, the above scenario won't form and multiple versions of a certain type of card is less of an issue.

Player 1 plays the P9 + Library (or Academy, or YawgWin, or whatever else). Without the restriction limit, this player has a great advantage over a player without those cards, as they can pack those cards over and above the more "budget" player. But with a limit of 10, this player now has no room for tutors, extra restricted mana or others. Player 2, who has no power, could use Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Wheel of Fortune, Lotus Petal, Mana Vault, Demonic Tutor and YawgWin (these are just examples) and won't be at that much of a disadvantage, possibly even at an advantage, but doesn't have to shell out as much money.

This keeps the format balanced no matter what is printed (except for absolutely broken cards of course), allows budget players to have more a chance, as P9 aren't so necessary, P9 prices aren't affected (maybe a little) because they're still better then a lot of other choices, and makes deckbuilding more creative, you have to think whether that card is really worth using a restricted slot on.

[Rancor]

Silverstorm:

T1 will be dominated by combo no matter what. You restrict one thing, a deck dies, another rises up, wash, rinse, repeat.

It's January and already the new T1 Charbelcher deck (shamelessly stolen from the T1 forums) is running rampant. Look at this decklist and tell me if you notice anything.


Buurp.deq (John Mathias)

Lands:

NONE

Wacky Mana Excel:

1 Lion's Eye Diamond
1 Chrome Mox
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring
1 Lotus Petal
1 Grim Monolith
4 Dark Ritual
4 Elvish Spirit Guide (I would play a couple of Mishra's Workshop as well).

Filterage:

4 Chromatic Sphere
4 Shadowblood Egg
4 Darkwater Egg

Tutorage:

1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Tainted Pact
1 Tinker
2 Death Wish

Huge Draw:

1 Timetwister
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Memory Jar
1 Necropotence
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Windfall

Utility:

1 Time Walk
4 Duress
4 Brainstorm
1 Yawgmoths Win

Win:

2 Goblin Charbelcher


SB:
1 Hull Breach
1 Rack and Ruin
1 Gorilla Shaman
1 Mogg Salvage

1 Tolarion Academy

1 Balance

1 Chalice of the Void

1 Diminishing Returns
1 Mind's Desire

1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Goblin Charbelcher

1 Death Wish

3 Xantid Swarm

Got it? Here's a hint: THERE IS ALMOST NOTHING TO RESTRICT. Look again. 26 restricted cards MD. That's nearly half of the deck. T1 is reaching (or has reached, many would argue) the point where the restricted list has become a template for tier one decks. Copy/paste, then fill in the blanks.

If this doesn't validate the necessity for restrictions on the # of restricted cards in a deck, then I'm not sure what does.

However, my only reservation is that T1 might overshadow T1.5 completely, which would be a shame because I love T1.5, and have enough trouble finding a game as is.

Long story short, trying to save T1 with restrictions alone is like trying to fight a hydra without a torch (for all you D&D players out there, YES, I am aware a hydra has a limited amount of heads. nerds...).

The restricted restricted list is an intriguing idea and, it would seem, the only way to save T1 (from combo domination).

I can't imagine why the above deck doesn't run 4 Mishra's Workshop as well. But between Dutch Tendrils and Charlabacher, it's apparent turn one wins aren't going anywhere unless the DCI takes the appropriate action.

Next wizards is either going to have to start restricting all sorts of cards from elvish spirit guides, to dark rituals and goblin charlabachers slowly turning type 1 into a format more restricted than extended a few years ago or it has to restrict the number of restricted cards playable in a deck and leave the rest of the game alone. in fact, after doing so, we might be able to unrestrict fork, and a whole host of other cards, maybe even the recently restricted stuff.

[Rancor]

I know that my presence here is going to bias this thread and draw out a lot of flames and negative responses.

As a result, I'll stop posting here.

I kindly request that this discussion be continued as was indicated in the original post, please answer the question, what're the pros/cons of restricting the number of restricted cards as opposed to restricting stuff like Dark Ritual, Elvish Spirit Guide and banning other cards? Lets not talk about workshop, let's not talk about whether or not the dci will do it. These decision are up to the dci to decide. There is previous precedence of the dci restricting the number of restricted cards and when combo reemerges as it has already started to, the dci will have to do something.

So when this happens, what're the pros/cons of restricting the number of restricted cards per deck, as opposed to restricting and banning even more cards in a futile attempt to delay the inevitable? The alternatives seem far less desirable to me. There's also the possibility of them just abandoning vintage altogether, making a seperate 1.5 list with banned cards and focusing on that. It's up to us to decide what we want the dci to do and send a clear message, it's up to them whether or not they listen to us. So there is no point in discussing whether or not they will. Lets just decide on which alternative we prefer.

