Banned/Restricted List for June 2008

B

BigBlue

Guest
Well... this is the place for players to discuss the issue...

I don't play in any tournament scene... There has never been a vintage scene around here, it's all limited and standard... I have seen P9 less than 5 times in my life - and never had to face it.

But, we always used the Vintage rules in our casual games... (or Type 1, or whatever they called it at the time).

I can see Oversoul's point... Just because a card is being used, does not mean it's broken... Brainstorm though, is powerful... I know some would disagree, but it's a poor man's Ancestral Recall in that for U you get get a card you need. Yeah, it's not 3 cards you need... but, you don't lose them either since you can put them back in any order... Plus its at instant speed...

When Brainstorm was printed, one big thing still existed, Interrupt... so, you couldn't brainstorm for a counter in response to a spell to find a counter, and then use the counter to counter the original spell. That made it much more powerful than it used to be.

I had thought it was worded differently since I haven't played it in forever...

So, now that I read it correctly: "Draw 3 cards, then put 2 cards from your hand on top of your library."

Is vastly different than what I was thinking (incorrectly): "Look at the top 3 cards of your library and put them back in any order. Draw a card"

I can see why it's restricted... It is a 9 out of 10 where AR would be an 11/10...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Well, this is the casual players, so you don't necessary have to follow the "tourney" restrictions when playing... just modify them and have house rules. I mean, which of us can play with a full set of Moxes (like 4 of one kind) anyway? Or does 1-2 turn kills like with Flash-Hulk (which I've never heard of, because I don't even have those cards to begin with). WOTC has to watch out for the competitive scene though, so if some cards are appearing to be stronger in those "cutthroat" formats, they have to do something. I think it's kinda naive? presumptuous? to try to say to WOTC that they can't restrict something when we don't even play in that sandbox to begin with...
 
B

BigBlue

Guest
I agree with you Spidey...

I was just a bit taken aback because I thought WotC didn't sponsor the old type 1/legacy/vintage or whatever they call it... and I sorta figured they were ignoring it...

And yeah, we never had to follow them... for us it was Sol Ring and black vice which could be broken... one player in our group was a "mr. Suitcase" who had access to 10's of thousands of cards... Every deck he owned had a sol ring... and he had quite a few different 4 serra decks... most of us struggled to get 4 of any decent card...

We also had a player on the other extreme - who moved his Sol Ring and Maze of Ith from deck to deck between games... :)

So, P9 never came into play - none of us ever owned any... one player had some Arabian Nights (his Old Man of the Sea was very cool), others had some legends and antiquities (I refused to spend the $6 and $8 a pack they were at the time, so I only got the stuff in Chronicles) The banned/restricted list mostly meant we wouldn't see really broken decks... and living by the at most 4 rule (and 60 card deck rule) meant we wouldn't see the ridiculous 40 Lightning bolt decks (which one player had - another had the degenerate plague rat deck - 30 rats, 10 dark rits, 20 swamps).

The first player to really break most of us, was the guy who had a friend that gifted him a huge stack of basic land... that meant he could actually run a tuned deck while the rest of us played with our starter and a couple boosters... But I wax nostalgic...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Well, like I said yesterday, I think they're paying attention to the format now and have been for a while... I think they might have started when they had that whole set of unrestrictions and wanted to see what would fall out from it.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
<shrug> Dude, you're talking to the wrong guy. You need to be talking to Mike Turian and the other guy and asking them to explain the decision more in detail, as they presumably have more data and can back up their reasoning.
I poked around a bit on other sites before work today and while there was some buzz to sift through, I guess I'm not completely crazy. There are definitely active Vintage players that are against this. A lot, actually. They'll get over it eventually, I'm sure.

And why should Mike Turian listen to me anyway? The last time I bought a booster was, man, I don't even remember...

I'm posting here because this is the only Magic community where I'm still active, and this is kind of big for me because I think it's killed my interest in Vintage, which I was considering looking into more after getting my AS and which was the only format I've paid ANY attention to lately (I might give Legacy another shot). But it's not directed at any one person or anything. It's mostly venting and expressing my disbelief that they'd restrict that many cards all at once, especially when some of them had been around for such a long time.

All I'm saying is that you're admittedly not up with the Vintage scene and so it sounds like your reasons are based off of what the scene was *when* you were up on it. Maybe you're not and basing them off of the latest tourneys, but again, WOTC has data on almost every reported tournament just for DCI points, if nothing else.
Like I said, I have actually been looking into it a little. Top 8's are generally looking pretty diverse. GAT is seeing a lot of representation, but it looks like it's also been extremely popular. Also, even if I knew substantially less than I do, there's no amount of hidden tournament data that can explain how three different archetypes are dominating at the same time. The only thing I can think of would be if they thought, "Well, GAT is dominating, so we need to restrict Gush. But if we do that, Flash will dominate, so we need to..." or something like that. But that would be just too much extrapolation. Does anyone really want the DCI to operate that way?

They surely are seeing some trend somewhere; after all, these cards weren't unrestricted 3 months ago when the last decision was made.
Yeah, and I LIKED that decision. Not much to say about it, but I could make sense of it. What is the policy now on bans and restrictions. Trinisphere restricted because people whined? Shahrazad banned because someone somewhere might have at some point in the hypothetical future been able to use it in an unsportsmanlike manner? And now five cards restricted at the same time because they're "dominating" the format--or something?

A huge part of the appeal behind Vintage was stability. Cards didn't rotate out and a deck one had years ago could be dusted off and played (even though it might be a bit behind and need some tuning up to adopt to the new metagame if one wants to be truly competitive). Players could use ALL of their cards (except for ante cards and cards that get thrown, but that made sense--generally no one is playing for ante and throwing cards has practical problems with table space and such, it becomes to ridiculous) with restrictions only on the most powerful cards. That's not to say restrictions on old cards will never need to happen or that big changes will never occur. But five cards at once like this? It just strikes me as totally against the spirit of the format.

Okay Spidey, this part will be to you specifically, since you've brought it up: You've raised the issue at least twice now that I'm not an expert on the exact state of Vintage tournaments and don't have all the data available to the people who did make this decision. That's fair, but for me, that's not the issue. I do believe the metagame was pretty balanced, and if you or anyone else does have information to the contrary, I would be glad to look at it and discuss it. That data is pertinent and it is out there. And yes, I've not seen all of it or even most of it. But my take isn't that the restrictions were bad because the metagame was balanced. It's that this is against the spirit of the format. Restricting a staple card (Brainstorm) is a serious matter. It shouldn't be done lightly and it should be done in a controlled setting, preferably with no other restrictions or unrestrictions taking place at the same time. But this is FIVE cards. That's a lot, even for the most extremely unhealthy metagame where things need to change, that would be too much.

This is five cards when two of them are vital to run certain first tier decks, two are staples and the last one is a potential supplement for one of the staples being restricted. Even though the tone of the explanations is, "There's a problem and we need to fix it" the reality of this huge action is clearly more like, "We want to turn the format on its head. Out with the old Vintage, in the with the new."
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
There are definitely active Vintage players that are against this. A lot, actually. They'll get over it eventually, I'm sure.
I wonder if they're the ones playing the decks of whose cards just got restricted? :)

And why should Mike Turian listen to me anyway? The last time I bought a booster was, man, I don't even remember...
Well, apparently you have concerns. Obviously he isn't going to make decisions based on your input alone :), but if others are chiming in, then your voice just gets added to it.