Lets just stick to talking about that, please, and I'll stop posting in here *as long as the thread remains focused on discussing the pros/cons of each option* so everyone can be happy.

I also ask that anyone inclined to so, one who has a better understanding of vintage, PLEASE write up an article discussing this possibility. There haven't been any articles discussing this particular topic.

In addendum: I would like to state that T1.5 needs a seperate B&R list. With the removal of many degenerate cards from the pool, such cards as Crop Rotation and Voltaic Key could be brought back into the card pool. This would spur growth in 1.5 as well since it would establish it as a format truly distinct from vintage rather than just it's decapitated brother. And the fact that you could play four copies of certain cards restricted in vintage would give it an exciting factor all it's own.

Please, post your ideas on what the effects of sepearting the Type 1 and Type 1.5 lists here. What benefits would this have? Is there any reason this shouldn't be done? Once we accumilate enough information on this, someone thus inclined could write an article on this topic as well (I suck at writing articles).

[jpmeyer]

Unless you reduce the number of allowable restricted cards down to something like 5 and more or less 1.5ify the format, you don't really gain anything, and if reduce it to 5 then the only restricted cards that will get played are probably Lotus, Ancestral, Walk, and Moxes.  Even if you make the number 10, you'll still have decks that go "4-5 Moxes, Lotus, Ancestral, Walk, DT, Will" as their 10 cards--meaning congratulations, you lowered the barrier to entry by about $20 as now you have to cut Mind Twist and Vampiric Tutor from your deck.  The only thing that that does is ban every restricted card outside of those 10 or so that I listed above plus Balance, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt/Vault, LoA, Academy, and possibly Fact or Fiction.

[Rancor]

As I already stated, I'm going to try to not post my own opinions on here. So I will simply respond by asking that you read Nichelm's quote above. It already illustrates how your contentions are all unfounded.

But here are some other quotes that address your concern.

Mage of Dreams:

These kinds of implications definately deserve consideration, however if you have watched closely as changes to MTG have happened, the things that are generally thought will happen seldom do. While decks like these look like they will take over if the format remained stagnate, the reality of what would happen when other decks that were unviable before start to work into the metagame is a harder thing to see. Without actually testing such a change I find it hard to belive anyone can predict with 100% accuracy what would happen.

While the format is in good shape for us who are fully powered, its not so great for those who aren't. While we can sit here and say those who don't have power aren't dedicated enough or any of the other comments made, there is a truth here. There is a voice in our community with a concern and we keep sluffing it off, pretty much like we often accuse WotC of doing.

I found it interesting in many of the posts concerning Maro's article that several comments were made about how he just rehashed old ideas. If you read the article carefully there maybe a clue as to why he did this. He keeps getting the same suggestions over and over even after thos ideas are explained and rejected. There is an implied request in the article for new and different ideas on how to make the format of more intrest to "the company". There are plenty of people who like MTG just the way it is and can't wait unill the last T1 player is tapping his own mox all by himself in some dark corner. I for one have no desire to see my power decrease in value. I would like to see the format expand. I am willing to explore rather then shut down ideas that may keep my concerns stay that way instead of becoming a reality.

If you don't like the thread why clutter it with off topic posts? Or did BB take over and all contrary thought is unlawful?

The main problem I have with these type of comments is that they seem born more from resistance to developing the format then from any actual experiance.
I can support my thought simply from a common, continual cycle that is repeted not only on these boards but just about every MTG board I've ever visited.

1) A new card, rule, banning, whatever, gets announced.

2) The community/format begin the outcry of "this will be the doom of MTG", "Now Decks X and Y will rule", "The entire format is ruined." etc. ad nauseum.

3) The card, rule, whatever is implemented and very little of any if the outcrys ever materialize.

This is easily checked using any forums' search function for threads between the date of an announcement and about a month after it's implemented.

Why does this happen? Because on paper this is what should happen. Yet very little does, why? Because MTG isn't played on paper. Deck builders take advantage of the changes to construct new builds, current builds are tweaked to handle the oncoming new decks, old builds either adapt or fade.
There is no way to calculate all of this on paper. Unless you've fully played in a changed enviroment everything is little more then guesses (which again, seem to often be wrong).

Maybe by letting such a topic run free of nonconstructive comments, a good change for T1 can be found, or maybe the discussion will run its course and it will be seen that the idea is flawed. Either way there is a good chance that the people discussing such things will grow in their understanding of the format, which in turn provides stronger players.  Not a bad thing in my opinion.
With just a little guidance, rather then random comments of no use, topics like this can lead to productive members. I don't think anyone wants T1 lite (well some do but thats another story). What can happen? WotC gets a thought out suggestion that they can test and accept or reject. People get a chance get into what makes T1 tick. The members get to watch, evaluate, and guide users in good ways. I don't know I see little downside here.

The pattern has been ongoing for so long that it's eventuality is undeniable. As the card pool gets larger and larger, so does the number of broken cards and the overall speed of the format. Restrictions merely serve as speed bumps. Even with long gone, the critical turn for the most dominant decks WelderMUD and Dragon is a mere two where as just an year ago, such speed would be considered unimaginable. With a little more exploration and a few more sets like Mirrodian, very soon, vintage will indeed collapse under the weight of it's own brokenness.

The aforementioned idea, though it may seem slightly extreme to a few of you now, will likely be the only possible recourse a little under an year or so from now. It'll reduce the inherent speed and brokenness of the format, and the reliance upon and dominance of the power cards without hurting their value. In doing so, it'll make vintage more accesible to more players, balance the playing field a bit, allow more budget decks to be viable, and in short support a healthier more diverse format. Afterall, a slower format inherently is one where a great many more strategies are viable. Experimentation, creativity, metagaming, and skill would all matter again. Equal footing, low threshold of entry, and skill based games are good for Magic and for the format.  The fact that economic status has such an incredible and systematic influence on success in this format besmirches all our claims to be intellectual and skill-testing.

Vintage has a notorious reputation for being over priced to get into. Many vintage players have expressed discontent that there are simply not enough cards to go around, that it's unrealistic to expect the game to be skill based when less than 1% of the players have access to the tools that play such a critical role in winning. Even MaRo stated that this was the reason vintage doesn't recieve more support... "Truly playing a format does not mean I have only one or two choices. If finances prevent me from playing the majority of the competitive decks available then the format does in fact have a “high barrier to entry.”"

But reducing the reliance on and need for these over priced cards will change this. Since proxy tournaments have started, interest in vintage has shot up.  So it's apparent that if the barrier to entry was lowered, this would cause a great number of new players to come to the format.

If a restriction upon the number of allowable restricted cards per deck is what it takes for more players along with Wizards to throw more support behind vintage, then I'm game.

Jazzy Kat:

The power nine for the most part were restricted because they broke fundamental rules of the game.

If I put out two land on one turn, without fast bond or exploration on the table you would say I was cheating, well moxes let you do just that. As to the lotus...lets not go there.

As far a ancestral goes. You are allowed to draw one card per turn. Elementary card advantage tells us that the more cards we draw, the smoother our mana base, the more answers and the more threats we have. This card effectively gives you two extra turns of cards for free.

Time walk, normally we alternate turns. Timewalk basically says skip your turn.

Timetwister is powerful like other draw sevens, but I think it is expensive because it is blue and went in so many combo decks over the years.

OK, now we know that cheating helps you win if you don't get caught right. Now these cards are like legal cheating. There are very few decks that wouldn't see a performance boost by being able to legally cheat.

Loci:

I think the following things will happen in the future and I doubt very much that I will be proven wrong;

1) Someone will break the already broken Mishra's Workshop and it will get restricted. (again)

2) Someone will break the metagame with a combo deck relying on all the restricted mana accelerators available in the format.

3) Some sort of Super Ristricted List will be introduced.

I do not know long it will take. It will depend on new cards mostly. There could also be another step between 1 and 2 (Perhaps even before 1) with a new Mox or what ever, that will show up and get restricted as well.

I am convinced that this is a very good thing. The format will be a bit slower, less reliant on power cards, a bit less random and more skill based, have a lower barrier of entry, have many more viable archeatypes and in general will be a lot more accesible to new players. This is exactly the push it needs to get more support from Wizards.

Currently, the player who can't afford any power cards is at a strict disadvantage compared to one who can opt to play all five moxen, black lotus, ancestral recall, time walk and essentially fill a fourth of their deck with the most unbalanced, overpowered cards in the game. Cards which as Jazzy Kat puts it, are analogous to legalized cheating. Once the number of such cards playable per deck is limited, there will indeed certain advantages for the player who though they can't opt to play black lotus, ancestral recall, time walk etc. will be able to make up for some of these slots with cards like balance, necropotence, strip mine, tutors etc.