I'm posting here because this is the only Magic community where I'm still active, and this is kind of big for me because I think it's killed my interest in Vintage, which I was considering looking into more after getting my AS and which was the only format I've paid ANY attention to lately (I might give Legacy another shot). But it's not directed at any one person or anything. It's mostly venting and expressing my disbelief that they'd restrict that many cards all at once, especially when some of them had been around for such a long time.
Venting is fine. In the beginning it was unclear whether you actually expected a change, that's all.

Like I said, I have actually been looking into it a little. Top 8's are generally looking pretty diverse. GAT is seeing a lot of representation, but it looks like it's also been extremely popular. Also, even if I knew substantially less than I do, there's no amount of hidden tournament data that can explain how three different archetypes are dominating at the same time. The only thing I can think of would be if they thought, "Well, GAT is dominating, so we need to restrict Gush. But if we do that, Flash will dominate, so we need to..." or something like that. But that would be just too much extrapolation. Does anyone really want the DCI to operate that way?
I don't think they're seeing three particular decks dominate, but rather the same "4 of"s of the same blue cards in each deck that uses blue. It doesn't matter the archtype, but if you're playing blue and always packing 4 Brainstorms, 4 Gushes, etc., then apparently that's a concern.

It reminds me when 4th ed was out and they banned or restricted Mishra's Factory and Strip Mine, because it didn't matter the deck that was played, those 4 ofs of the 2 cards were almost always included in the deck (like 95% of the time or something like that).

A huge part of the appeal behind Vintage was stability.
Well, one could argue that the whole lot of unrestrictings made the format pretty unstable, as all of a sudden you could play with 4 ofs of certain cards that had always been restricted. So really, if you missed that whole period, things didn't change much overall :)

You've raised the issue at least twice now that I'm not an expert on the exact state of Vintage tournaments and don't have all the data available to the people who did make this decision. That's fair, but for me, that's not the issue. I do believe the metagame was pretty balanced, and if you or anyone else does have information to the contrary, I would be glad to look at it and discuss it. That data is pertinent and it is out there. And yes, I've not seen all of it or even most of it. But my take isn't that the restrictions were bad because the metagame was balanced. It's that this is against the spirit of the format. Restricting a staple card (Brainstorm) is a serious matter. It shouldn't be done lightly and it should be done in a controlled setting, preferably with no other restrictions or unrestrictions taking place at the same time. But this is FIVE cards. That's a lot, even for the most extremely unhealthy metagame where things need to change, that would be too much.
I'm not sure how you can say in one sentence that you don't have all the data for Vintage yet in another say that you believe the metagame is balanced. That's like coming into a debate without doing any homework or research whatsoever yet expecting to be taken seriously :)

Again, I'm not sure how long it's been between the last round of mass unrestrictions and this, but I'm pretty sure WOTC isn't "taking this lightly". If they had done this with only the three month window in between restriction announcements, yeah, I would agree with you. But since more time than that has passed, I think they've taken a more serious look than a "light" one.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
I wonder if they're the ones playing the decks of whose cards just got restricted? :)
I don't. Almost everyone used Brainstorm.

I don't think they're seeing three particular decks dominate, but rather the same "4 of"s of the same blue cards in each deck that uses blue. It doesn't matter the archtype, but if you're playing blue and always packing 4 Brainstorms, 4 Gushes, etc., then apparently that's a concern.
Well, firstly, that's not the case. Like I said, almost everyone used Brainstorm. Gush and Merchant Scroll were pretty common too, but so what? Every format has cards that are more commonly used than others.

It reminds me when 4th ed was out and they banned or restricted Mishra's Factory and Strip Mine, because it didn't matter the deck that was played, those 4 ofs of the 2 cards were almost always included in the deck (like 95% of the time or something like that).
When was Factory restricted? I don't know where to look, but I don't think Strip Mine was restricted because it was prevalent. It was restricted because it was broken and that's remained the case.

Well, one could argue that the whole lot of unrestrictings made the format pretty unstable, as all of a sudden you could play with 4 ofs of certain cards that had always been restricted. So really, if you missed that whole period, things didn't change much overall :)
Which unrestrictions, other than Gush, are relevant? I can't think of any. And no, unrestricting cards people didn't use anyway doesn't cancel out the restriction of Brainstorm. The only thing that would be the same for people who left and came back, but was different in the interim, would be Gush's state on the restricted list. For the most part, such people would probably not even have imagined that Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll would be restricted.

I'm not sure how you can say in one sentence that you don't have all the data for Vintage yet in another say that you believe the metagame is balanced. That's like coming into a debate without doing any homework or research whatsoever yet expecting to be taken seriously :)
Oh really? Is that what it's like? Then what is what you're doing like? Going into a debate and making every rebuttal, "Well, you're not omniscient, so there might be some vital information you're missing that invalidates your point."

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but firstly, if there's some vital information many of the players are missing or unaware of, but that the DCI took into account, this could easily have been published. Had that happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion or at least not quite in this way. You can assume that such information exists, but that Big Brother just doesn't want to trouble our poor little heads with it, but I'm not going to.

And again, I cannot fathom what such information would have to be in order for these restrictions, taken as a whole, to make sense. Even if there are a billion tournaments I somehow never knew about where certain decks dominated, the problem should be solvable with just one or perhaps two restrictions. The really telling one is Flash. It's only used in its own deck. If that deck isn't dominating, there's no reason to restrict it. If that deck is dominating, then Flash should be the ONLY restriction.

Again, I'm not sure how long it's been between the last round of mass unrestrictions and this, but I'm pretty sure WOTC isn't "taking this lightly". If they had done this with only the three month window in between restriction announcements, yeah, I would agree with you. But since more time than that has passed, I think they've taken a more serious look than a "light" one.
Firstly, I don't believe that there has been a "round of mass unrestrictions." There's been some cleanup, and most of it has been done very professionally. They've unrestricted cards often (but not always) one at a time and waited a while before unrestricting others, taking a patient, safe approach to unrestrictions, rather than letting multiple potential problems off all at once.

The biggest round of simultaneous unrestrictions was a year ago. I wrote an article about it. The cards involved were Gush, Mind Twist, Black Vise, and Voltaic Key. I said then that Gush was a bit dangerous and would definitely see use. And the others were either not going to see much use or would be good for casual players at least. I think I was pretty much right on. And while I've already admitted that I'm not omniscient, I see absolutely no evidence that any of these unrestrictions other than Gush has had a significant effect on the metagame.

As for WotC not taking this lightly, I agree, but I don't think I implied that they did. My point was that restricting such an important staple card is serious business with major consequences for the format and should be done with some time between it and any other action. I contend that the goal with these restrictions wasn't to bring balance to the metagame or stop decks from dominating (and the explanation for these restrictions makes a claim along those lines), but was because they wanted to completely turn the format on its head.

I don't know exactly what their plans for Vintage might be, but they clearly didn't like the format the way it was.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Almost everyone used Brainstorm
Well, there you go. Of course the people using one of the suddenly restricted cards the most would be complaining :)

Like I said, almost everyone used Brainstorm. Gush and Merchant Scroll were pretty common too, but so what? Every format has cards that are more commonly used than others.
Well, it stands to reason people would pack 4 ofs of a card drawer and a tutor card that can search for other restricted cards. That's almost a non-brainer.

When was Factory restricted? I don't know where to look, but I don't think Strip Mine was restricted because it was prevalent. It was restricted because it was broken and that's remained the case.
Same time Strip Mine was resticted or even banned. Remember, this was around 4th and right around the time Standard/Type II was being established; before there was just one type of format. And it was definitely restricted because it was broken AND prevalent - the two went hand-in-hand (i.e. it was prevalent because it was broken). It was the specific reason given for it - I remember, because I packed 4 ofs of them both and had to adjust my deck when I entered a tourney at the time.