If in this new format, certain cards previously considered unbalanced no longer prove themselves to be so, cards like Fork and Recall whose power derived from the other restricted cards, maybe someday even something like Fact or Fiction, then they will slowly be removed from the restricted list entirely. But at no point do I see the need to create a seperate super restricted list.

Vintage will still be much the same. It's main appeal, the ability to play with just about every card every printed, will still hold true. No card save for the ante cards will be unusable. The only change is that it will be more inclusive. It's slightly slower speed will support many more viable archeatypes. It will be better able to support more players as cheap restricted gems like stripmine compete with powerhouses like black lotus and the moxen in budget variants. Meanwhile, both budget and powered players have access to powerhouse cards like necropotence, yawgie's will etc. Victory would be a lot more satisfying as more people can attribute their success to skill rather than their financial ability to acquire all the cards. Budget decks will have a place in the meta once again. Deck variation and experimentation would be at an all time high.

In such a scenario, I see more support from Wizards and from the community as a whole as an inevitability. And this support behind type one in turn would be recripricoated.

As Dr. Sylvan put it...

"Type 1 players' dedication can and does bring in new customers. It's rare to meet even an unPowered Vintage player who doesn't have years of play behind them, and frequently over the course of those years they teach new people to play (I'm personally responsible for bringing in a few myself, and causing people to continue playing when they otherwise would've quit).

... There would be an increase in the people who play multiple formats; even now, people 'dabble' either into Type 1 or out of it into other formats (witness CrazyCarl's States participation; this is not uncommon--I even *gasp* draft about twice a month). With a more reasonable cost, there would be more mixing. And since when has having more accessible ways to enjoy the game caused someone to quit? Indeed, having players involved in a diversity of formats provides a safety net against one format's degeneracy--players still have somewhere to go even if something goes wrong and makes Type 2 boring for a season, or 1.X, or whatever else. (Obviously Urza block is not a supporting example here, but Psychatog surely is for its temporary ruination of Standard, and Tinker now in Extended.)

No matter what, Type 1 is a phenomenon of increased longevity among WotC's customers--people who get addicted to it tend to stay around longer than others. Even if they don't play other formats as much as the devotees of the cash cows, they're still supporting their local stores and proliferating Magic in general. I don't think that by making the cards for our format more generally available that there would be any negative effect on the number of players in the supported PT- and Worlds-level formats. These are not only the formats with the most prizes, but they would still be considerably more accessible. I don't think Type 1 could ever threaten the broad appeal of smaller-card-pool formats.

Type 1's endurance is a sign of the game's endurance, and its recent ascending popularity shows that many players are reaching a stage where they want to explore Constructed Magic in the broadest terms, with the oldest cards. A maturing player base is to be expected in a game as it gets older, and catering to this evolving demographic would be a sage business move."

There may have been temporary boosts in the degeneracy of the format, but these were addressed with restrictions.

But this whole time, the format as a whole has been speeding up as more and more unbalanced cards get printed. We are already reaching the point where further restrictions won't significantly slow down the format, there are simply too many cards to restrict.

So eventually, the DCI will have to either...

A. do exactly what this thread proposes and restrict the number of restricted cards allowable per deck.

or

B. start banning cards.

There are several problems I see with the second option. Once we start banning cards, the fundamental draw behind vintage, the fact that we can play with just about every card except for the ante cards will be diminished. Once we start going down the banning road, there is little to seperate vintage from type 1.5. Option A on the other hand allows us to leave the fundamental lure of vintage, the thing that makes it unique, the fact that we can play with virtually all of our cards, perfectly intact.

The even more serious problem I see with option B is that the DCI will hesistate from banning the most abusive culprits, cards like Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall. They'll fear backlash from players and collectors who have suddenly had their $200 investments reduced to worthless cardboard. So they'll be forced to ban cards like Gush, Lion's Eye Diamond, Chrome Mox etc, cards wholly undeserving of a banning. It's just a big mess. This road too is avioded by option A.

In short...

1. The idea described in this thread is unaviodable if vintage is to survive. It is the only viable alternative.

2. The idea described will have many many very positive effects on vintage (those illustrated in my previous posts) and virtually no negative ones.

So lets just open ourselves up to this inevitability. In fact lets embrace it, it WILL be a good thing. And lets start discussing the details. Details such as how many restricted cards can be included per deck.

I'm not trying to destroy anything. And the course of action suggested in no way targets specific decks or makes any deck inviable. So I don't see where you get this notion. All it does is make even more decks viable and level the playing field a bit.