Oh really? Is that what it's like? Then what is what you're doing like? Going into a debate and making every rebuttal, "Well, you're not omniscient, so there might be some vital information you're missing that invalidates your point."
That's the only rebuttal I can make because frankly, you're not making your point based on any information at all. If you could provide some info that might illustrate your point, I might agree with you, but so far, from what I'm getting, you're just basing it off of either the past or non-current data and just personal feelings of how Vintage is being played without actually investigating how it's being played. It's like me trying to make a point of Vintage or Standard when I haven't played or looked to see what's being played. Again, a vent or rant I can understand, but in my experience, when additional info is made about the issue, the vent/rant becomes more informed and less of a vent/rant.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but firstly, if there's some vital information many of the players are missing or unaware of, but that the DCI took into account, this could easily have been published. Had that happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion or at least not quite in this way. You can assume that such information exists, but that Big Brother just doesn't want to trouble our poor little heads with it, but I'm not going to.
And who knows, maybe there is on the WOTC forums if they have a Vintage forum there or another avenue. The front page stuff is meant for announcements and short explanations, which is what was provided, and I suppose if you want to talk about in depth, you use the forums. You may not assume so, but I like to take the opposite tack and assume there is.

As for WotC not taking this lightly, I agree, but I don't think I implied that they did.
You did when you said
Restricting a staple card (Brainstorm) is a serious matter. It shouldn't be done lightly...
Since it WAS done, it's implied it was done lightly.

I contend that the goal with these restrictions wasn't to bring balance to the metagame or stop decks from dominating (and the explanation for these restrictions makes a claim along those lines), but was because they wanted to completely turn the format on its head.
<shrug> I disagree since obviously they stated it was to bring balance or stop domination (or something along those lines). Why look for something when they have actually said it?

I don't know exactly what their plans for Vintage might be, but they clearly didn't like the format the way it was.
This I can agree with :)
 
B

BigBlue

Guest
if "everyone is playing 4 BS" doesn't answer the question as to why it's restricted... I don't know what will. That was the reason they restricted Strip Mine, once it was reprinted in Chronicles, everyone had 4 of them in just about every deck... A free (non-counterable) Stone Rain which costs you all of a land drop.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
Well, there you go. Of course the people using one of the suddenly restricted cards the most would be complaining :)
Yeah, those biased players... :rolleyes:

Well, it stands to reason people would pack 4 ofs of a card drawer and a tutor card that can search for other restricted cards. That's almost a non-brainer.
But people have been able to use Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll unrestricted for a long time. Why do you say "other" restricted cards? We're talking about an environment where Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll were not yet restricted.

Same time Strip Mine was resticted or even banned. Remember, this was around 4th and right around the time Standard/Type II was being established; before there was just one type of format.
Yeah, I just can't find any record of it, but it might be difficult to locate online, and I probably don't have any printed restricted lists that old. I also don't remember Factory ever being restricted. If it was, it was probably a mistake and the restriction might not have lasted all that long. Do you remember how long it stayed on the list?

Strip Mine is, of course, still restricted.

Oh, and just be sure we're on the same page, we are definitely talking about Factory here and NOT Workshop, right?

And it was definitely restricted because it was broken AND prevalent - the two went hand-in-hand (i.e. it was prevalent because it was broken). It was the specific reason given for it - I remember, because I packed 4 ofs of them both and had to adjust my deck when I entered a tourney at the time.
So the explanation specifically stated that had it been broken, but not prevalent, Strip Mine wouldn't have been restricted? I know times have changed, but generally (maybe until now, because I'm not even sure what the policy now is) cards that are prevalent but don't dominate or distort the metagame have been left alone, whereas cards that are dominating, but might not be prevalent still get axed. For example, Burning Wish was restricted based on how powerful the deck was, even though it wasn't yet seeing much tournament play (for several reasons, but it was obvious enough that the card was broken because it could easily fetch Yawgmoth's Will from the sideboard).

That's the only rebuttal I can make because frankly, you're not making your point based on any information at all. If you could provide some info that might illustrate your point, I might agree with you, but so far, from what I'm getting, you're just basing it off of either the past or non-current data and just personal feelings of how Vintage is being played without actually investigating how it's being played.
Okay, first off, I am making my contentions based on information. It's information based on my entire experience, so I couldn't possibly provide everything that's influenced what I've said, but I could give some examples. Neither you nor anyone else asked for them. Had you asked, I would have made some attempt to accommodate, but really, you have access to the same sources as I do.

What's this nonsense about outdated data? If I haven't provided any hard data, which I think we both agree I have not, how are you in any position to claim that my data is outdated?

It's like me trying to make a point of Vintage or Standard when I haven't played or looked to see what's being played. Again, a vent or rant I can understand, but in my experience, when additional info is made about the issue, the vent/rant becomes more informed and less of a vent/rant.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. What additional information are you talking about? Also, there's an important difference between what I've actually done and your comparison. While I haven't played Vintage in forever, I have looked to see what's being played.

And who knows, maybe there is on the WOTC forums if they have a Vintage forum there or another avenue. The front page stuff is meant for announcements and short explanations, which is what was provided, and I suppose if you want to talk about in depth, you use the forums. You may not assume so, but I like to take the opposite tack and assume there is.
Wait, what? I may not assume what? I don't understand what you're saying at all.

You did when you said Since it WAS done, it's implied it was done lightly.
No. Just because YOU inferred that, doesn't mean I implied it. There's a context to what I was saying there (in that whole paragraph I was mainly explaining my perspective--had it been in a paragraph where I was directly referring to the DCI's actions, I could see the cause for confusion) and saying that restricting a staple card shouldn't be done lightly was just for emphasis on the fact that it was a huge change. And that was merely to point out what has become my central argument, which you haven't addressed and which circumvents any hypothetical mass of tournament data or argument based on the prevalence of any of these cards, so I'll repeat again in greater detail...

It was FIVE restrictions at once, three for the same reason and two others for different reasons. The explanations made the case that ALL of these restrictions were because of dominance issues. Any one or even two decks dominating the metagame could easily be solved by restricting about two cards, rather than a full five. And when one of the cards is a staple across the board, this sudden volley of restrictions comes much too fast and changes the face of the format completely.

Under the criteria the Vintage community has gotten used to regarding restrictions (although Trinisphere was an exception), there is no possible set of tournament data that justifies all five of these restrictions at once.

<shrug> I disagree since obviously they stated it was to bring balance or stop domination (or something along those lines). Why look for something when they have actually said it?
See my central argument. The idea that these restrictions are all to stop domination doesn't hold water. They can say whatever they want. If they say that these restrictions are to stop domination, they are lying. As for "bringing balance" that could mean anything. Banning everything but Forests would bring balance, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
But people have been able to use Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll unrestricted for a long time. Why do you say "other" restricted cards? We're talking about an environment where Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll were not yet restricted.
I'm sorry, I thought at one time Brainstorm and Scroll *were* restricted. If they weren't and were always unrestricted, then I apologize as I was basing my argument on that.

Yeah, I just can't find any record of it, but it might be difficult to locate online, and I probably don't have any printed restricted lists that old. I also don't remember Factory ever being restricted. If it was, it was probably a mistake and the restriction might not have lasted all that long. Do you remember how long it stayed on the list?
Like I said, it was the time when Standard was just emerging, so it *might* have been resticted when it was just one format and then moved to the Standard list when the two formats emerged. It was fairly quick, like maybe within 6 months, if that.

Oh, and just be sure we're on the same page, we are definitely talking about Factory here and NOT Workshop, right?
Yep, the Factory. An uncounterable creature which could be thrown into any deck, no matter what the theme. I believe most of the decks in the top 8s of tourneys at the time (let's say 7 out of 8) played the Factory and Strip.

So the explanation specifically stated that had it been broken, but not prevalent, Strip Mine wouldn't have been restricted?
Well, no, I don't think it was "broken" (which I'm not even sure how you mean "broken"). It was being used in the vast majority of decks and for uncounterable LD, was stunting a lot of other decks. So prevalance was more the issue at the time.

I am making my contentions based on information. It's information based on my entire experience...
But again, what is your experience worth if it's not current? I could provide you with my experience based on Standard when the environment consisted of the Ice Age/Mirage block. That's not worth beans now.

What's this nonsense about outdated data? If I haven't provided any hard data, which I think we both agree I have not, how are you in any position to claim that my data is outdated?
That is why I asked you way back whether you kept up with the scene, to which you replied no. If you had said yes, then we wouldn't be here today.

What additional information are you talking about? Also, there's an important difference between what I've actually done and your comparison. While I haven't played Vintage in forever, I have looked to see what's being played.
The additional info is whatever WOTC used to make their decision.

I believe you started looking after we started this discussion, which is fine now. But spot-checking here and there doesn't give the full picture of what's happening overall.

I may not assume what? I don't understand what you're saying at all.
Assume WOTC doesn't know what they're doing :)

Just because YOU inferred that, doesn't mean I implied it.
It may not mean you implied it, but I'm telling you, that's the way it came across. So your message wasn't clear.

And when one of the cards is a staple across the board, this sudden volley of restrictions comes much too fast and changes the face of the format completely.
If that's your concern, that's fine. Not having played Vintage, I'm not sure what the big deal is IF the face of the format is changed completely. So people have to play with new decks or find substitutes or whatever? They still can play with one of the cards, they're not totally useless to the format.

On the flip side, I would think the mass unrestrictions would also have been cause for concern as initial reaction should have been the same: They would change the format completely with that many cards unrestricted.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
Well, no, I don't think it was "broken" (which I'm not even sure how you mean "broken"). It was being used in the vast majority of decks and for uncounterable LD, was stunting a lot of other decks. So prevalance was more the issue at the time.
But it was the the uncounterable LD and not the popularity that was the problem. Or that's my impression.

But again, what is your experience worth if it's not current? I could provide you with my experience based on Standard when the environment consisted of the Ice Age/Mirage block. That's not worth beans now.
Why are you again insisting that it isn't current?

That is why I asked you way back whether you kept up with the scene, to which you replied no. If you had said yes, then we wouldn't be here today.
I think I said "not much" or "not really" or something.

The additional info is whatever WOTC used to make their decision.
And it's too important for us peons to know about?

I believe you started looking after we started this discussion, which is fine now. But spot-checking here and there doesn't give the full picture of what's happening overall.
Well, there's some modicum of truth to that, but it's misleading. First of all, I was doing what I think you'd call "spot-checking" long before this discussion. And the first two posts I made in this thread were before school got out for me, so I wasn't going to look into anything Magic-related in-depth. But after school did get out, I actually forgot about this announcement and was exploring the format to take notes on and test the latest Tendrils builds. And on TMD I started running into talk about the announcement and remembered that.

But as I've already stressed, I don't find it relevant. I'm not espousing my own expertise on the format. I have enough information to believe that it was pretty healthy and new information I've looked up has only confirmed that. But my opinion on that subject isn't the topic of this thread.

Assume WOTC doesn't know what they're doing :)
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But I don't like what they're doing.

It may not mean you implied it, but I'm telling you, that's the way it came across. So your message wasn't clear.
Like I said, there's a context. I looked over it again and found it pretty clear. Also, you seem to believe I have some sort of grudge against the DCI and that I automatically assume anything they've done is due to incompetence. I was pretty happy about their recent activity except for this last one and then also Shahrazad and the rationale behind Trinisphere (although that one I'm a bit ambivalent about). I really do fully recognize that they can't make everyone happy and that predicting the future isn't easy or perhaps even possible. I really would have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt had this not been such an extreme action.

If that's your concern, that's fine. Not having played Vintage, I'm not sure what the big deal is IF the face of the format is changed completely. So people have to play with new decks or find substitutes or whatever? They still can play with one of the cards, they're not totally useless to the format.
Well, if they liked the game they were playing and then the DCI killed it in one fell swoop in order to turn it into a different game, don't you think they'd be mad about it? Sure, no format is going to be completely static. But this is huge and it was completely unexpected.

On the flip side, I would think the mass unrestrictions would also have been cause for concern as initial reaction should have been the same: They would change the format completely with that many cards unrestricted.
No, they would not. Most of the unrestricted cards weren't being used anyway and didn't see much more use. Gush was the only one that mattered. In my article about this, I compared Mind Twist being unrestricted to releasing Dr. Kevorkian from prison. My only concern was about interaction with Mana Drain, and that ended up not being a problem. I said that Black Vise wasn't really good against any Vintage tournament decks anymore (they empty their hands and kill too quickly for the Vise damage to matter) but that its unrestriction was good because it gave casual players using the Vintage list a new toy. I said I'd thought Voltaic Key had already been unrestricted, and that's about all the impact it had (Voltaic Key was restricted at a time when the broken cards from Urza's block were newer and its restriction was probably unfair to begin with, but no one complained because no one was using it anymore).
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
But it was the the uncounterable LD and not the popularity that was the problem. Or that's my impression.
It was both. The lure of splashable uncounterable LD led to its popularity which was the problem. It wasn't one or the other.

Why are you again insisting that it isn't current?
Because of

I think I said "not much" or "not really" or something.
And it's too important for us peons to know about?
It might not be, if it's being discussed in the WOTC forums. I don't know, but I already wrote a huge blurb about the proper avenues to pursue further discussion/explanations from WOTC.

Like I said, there's a context. I looked over it again and found it pretty clear.
Um, yeah, because *you* wrote it. And I'm telling you as a reader, it didn't come across that way, which to me is more important, since anyone can write brilliantly but if they can't get their message across, it's not worth anything.

Also, you seem to believe I have some sort of grudge against the DCI and that I automatically assume anything they've done is due to incompetence.
Heh. Maybe a little, but it's more the issue of someone having an opinion that isn't backed by anything AND keeps pushing it. I don't mind the opinion part, it's the part that it's unsubstantiated that bothers me.

Well, if they liked the game they were playing and then the DCI killed it in one fell swoop in order to turn it into a different game, don't you think they'd be mad about it?
Of course. But good players adapt anyway AND understand the reasons why it "was turned into a different game" (which itself has not been shown yet). Bad players just show they're clinging to the old ways and why the restrictions were necessary to begin with.

No, they would not
Again, your opinion. But at the time of the announcement, no one could forsee what changes would be wrought on the format. The fact is a whole bunch of cards was let loose on the format, just like a whole bunch of cards were held back this time. Perhaps time proved that the unrestrictions didn't have an impact, in which case your opinion was vindicated? justified? So let's see if these restriction truly change the format or turn out to be just a blip also.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
It was both. The lure of splashable uncounterable LD led to its popularity which was the problem. It wasn't one or the other.
Well, I don't know if the DCI said ANYTHING about why Strip Mine was restricted. They often didn't give any explanation for restrictions back then, but I don't believe it had to be both. Had Strip Mine been popular but not effective, there would be no reason to restrict it because it wouldn't be doing much. Had Strip Mine been effective but not popular, there'd be cause to restrict it if it seemed that its power was too much. Cards certainly have been restricted without being popular. Most obviously, the cards that were restricted before their sets became tournament legal. Mind's Desire was, I'm pretty sure, such a card.