I'm trying to find ways that type one can prosper, allow for more archeatypes and recieve more support without hurting anyone (as it's been argued that reprints would). My previous posts have already stated how this idea will precisely do just that. And you haven't attacked any of these contentions. So I'll assume that you agree with them. If that is the case, then you clearly see why the course of action being suggested is a good one.

Furthermore, MaRo specifically stated that the high barrier of entry is what keeps vintage from getting more support from Wizards. The course of action suggested will address this issue as well.

I think we all want to see vintage be as healthy and as popular as possible. And I also think we all don't want to see future bannings in type one as will eventually occur if the idea presented isn't followed upon. So I don't see what we're argueing about.

If vintage allows to get degenerately fast and we don't start banning the power cards, soon the only viable alternative would be to errata all moxen and the lotus to say global artifact (similar to global enchantments). This would mean that no new global artifacts can be played after the first. As a result, drawing moxen or the lotus after one has been played either by you or the opponent would lead to dead cards and often be a liability. Would you prefer that?[/b][/quote]

[jpmeyer]

It still creates virtual bannings.  If you get one Mox why would you ever choose Chrome Mox or Mox Diamond?  Why would you ever play Lotus Petal?  What about Grim Monolith/Mana Crypt/Mana Vault?  Why would you play a draw-7 other than Memory Jar?  You only get one tutor?  VT, MT, ET, and Burning Wish are gone.

And where would you classify stuff like Strip Mine, Black Vise, Balance, Regrowth, Mind's Desire, and so on?

How does this still answer the fact that Player A will be using Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, and so on while Player B is using Lotus Petal, Chrome Mox, and the like?

[Rancor]

BEFORE MAKING ANY COMMENTS, please take the time to read the posts I've cited on the first page. Odds are, most of the questions and concerns you have have already been adressed. And seeing as how I am probably never going to enter this thread again for the sake of having a civil honest discussion, it's the best way to get your questions answered.

The entire argument is illustrated with quotes by others. And there are very very good points and arguments made by the articles I cited in the previous page. So it's difficult for me to sit back and not respond when some one misinterprets what I am advocating. That is why I will try to never visit this thread again from this moment on. You are free to answer your own questions and reach your own conclusions.

All this thread is suggesting is that the dci makes a new rule that no vintage deck can include more than a certain number of restricted cards.

But to answer your question since I am still here, making it viable for budget players to play with slightly weaker versions of the power cards is a positive side effect that this thread will generate.

Let's say that the number of restricted cards each deck is limited to is seven. Seven is a beautiful number as it would shut out all combo decks that play 26 restricted cards to pull out a first turn win, but is large enough that all other decks can remain intact with minimal changes. The player playing with four moxen, a black lotus, time walk, and ancestral recall will undoubtedly have an advantage (in the early game atleast) over the budget player that plays sol ring, stripmine, demonic tutor, demonic consultation, vampiric tutor, necropotence, and yawgmoth's will. But it won't be nearly as large a gap as the gap between the two players will be vastly less significant than the current gap between the same budget deck and the powered deck that instead plays 26 restricted cards to achieve consistent first and second turn wins. It could even be argued that the budget deck is better because of the boost it gains in the late game. If the budget player is more interested in the early game, sure they would be forced to use cards such as Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Lotus Petal, and Stripmine. They would be a bit weaker than the powered player, but the gap in the power level wouldn't be nearly as big as it is now.

In addendum: I would like to state that T1.5 needs a seperate B&R list. With the removal of many degenerate cards from the pool, such cards as Crop Rotation and Voltaic Key could be brought back into the card pool. This would spur growth in 1.5 as well since it would establish it as a format truly distinct from vintage rather than just it's decapitated brother. And the fact that you could play four copies of certain cards restricted in vintage would give it an exciting factor all it's own.

Please, post your ideas on what the effects of sepearting the Type 1 and Type 1.5 lists here. What benefits would this have? Is there any reason this shouldn't be done? Once we accumilate enough information on this, someone thus inclined could write an article on this topic as well (I suck at writing articles).

[/b]

[Dr. Sylvan]

I can honestly say that January has been so dramatically lacking in combo and prison that we should all be pleasantly surprised. The article is still in progress, but Dark Ritual and ESG barely even registered, and most of the Workshops and Bazaars were in aggro decks. The ENTIRE critical mass debate should be postponed until such time as the metagame provides empirical evidence that a deck exists which cannot be properly restrained through restrictions.

Even in October when I wrote my gargantuan article about it--which you persistently cite--I was aware that we should give restrictions another shot before implementing any major change. ("Please take note: I only want bannings after we've finally exhausted the original policy. I just think that the end of that rope is close enough to draw attention to the necessary next step.") It has turned out that the original restriction policy has more vitality than I estimated at the time, and we should recognize that, and be happy with the incredibly balanced format we have.