Also, the popularity of a card in tournaments is usually contingent on its being effective. Like you already said, it became popular because it was splashable, uncounterable LD. The popularity is just the logical extension of this and isn't usually considered the root of the problem.

Because of
Nothing about currency in what I said there. Or maybe that was implied too? :rolleyes:

It might not be, if it's being discussed in the WOTC forums. I don't know, but I already wrote a huge blurb about the proper avenues to pursue further discussion/explanations from WOTC.
I'm sure the DCI is already getting complaints from real Vintage players that are more eloquent than me. I don't really have any contribution to make.

And I should add: that's not to say that the Vintage community is universally upset over this. There's a whole spectrum of reactions. But I'm sure that the unhappy folks are already represented.

Um, yeah, because *you* wrote it. And I'm telling you as a reader, it didn't come across that way, which to me is more important, since anyone can write brilliantly but if they can't get their message across, it's not worth anything.
Yeah, but you seem to be pulling a lot of conclusions out of what I'm writing that I don't necessarily remember thinking and can't really see in my writing either.

Heh. Maybe a little, but it's more the issue of someone having an opinion that isn't backed by anything AND keeps pushing it. I don't mind the opinion part, it's the part that it's unsubstantiated that bothers me.
Whoa there. I may have missed it and I apologize if I did, but from what I remember, you have not even once in this entire thread asked me to support any of my contentions with tournament data. Despite focusing entirely on my basis for making claims, rather than on the claims themselves (you never said why I was wrong about Brainstorm or any of the other cards or why restricting five cards at once was actually good, or anything of that nature), you actually seem not to have challenged me to support my contentions with evidence.

Now, I'm sure we both know that my post dissenting from the explanations given my Mike Turian would have looked prettier and more impressive with a bunch of links to tournament records, maybe some statistics, charts, and such, but that would be a chore. I come here out of boredom for a few minutes few times a day, usually. I'm not a professional (you know, like the guy who wrote the crappy explanations with less actual substance than what I've written here) or even an actual tournament player.

And what about you? You've assumed that the DCI was justified in this decision, but you haven't substantiated that. You've put the onus on me, which is fine, but as I've already stated, my central claim is regarding the fact that this was five simultaneous restrictions. And this is virtually (to be generous) incommensurable with the claim that these restrictions were to stop dominance. For that, I don't need tournament data (which I have seen, even though I haven't posted it here) and I don't even need a current understanding of the metagame (which, to some extent at least, I do have).

So where's the problem with substantiation?

Of course. But good players adapt anyway AND understand the reasons why it "was turned into a different game" (which itself has not been shown yet). Bad players just show they're clinging to the old ways and why the restrictions were necessary to begin with.
Could you please substantiate this claim before you accuse me of not backing my claims up? You're condemning any players who are dissatisfied with policy as "bad players." I find no reason to believe that there's any truth to this.

I guess that makes me a bad player. I used to play at a store that kept 5th edition rules because they couldn't get used to 6th. I was playing a lot at the time and was probably comfortable with either one, but I never assumed that the reason for "clinging to the past" was ineptitude so much as it was problems finding judges who were competent with the changes and in order to ease the burden on older returning players who would be overwhelmed by the changes.

For a time, I was one of a few people who wouldn't use any cards past Prophecy. I'm still not sure exactly why I was doing it, but part of the reason was that I had a close friend who started. Also, it helped me save money by not buying so many cards, which I probably needed to do anyway. After a while, it became something of a challenge and sometimes I'd mix it up by only using cards from a certain block or something. But yeah, it was definitely "clinging to the past."

This is supposed to be the casual players alliance, right? Because really tournament players don't have that kind of luxury. If they try to "cling to the past" they will lose. It's as simple as that. But if casual players find some change not to be fun, they can possibly disregard it.

Again, your opinion. But at the time of the announcement, no one could forsee what changes would be wrought on the format. The fact is a whole bunch of cards was let loose on the format, just like a whole bunch of cards were held back this time. Perhaps time proved that the unrestrictions didn't have an impact, in which case your opinion was vindicated? justified? So let's see if these restriction truly change the format or turn out to be just a blip also.
Not everything is an opinion. Those cards have been unrestricted for about a year. While I won't say they made zero impact (I'm sure they've had some small effect), none of them besides Gush has had a significant impact on Vintage. I say this not because I believe it is true, but because those cards aren't really showing up in decklists of successful tournament decks. Also, I was pretty much right in my predictions. I mean, I was a bit worried about Mind Twist, and it turned out not to be merited. But I'm not the only one who was able to tell that Gush was the only potential problem with those restrictions. While I agree that we can't really foresee the future, some things are just obvious. With these restrictions, it's obvious that things will have to change. Brainstorm was so prolific. At the very least, decks will need to find a way to get around that loss. And GAT was arguably the strongest deck in the format, but certainly will be weakened without Gush. Flash as a deck kind of needs its namesake in order to function. Whatever happens, this won't be a blip.

But in a way I'm not really interested to see what happens. I'm used to thinking of restricted cards as powerhouses. Dangerous cards. Brainstorm seems so mild-mannered. It's just one card and from a purely logical standpoint, decklists will still be looking mostly similar to some we've seen in the past, but in principle, they've turned around a trend I liked (toward thinning the list and shaving off the stuff that no longer needed to be there) with regards to the restricted list and it's rather turned me off to the whole format.
 
D

DarthFerret

Guest
My 2 Cents:

Heh, ok, i am not going to get involved with any of this argument as for

1. I did not take the time to go over the new restricted/banned lists,
2. I play so darn casually that I generally ignore those lists.
3. I have no clue how one format differs from another.
4. I have not bought any cards for over a year.

That being said, I have no claim to much of anything being said, however one little thing caught me.


Oversoul said:
I'm sure the DCI is already getting complaints from real Vintage players that are more eloquent than me. I don't really have any contribution to make.

And I should add: that's not to say that the Vintage community is universally upset over this. There's a whole spectrum of reactions. But I'm sure that the unhappy folks are already represented.
It does not matter to me one way or the other if you are right or wrong here, what does matter is that this is the exact kind of thinking that causes the majority of the general public to not vote, or not contact a congressman if they are dissatisfied.

Secondly, Oversoul, do not sell your eloquence short. You are a good writer, and you do a fair amount of research on a topic before you contribute. I think that your writing style and opinions are exactly what people in any Customer Service/ R&D Department need to be getting feedback from.

That does not mean that you can single handedly change WOTC policies, however, if they recieve enough feedback from actual players who are educated about the issues, they may take a closer look at things and take what you have to say under advisement.

Ok, that is all...back to the debate (although Spidey is gone for a little bit..)
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
DarthFerret said:
It does not matter to me one way or the other if you are right or wrong here, what does matter is that this is the exact kind of thinking that causes the majority of the general public to not vote, or not contact a congressman if they are dissatisfied.
Well, an important part is that I haven't been playing Vintage. So I'm kind of an outsider. It's not that I don't take action because I believe someone else will. I believe that it's not my place. Sure, realistically anyone could write the DCI and complain, even people that have never played the game (if they are clever enough to make it seem as though they know what they're talking about). But it's not that I couldn't. I don't think I should.