If the concern is budgetary, I advise either playing Type 1.5 or doing as a cadre of veteran TMDers have already done in building strong budget decks. If the concern is swinginess, this format will never be without it, and that's why many of us are here instead of taking road trips to PTQs. Most importantly, if the concern is combo domination or an unhealthy metagame, your position is flawed by the lack of data to support it.

All discussion of a hypothetical far-future policy is counterproductive and tends to incite unnecessary flames.

[Rancor]

Those issues have already been addressed on the previous page Dr. Sylvan.

I'm leaving now, I will try not to check this thread again. The rest of you, please keep this discussion going.

[Dr. Sylvan]

If you're referring to the statement that post-restriction TPS is doing well, I assure you it isn't. It's made one Top 8 appearance in a tournament of >50 players, out of forty Top 8 berths. I'm well aware the deck still exists, but the question is of its capacity to actually win, and we are seeing no proof of that.

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

[Nightwind]

The fact that You feel strongly about this subject is more than appharent, this thread is now 16 Posts long (including the one I am writing now) and you have been the author for 12 of those.... Yet even then you have done nothing but quote other people. And if you haven't quoted someone else you post only to say that you aren't going to reply anymore because no one is listening to you and they need to.

But I will help you out by posting my opinion. I'll even quote another source as I begin. From www.magiclore.com -

Description:
“Type I” would seem to be the least restrictive format around. It allows the most cards out of any of the other formats. This format is good for players that have been around since the beginning of the game years ago and don’t want to continually buy mounds of cards. Yes it does include the new cards that come out, but older players can just buy the ones they need for there decks if one at a time. Generally the arch-type decks don’t change that often in this format.

One of the biggest complaints from Type 2 players that I hear over and over is about the amount of $$$ it costs to play Type 1. My reply to them is always the same, ''Well I am confused then why you can spend $15/week drafting the current set over and over until you have a mess of cards you just can't use. For me I would rather save for a few weeks at that rate and buy a Mana Drain." Type 1 players invest in their collections the same as a Type 2 player does in my opinion. The only difference is that the Type 1 player knows that he is investing and the Type 2 player lies to himself, considering it the alternative to spending so much on Type 1. In the end the Type 1 player has his Power and no longer needs to invest as he can use these cards over and over again, yet the Type 2 player has play sets of all the top Type 2 cards that will be a memory (or at least a lot less valuable) once the next Block comes out.

The only reason to "restrict" restricted cards is so that players, who don't have the money or the desire to buy/sell/trade into Power Nine or other such cards, can be lazy and log into www.deck.dec, make their budget versions of the top decks, and enter tournaments that are now down to their level. If you can't compete in an environment such as Type 1 solely based on the inability to get the Power Nine then you are just a poor player. See here: How to take 1st Place at a Type 1 Tournament with No Power. After checking out the 1st place deck make sure you page down enogh to view the environment he topped in.

If you reply to my post it only shows that you feel too strongly to let the discussion go on without you. This is my opinion on Type 1, based on being a player since graduating in 1993. And the Con that you are looking for from me is this: If you restrict the number of Retricted Cards you can play in a tournament it won't change the decks being played. The only result is wasting the time and money spent by the Type 1 Players in the first place.

[squirrel2782]

I am quite bothered by the possible restriction on restricted cards.  I think that will really take away from the flavor of Type 1.  It may be time for DCI to implimate a real Type 0 and take more of a laissez-faire attitude with it.  Type 1 could be the format that is being proposed with a limited amount of  restricted cards.  Finally they have T1.5 for whatever reason they have it now.

[colder]

I think a quick look at the restricted list will prove to you that so far, we don't need such a rule.

Most of the cards on that list are very, very good.  However, a good number of these cards are only degenerate if they can be exploited en masse.  It's not that such cards aren't good on their own, but they don't make or break a deck all on their lonesome.  Fastbond will probably never be that one key building block in a deck with anything other than combo in mind, and that certainly won't be a key win condition.  Same goes for Earthcraft.  Remember Academy decks and Combo Winter?  Where'd they go?

So far then, restrictions really work.  They won't be printing another Tolarian Academy anytime soon, or those key "Free" spells.  They might make cards *like* them, but they won't function the same, they won't keep the same theme.

Secondly, I don't believe that restricted cards alone will win you a game.  Yes, they can make or break the THEME of your deck, but taking the lot of them and making up a deck will not win.  The best designed decks can win because they can be played a certain way, and not just drop bombs on people.