Getting a bit off-topic, perhaps I should also mention that I generally don't vote, but I'm really not sure what causes other people not to vote. Apathy? Belief that it won't count for anything? Protest? Too busy? Some combination of things? But my reason is pretty simple: I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough. If I really studied the candidates and the issues, maybe I'd know enough to make an informed decision, but I don't. Just because I'm able to mark something on a piece of paper and have a minor say in what happens doesn't mean it's a good idea. Then again, I know a lot of people who seem to have the opposite attitude and find making a decision extremely important, even if they don't really understand the implications...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I'm back! :)

Well, I don't know if the DCI said ANYTHING about why Strip Mine was restricted.
They did, it was in the Duelist which was the main source of communication between WOTC and the players back then. I'm not sure what the problem you have with "popular" is; my definition of "popular" is "the vast majority uses it". Which they were.

Nothing about currency in what I said there. Or maybe that was implied too?
I don't know if you're losing track of the various quotes bouncing back and forth, but if I ask if you keep up with Vintage and your reply is "not really" or "not much", that pretty much says something about currency. And it's not even implied, it's stated right there.

And I should add: that's not to say that the Vintage community is universally upset over this. There's a whole spectrum of reactions. But I'm sure that the unhappy folks are already represented.
That's probably true.

Yeah, but you seem to be pulling a lot of conclusions out of what I'm writing that I don't necessarily remember thinking and can't really see in my writing either.
A lot? It was just one line... and again, you're the writer. You're probably not going to see it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I may have missed it and I apologize if I did, but from what I remember, you have not even once in this entire thread asked me to support any of my contentions with tournament data. Despite focusing entirely on my basis for making claims, rather than on the claims themselves (you never said why I was wrong about Brainstorm or any of the other cards or why restricting five cards at once was actually good, or anything of that nature), you actually seem not to have challenged me to support my contentions with evidence.
Focusing on the claims was the entire point of the discussion, because I didn't feel you had a solid analysis if you weren't current with the environment. I didn't say anything about the claims themselves because *I* certainly don't keep up with Vintage and don't know whether you're right or wrong or can make a rebuttal. But if you're not current with the environment, I can't even take your claims seriously (or anyone else). Like you said, if it's a rant or venting, that's fine. No one really cares then.

And what about you? You've assumed that the DCI was justified in this decision, but you haven't substantiated that. You've put the onus on me, which is fine, but as I've already stated, my central claim is regarding the fact that this was five simultaneous restrictions. And this is virtually (to be generous) incommensurable with the claim that these restrictions were to stop dominance. For that, I don't need tournament data (which I have seen, even though I haven't posted it here) and I don't even need a current understanding of the metagame (which, to some extent at least, I do have).

So where's the problem with substantiation?
I'm not sure how one can justify believing in the DCI when they're the ones in charge. I mean, yeah, I haven't seen their data, but come on, you think they'd make this kind of decision blindly (well, from our conversation so far, you probably do :) ). All I can say is that yeah, I believe them until someone tells me otherwise (like they admit to just throwing a dart on the wall or something).

And again, I disagree with your statement that you don't need to be current to disagree with the "mass" restrictions, at least for your opinion to be taken seriously and not a rant/vent. Although it seems you have changed since the beginning of the discussion about your status of keeping current anyway.

You're condemning any players who are dissatisfied with policy as "bad players." I find no reason to believe that there's any truth to this.
You're right and it was a sweeping generalization. But frankly, in my experience, people who complain about any changes are the ones who either don't want to adapt and are comfortable in the old ways, or are the ones exploiting the "game" and are why the changes are necessary for all. Perhaps that doesn't make them "bad players". I'm not sure what word to use for them then.

But if casual players find some change not to be fun, they can possibly disregard it.
No disagreement here :)

none of them besides Gush has had a significant impact on Vintage. I say this not because I believe it is true, but because those cards aren't really showing up in decklists of successful tournament decks.
But again, no one knew that when the cards were unrestricted. Your prediction may have been true, but there had to be others who claimed it "was the end of the world" for the cards to be unrestricted (and if there weren't anyone, I'm frankly amazed). So with these cards being restricted, either it's not going to be a big deal and the decks are still viable or you'll be right and the decks will fall off the face of the earth until the next unrestrictions. But no one knows right now.

But my reason is pretty simple: I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough.
I'm with you there.
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Spiderman said:
They did, it was in the Duelist which was the main source of communication between WOTC and the players back then. I'm not sure what the problem you have with "popular" is; my definition of "popular" is "the vast majority uses it". Which they were.
That's not the definition of "popular." The "vast majority" is necessarily more than 50%. How much more depends on just how "vast" we have to be, but I'd say someone claiming 60% is a vast majority is misleading. It's got to be more than that. On the other hand "popular" doesn't even have to be a majority. It just means that it's prevalent or that lots of people like it.

And certainly not every card that's been popular has been restricted. Basic lands, for example have never been banned or restricted anywhere, but they sure have been prevalent.

I don't know if you're losing track of the various quotes bouncing back and forth, but if I ask if you keep up with Vintage and your reply is "not really" or "not much", that pretty much says something about currency. And it's not even implied, it's stated right there.
Really? Because I still don't see it. I don't see the word "lately" or any of its synonyms.

Oversoul said:
Short answer: I was following the format to a minor extent and after this last round of restrictions will probably stop entirely.

Long answer...

Not too much this year because I'd been busy with school. Also, some things kind of turned me off to the whole competitive scene. Specifically, I really disliked the Trinisphere restriction not so much because of the effects as because the rationale seemed to be that because Trinisphere made lockdown viable and some people couldn't stand being locked down, the card needed to be restricted. The Shahrazad ban was even worse because I had a soft spot for that card and the rationale there seemed even worse. More importantly, I've also realized that I probably won't be throwing out the kind of time and money I'd need to in order to actually compete in Vintage tournaments, which years past I'd had some hope of eventually doing. On the other hand, Gush being unrestricted, Flash becoming good (again), and storm combo catching up to control decks (in part thanks to the restriction of Gifts) changed things up and made the format more interesting and diverse. So I've tried to keep some track of what's stayed good and what's fallen by the wayside as well as what emergent decks are doing well in multiple tournaments. I've checked StarCityGames and TheManaDrain on occasion, read some articles, and mostly just browsed recently (I used to do more). I'm by no means an expert on the current state of Vintage or anything, but I've seen what's generally been doing well.

If it had been any one of these cards except Ponder, I would still have questioned it, but I wouldn't have been so critical, especially because I haven't been keeping up with Vintage all that much for the past several months. Part of what makes me more confident that I'm not missing anything too huge in my assessment is that it was all of these cards at once. Restricting Flash and Gush both at the same time is huge by itself because these restrictions don't attack similar problems at all. They're key cards in very different decks. I'm always wary of an action like this.

Merchant Scroll just doesn't make any sense. At least it probably won't affect the format much. But the combination of Brainstorm and Ponder is even more severe than the other restrictions. Brainstorm isn't a combo card. Combo decks use it because it draws cards. Control decks use it for the same reason. It's part of a small core of cards that are nearly ubiquitous and help control the pace and nature of the format. I'd put it in the same category is as Force of Will. But even disregarding all of this (and ignoring that we're already shaking up the format by restricting Flash and Gush), I can't accept that not only is Brainstorm so bad it needs to be restricted, but a card that's hardly ever used and could potentially serve as a crappy supplement for the loss of Brainstorm also needs to be restricted.

So while I may not be perfectly on top of the state of Vintage, for something this big, I don't need to be. It's so over the top it seems like a joke.
Hmm, I thought that was pretty clear. I ran on for a while. But here I admit to not following the format a lot "this year" (I should really have said for the past year or so, but whatever). I also state why I was regaining some interest in the format before these restrictions. And I make the point that I don't need to be an expert in order to see the problem here. But I can see how it would be lost in the rest of my ranting about individual cards and stuff...

But then in this post I conclude with with the the problem I see. And the very last sentence describes it without really leaving any room for misinterpretation that I can see...

Oversoul said:
We're told that a core of "blue deck manipulation" makes "blue" combo decks too good. Presumably this is referring to storm combo, which has been one of the most powerful deck types. That's where some of these cards usually appear, and it might be where they're strongest. So we have Brainstorm, Merchant Scroll, and Ponder all restricted because storm combo (or at least some form of combo) is too dominant. In fact, it's so dominant that we need to restrict not just one card but three in order to stop it (so I guess that when Workshop Aggro wins a tournament, it's just a gigantic magical fluke that we can ignore).

The explanation about Gush only mentions its interaction with Fastbond. I'll admit that this can happen in combo decks, but those aren't the combo decks that are most prominent right now. The most successful deck to exploit the Gush/Fastbond engine is GAT. But really, it doesn't matter. If it's GAT that's the problem, when we were told that the other cards had to go because of dominant combo decks, that wasn't true. Restricting Gush alone would do the trick. And if it's Gush-reliant combo that's too good, restricting Gush would still solve the problem. Restricting Brainstorm and other cards is redundant.

And the rationale for restricting Flash is the Flash decks are dominant. If that's the case, then restricting Flash solves the problem.

Furthermore, not all three of these things can be true. We can't have storm combo, GAT, and Flash decks all dominating at the same time.
We're told that the restrictions are because of dominance issues, but we can't have three decks dominating at the same time. Clear, yes? But maybe one might miss it, distracted by something else that causes one to focus on my understanding of the format. After all, if I don't understand the format, I don't really have a basis for criticizing restrictions...

Spiderman said:
All I'm saying is that you're admittedly not up with the Vintage scene and so it sounds like your reasons are based off of what the scene was *when* you were up on it. Maybe you're not and basing them off of the latest tourneys, but again, WOTC has data on almost every reported tournament just for DCI points, if nothing else. They surely are seeing some trend somewhere; after all, these cards weren't unrestricted 3 months ago when the last decision was made.
Okay, so I should probably have nipped this in the bud and I didn't. But "you're admittedly not up with the Vintage scene and so it sounds like your reasons are based off what the scene was *when* you were up on it" gives me, at least, an impression that's completely different from what I was actually talking about. It makes it sound like I knew a lot about the format earlier and haven't kept up to date. But I've NEVER been an expert on Vintage, and when I was following it most closely, these issues didn't exist. But I've tried to keep tabs on it pretty consistently for the past few years. There was something of a dead zone where I didn't have time to look at it at all, not even a little bit, from oh, let's say October to March. Probably less than that. Before and after that, I'd read some articles, look at some tournament reports, trends, etc. I didn't go into this detail because this thread isn't about the history of Oversoul and Vintage Magic.

Spiderman said:
Well, this is the casual players, so you don't necessary have to follow the "tourney" restrictions when playing... just modify them and have house rules. I mean, which of us can play with a full set of Moxes (like 4 of one kind) anyway? Or does 1-2 turn kills like with Flash-Hulk (which I've never heard of, because I don't even have those cards to begin with). WOTC has to watch out for the competitive scene though, so if some cards are appearing to be stronger in those "cutthroat" formats, they have to do something. I think it's kinda naive? presumptuous? to try to say to WOTC that they can't restrict something when we don't even play in that sandbox to begin with...
I let this go at the time because you never mentioned me by name, but in retrospect I couldn't see who else it could be talking about. And if it was talking about me, this was the first time in the thread you took what I said and turned it into something I had not or had not been meaning to espouse. Nowhere in my text do I find anything about what the DCI "can't restrict."

Seeing that my experience and credibility is a sticking point for you, I address this part to you by name, to make sure that you take note of it...

Oversoul said:
Okay Spidey, this part will be to you specifically, since you've brought it up: You've raised the issue at least twice now that I'm not an expert on the exact state of Vintage tournaments and don't have all the data available to the people who did make this decision. That's fair, but for me, that's not the issue. I do believe the metagame was pretty balanced, and if you or anyone else does have information to the contrary, I would be glad to look at it and discuss it. That data is pertinent and it is out there. And yes, I've not seen all of it or even most of it. But my take isn't that the restrictions were bad because the metagame was balanced. It's that this is against the spirit of the format. Restricting a staple card (Brainstorm) is a serious matter. It shouldn't be done lightly and it should be done in a controlled setting, preferably with no other restrictions or unrestrictions taking place at the same time. But this is FIVE cards. That's a lot, even for the most extremely unhealthy metagame where things need to change, that would be too much.

This is five cards when two of them are vital to run certain first tier decks, two are staples and the last one is a potential supplement for one of the staples being restricted. Even though the tone of the explanations is, "There's a problem and we need to fix it" the reality of this huge action is clearly more like, "We want to turn the format on its head. Out with the old Vintage, in the with the new."
And then in your next post...

Spiderman said:
I'm not sure how you can say in one sentence that you don't have all the data for Vintage yet in another say that you believe the metagame is balanced. That's like coming into a debate without doing any homework or research whatsoever yet expecting to be taken seriously :)

Again, I'm not sure how long it's been between the last round of mass unrestrictions and this, but I'm pretty sure WOTC isn't "taking this lightly". If they had done this with only the three month window in between restriction announcements, yeah, I would agree with you. But since more time than that has passed, I think they've taken a more serious look than a "light" one.
So with that first paragraph, you portray me as contradicting myself. Even though by now I had made multiple times (and even addressed it to you specifically one of those times) that my central argument, the bit about the scale of the restrictions and its reconciliation with the explanations, doesn't rely on having ANY data, and I'd always maintained that I knew enough to conclude that the format was balanced, I'm supposedly doing the equivalent of going into a debate and saying that I haven't done any research. I did debate in high school. I know what doing that would be like. And it's not at all like what I said in this thread.

In your second paragraph (out of this excerpt), you portray me as claiming that the DCI took restricting cards lightly, even though I never said that.

And then in your next post...

Spiderman said:
That's the only rebuttal I can make because frankly, you're not making your point based on any information at all. If you could provide some info that might illustrate your point, I might agree with you, but so far, from what I'm getting, you're just basing it off of either the past or non-current data and just personal feelings of how Vintage is being played without actually investigating how it's being played. It's like me trying to make a point of Vintage or Standard when I haven't played or looked to see what's being played. Again, a vent or rant I can understand, but in my experience, when additional info is made about the issue, the vent/rant becomes more informed and less of a vent/rant.
Not making my point based on any information at all? And supposedly I'm basing something on outdated data? Again, this is your claim about what I've said, and I don't recall any resemblance to what I've actually posted.

So in my next post, I address that bit about outdated data, although it seems to have come from your imagination anyway...

Oh, and I point out that what I said did NOT imply that that the DCI took action lightly. And I raise my central argument yet again...