I feel your concerns are more along the lines of "One day they'll have printed enough Moxes and free mana spells that restricting them all will still give you 20+ mana sources, and you won't need land", or "One day you'll be able to have half your deck as tutors".  That may be, but the key is that you still have to play against other people - yeah, THOSE other people, the ones that make up your metagame.  Until those people stop adapting their decks to suit new threats, using a boatload of restricted cards won't matter a lick.  The game itself provides all the means to thwart it's own tricks, and players will find them and use them.

Good decks are built on redundance and having the best threats or strategies.  Restricted cards add to those strategies, but being restricted makes them additions, not strategies in themselves.  Also, loading up on similar restricted cards will only saturate your deck, and remove any redundance that you're seeking.  Sometimes, it doesn't pay to play with EVERY Mox.  Ancestral Recall, Yawgmoth's Will, Balance, Necropotence... none of these will win you a game by themselves.  They can only help you win in your theme.

[riggy]

This isn't truly an answer to the question posed in post 1, but it would seem that an alternative to creating overly-complex super-restriction lists would be to increase the minimum deck size.

Here's a summary of a discussion that some friends and I had over the course of several days about increasing the minimum deck size by 20 (to an obvious number of 80).

[PRO] One, players would have to completely rethink their mana base. It's not simply a matter of adding more draw to a deck to make their combo still work. Most combo decks already use most (if not all) of the good mana accelerators. Cards that were once considered sub-optimal may start seeing increased play.

[PRO] Two, players would have increased visual scope. Cards that everyone says are cool but too slow suddenly have a chance to become rather more viable.

[CON] Three, on the downside, randomness becomes more apparent. I didn't consider this to be a major point, since it's relevant to today's game, but the "almighty God hands" become much more rare. People won't be able to drop 3 moxen and a land on the first turn quite as often.

[PRO] Four, "critical turn" would probably drop back a turn or two. This was speculation, on our parts, but we imagined (and minorly playtested) that the critical turn would be pushed back to turn 3 or 4. Getting a bazaar or workshop opening hand was a little more difficult, and having that amazing first turn mindtwist with all your moxen wasn't likely.

[PRO] Five, all decks suffered equally. Control, combo, aggro, and prison all more or less slowed down equally. Established archtypes became less viable on the aggro side, but we discussed possible alternatives and additions to make them adapt.

There was more to this discussion, but I'm thinking that's more than enough of our reasoning for now. I'd rather hear what others have to say about our meandering thoughts.

[Jacob Orlove]

Altering the rules of the game just won't happen, because every other format is fine with 60 (or 40) cards.

As for restricting the number of restricted cards, well, maybe in another 10 years we'll be at that point, but R&D has, for the most part, been doing a great job of not making broken cards anymore.

[Guardian]

I don't believe it would enhance anything at all. Restricting the number of restricted card creates, as jpmeyer noted, a virtual banning of cards because does not allows you to play all cards you want (I will add Mana Crypt to my deck. Oops, I cannot because I'm already running these X cards). By definition, T1 is the type where you can play all cards you want except those that are affected by player dexterity or ante cards. Most restricted cards are design errors and accelerators. Wizards try to create balanced cards and sometimes, mostly in the early days, they screw up. It still happens (see the Storm mechanic), but recent restricted cards are more scarce than they were 5 to 10 years ago.

Another problem I see is that it cripples multi color control and combo the most. I don't see and can't think about an aggro deck that will suffer greatly from this kind of restriction. Sligh, Goblin Sligh, Stompy, WW and Suicide Black (any form) and blue based two colors control decks are all very redundant decks that don't run many restricted cards and won't be hurt a bit by such ideas. However, I don't want to think, considering a limit of 10 restricted cards, about Keeper (most restricted list), WMud (12-13), Hulk (14-15), Parfait (11 cards), NeoLong (28), GAT (15-16), Madness (12), Rector Trix (16-18) and many others. What we would get is a very redundant metagame and skill would be less involved. Yes, Long and Keeper run a very high amount of restricted cards, but also require a great knowledge of the game to play properly. As a matter of fact, I believe there is a direct relationship between the number of restricted cards in known decks and the skill required to play them. This is not an absolute rule (see Rector Trix), but an simple observation. So playing a great number of restricted cards requires that you are a competent player. This means that anybody can play Long and Keeper, but only experienced players will yield any results. Just think about when is the good time to play Balance (not always easy). A newcomer to T1 should not play Keeper or Long, so he will need less restricted cards and as he gets better and wins tournaments with less expensive decks, he will gather the ressources necessary to buy expensive cards. Sligh is not always an auto-lose and can win.