Oversoul said:
Okay, first off, I am making my contentions based on information. It's information based on my entire experience, so I couldn't possibly provide everything that's influenced what I've said, but I could give some examples. Neither you nor anyone else asked for them. Had you asked, I would have made some attempt to accommodate, but really, you have access to the same sources as I do.

What's this nonsense about outdated data? If I haven't provided any hard data, which I think we both agree I have not, how are you in any position to claim that my data is outdated?

No. Just because YOU inferred that, doesn't mean I implied it. There's a context to what I was saying there (in that whole paragraph I was mainly explaining my perspective--had it been in a paragraph where I was directly referring to the DCI's actions, I could see the cause for confusion) and saying that restricting a staple card shouldn't be done lightly was just for emphasis on the fact that it was a huge change. And that was merely to point out what has become my central argument, which you haven't addressed and which circumvents any hypothetical mass of tournament data or argument based on the prevalence of any of these cards, so I'll repeat again in greater detail...

It was FIVE restrictions at once, three for the same reason and two others for different reasons. The explanations made the case that ALL of these restrictions were because of dominance issues. Any one or even two decks dominating the metagame could easily be solved by restricting about two cards, rather than a full five. And when one of the cards is a staple across the board, this sudden volley of restrictions comes much too fast and changes the face of the format completely.

Under the criteria the Vintage community has gotten used to regarding restrictions (although Trinisphere was an exception), there is no possible set of tournament data that justifies all five of these restrictions at once.

See my central argument. The idea that these restrictions are all to stop domination doesn't hold water. They can say whatever they want. If they say that these restrictions are to stop domination, they are lying. As for "bringing balance" that could mean anything. Banning everything but Forests would bring balance, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
But even after addressing this "currency" issue you've contrived, you bring it in again...

And to top it off, you say that when you asked whether I kept up with the Vintage scene, I said "no." Funny how I didn't ever say that.

You also claim that I started looking at the data only after we started this discussion, which like your other claims about me in this thread, doesn't seem to show up in any of my posts.

Spiderman said:
But again, what is your experience worth if it's not current? I could provide you with my experience based on Standard when the environment consisted of the Ice Age/Mirage block. That's not worth beans now.

That is why I asked you way back whether you kept up with the scene, to which you replied no. If you had said yes, then we wouldn't be here today.

I believe you started looking after we started this discussion, which is fine now. But spot-checking here and there doesn't give the full picture of what's happening overall.
And after I'd addressed the "no information at all" post earlier, you bring it in again with "isn't backed up by anything" and "unsubstantiated." I could almost understand it if my comments were in some other conversation where people were actually looking at data, but so far I'm the only one that's alluded to actual data (albeit without actually posting any tournament records, but I have at least mentioned the decks that these cards are being used in). You've simply assumed that the DCI has extremely important data I'm missing out on. Assuming that doesn't make it true, and I've argued that it doesn't even seem possible for such data to exist (my central argument).

Even if we were both coming into this with no data or experience, and you cried "unsubstantiated" about me, that would make you a hypocrite...

Spiderman said:
Heh. Maybe a little, but it's more the issue of someone having an opinion that isn't backed by anything AND keeps pushing it. I don't mind the opinion part, it's the part that it's unsubstantiated that bothers me.
A lot? It was just one line... and again, you're the writer. You're probably not going to see it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
One line, eh? More like seven or eight. I'm beginning to get the impression that I live on Earth, where people communicate using language, and you live on Fantasy Planet, where people mean whatever Spiderman finds convenient.

Focusing on the claims was the entire point of the discussion, because I didn't feel you had a solid analysis if you weren't current with the environment. I didn't say anything about the claims themselves because *I* certainly don't keep up with Vintage and don't know whether you're right or wrong or can make a rebuttal. But if you're not current with the environment, I can't even take your claims seriously (or anyone else). Like you said, if it's a rant or venting, that's fine. No one really cares then.
And here we go again with the currency.

I'm not sure how one can justify believing in the DCI when they're the ones in charge. I mean, yeah, I haven't seen their data, but come on, you think they'd make this kind of decision blindly (well, from our conversation so far, you probably do :) ).
Wait, what? Are you saying that the DCI doesn't exist or something? Blindly? That's yet another misrepresentation. This is beginning to look intentional. Are you messing with my head or are you just really bad at setting up straw men? I mean, I did already say that I thought the explanations were a load of crap and that what they were really doing was turning the format on its head. Out with the old and in with the new. All that jazz. How do you get "blindly" out of that?

And again, I disagree with your statement that you don't need to be current to disagree with the "mass" restrictions, at least for your opinion to be taken seriously and not a rant/vent. Although it seems you have changed since the beginning of the discussion about your status of keeping current anyway.
Another misrepresentation? And are you obsessed with "currency" or something? Is it not possible for me to only somewhat keep track of the format over a long period of time. Must it be that I once kept track of it and then stopped sometime in the recent past?

And practically everything I've posted in this thread that wasn't to you specifically has been a rant or venting or whatever. If you don't want to take it seriously, then fine. I never asked you to take it seriously.

But again, no one knew that when the cards were unrestricted. Your prediction may have been true, but there had to be others who claimed it "was the end of the world" for the cards to be unrestricted (and if there weren't anyone, I'm frankly amazed). So with these cards being restricted, either it's not going to be a big deal and the decks are still viable or you'll be right and the decks will fall off the face of the earth until the next unrestrictions. But no one knows right now.
Why did there have to be others who claimed that it was the end of the world? It's not like I am prescient or was incredibly lucky. What I was saying about those unrestrictions was apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And why is it that if I'm right, the decks that used these cards will "fall of the face of the earth"? I don't recall saying anything like that. I already mentioned that almost all decks used Brainstorm. But surely not all of them will be completely compromised without it.

I'm with you there.
You've been here a long time and I've read thousands of your posts. I think you might have more posts in this community than any three other people here. And you're an administrator. But if I didn't already have some idea about you, I'd instantly assume from this that you were trolling.

You've been harping on my credentials (rather than my actual claim, despite the fact that I've stated, numerous times, that my expertise isn't relevant to my central argument) this whole time. Then after I've said something on a completely different issue as an aside to someone else, you snip one sentence out of context, and point at it. Are you really going to sink that low, or did you just want to see how long you could get me to argue with you before I noticed you were just spouting nonsense and quoting bits without actually making any contentions or rebuttals?
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
<sigh> This is really getting nowhere. Obviously neither of us is making each other see the other's view, it appears.

The "vast majority" is necessarily more than 50%. How much more depends on just how "vast" we have to be, but I'd say someone claiming 60% is a vast majority is misleading.
I already said that at the time, a good 90-95% of the top 8 decks in the tournaments at the time (as listed by the Duelist) were using Strip Mine and the Factory. Not 50%. Not 60%. 90-95%. No matter what theme or color the deck was. So yes, that makes it the vast majority.

My apologies, but all of the rest is not worth replying to at this point as we seem to go around and around in circles. Except for
But I've NEVER been an expert on Vintage
Which is probably the root of our discussion here, as I guess I *did* take you as sort of an expert on the scene, when you DID play (I guess when you first came here?). If that understanding was totally false, then again I apologize for making that missumption (a new word!) and I guess that makes my concerns and assumptions I was making in this discussion totally off-base and false.

One last thing:

Then after I've said something on a completely different issue as an aside to someone else, you snip one sentence out of context, and point at it.
I was trying to make my post short but it appears that I shouldn't have. What I was trying to say there was that the quote I posted "out of context" was actually in context, and I was agreeing with you in that I don't vote for the same reason as you stated. It had nothing to do with the DCI or restrictions.
 
Top