As a last point face it: T1 IS expensive. Masks, Workshops and Bazaar are all expensive cards that need to be run as 4 of in any deck that needs them. What are we left with? Gay, LandStill, WW, Sligh, Suicide, rogue decks and those I have forgotten. These decks are all great on their own, but it is far more rewarding to win according to your play skill with decks that require some thinking before you play. And by the way, Dragon, one of the format's greatest deck at the moment is not affected. This is not good for aggro:)

And on a last note, I believe the balance between control, aggro and control will be broken should such a rule exist and right now, the metagame is balanced. Let's keep it that way.

[Carlos El Salvador]

Many a good points have been made on this thread about type 1.  Dumbing it down and seeting a set amount of restricted cards to be in a deck is illogical at best.  I have played Long online a lot, and I own no power, but I figured it out.  it took me about 200 goldfishing games to get me down to turn two consistancy.  Type 1 will never again be in the mainstream of magic, as the money issue will make that positive.  I do think, though, that there should be perhaps 1 or two cards that should be completley banned due to utter lack of fairness for  alack of any other term.

TOLAIRIAN ACADAMY:  This deck is nuts.  Honesty, any deck that wins off one land producing OBCENE amounts of mana is a bit terrible.  It is the main culprit in Dutch Acadamy, Burning Acadamy, and Old Skool Acadamy.  I honestly think this card has to go simply because all combo decks can play it.

YAWGMOTH'S WILL:  There has never been a more powerful card printed.  Ever.  The way this card just skews all decks is insane.  If I had to choose to run 4 Yawgmoth's Wills or Power nine, I would rather run wills.  I think before wizards acually outright bans it, they need to make a suitable replacement.  (Mana cost +1 or 2, attach lifeloss to whenever you play a spell, stuff like that) to not kill combo totally.

And the last one will piss all those dragon players off

ERRATA WGD:  If these two cards were taken out of the picture, combo would still rule, and the only combo deck that would massivly rule is Dragon in all it's various forms.  I like combo, and I just tried nudering TPS/Long.dec, Acadamy varients, and this combo will go unchecked as the reining champion of combo.

If wizards REALLY wanted to eliminate all non dragon combo, they could also get rid of Tendrils and Acadamy once and for all.  that wouldn't work well because Rector/Trix would rule with no other combo competing.

[Guardian]

Carlos:
I agree that Yawgmoth's Will is insane, but it's power depends on the cards that are in your graveyard, so even though it may seem ridiculous, it is a situational cards. Sometimes, it will create degenerate situations but sometimes, it will give you a shot in the arm without being super broken. I know it is ridicule in Long, but the last restrictions decreased the power of the deck by removing the real culprit: LED. The insane amount of mana provided made the deck degenerate. I will nor explain it here because Smennen wrote a lot of articles on the deck. Also, there was a great discussion on the banning of Will in the old community forum, so I don't think we need to start a new one.

As for Tolarian Academy, it was obvioulsy a design mistake, but so were Ancestral Recall, Balance and so on. By reading your psot, it sounds like that if combo is using something, then it should be banned. I know that a land that can produce so much mana is broken, but again, it is a one of in a deck of 60 cards. And people knowing it is a key card in some decks will play accordingly and waste it as soon as it enters play.

As for your last point, it seems you want combo to disappear, but combo must remain. It is part of the balance. No combo means more aggro. And as a result, the metagame would shift in one type of deck design unless it is a hybrid. I know it is boring to play against a combo that goes off, but an intelligent player will adjust his playstyle according to the deck he's playing against.

[Rancor]

I edited in responses to the false statements many of you have made. They can be found here... http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=186256#186256

PLEASE check it out...

[Rancor]

If you have any doubts on the notion that vintage will soon be degenarate and domanted by combo, read this...
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14849

Also read this thread for a more indepth insiteful explanation of this idea and it's effects.
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14850

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think we'll all be laughing rather uproariously when the January results are compiled. Here's your sneak preview of decks that T8ed more than once:

5 Madness (1,3,4,6,7)
4 Keeper (2,3,7,8)
3 Slavery (3,8,8)
3 Stacker (1,4,8)
3 Hulk Smash (1,5,7)
2 Stax (1,3)
2 TnT (2,8)
2 Oshawa Stompy (aka GPR2)(4,6)
2 Food Chain Goblins (5,5)
2 Landstill (5,6)
2 Goblin Sligh (5,7)

The only combo there is based on Food Chain! Hah!