CPA Voting Issues: Banned/Restricted List

Discussion in 'CPA/WOTC Magic Issues' started by Dune Echo, Apr 20, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dune Echo CPA Founder, Idea Man

    Okay everyone. It seems like everyone is done voting on the first of three issues to discuss and report to Wizards. This thread will deal with Banned/Restricted List and how the casual player feels about it. Please try to stick to the subject so we can get a clear idea of how people feel. I think this thread should be closed after May 5th (one day after my birthday!) to give people plenty of time to voice their opinion but to also put a deadline on the issue.

    So, have fun arguing everyone!
  2. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    I hate bannings but am quite keen on restriction lists.
    Because you can still play with the card and it makes playing with those "good cards" more affordable for the less rich player (easier to get a hold on 1 port than four).

    I know very well the argument of "luck factor" but on the other hand, people who will put more search engines in their deck to get the card out will have to weaken their deck on other aspects.

    Their are already legend cards which are even more of a luck fator, as only one player can play them.

    Maybe some cards could have in their rule text that only one or two, or three, maybe more, can be played per deck.

    Some less useful cards, if limited to 6 instead of four, might make their way in many decks, like all less optimal commons.

    Breaking the "rule of four" would definitly change the face of the game.
  3. Ophidian New Member

    Interesting idea, Mundungu. If I could put 6 bolts... Nevermind, I was dreaming. I think that they should make some cards that are self restrictive, like this:

    Lone Elf
    SUMMON elf, G, 2/1
    If there are two or more Lone Elfes in play at one time, bury all copies of lone elf.

    That is a sipmlistic example, but I think it might have promise.
  4. Apollo Bird Boy

    I'm in favor of banned lists, but not so in regards to restricted list (odd-exactly the opposite of Mundungu). I believe that some cards just tip the scales of the game and should never have been printed. These cards should be banned.

    I think in restriction there is too much of a luck factor, and that there is no real advantage to restricting a card instead of banning it outright. My one exception to this is type 1. I think that they should avoid banning cards there at all costs, because if it is banned there, then it is completely worthless and there is nothing you can do with it whatsoever. I know they had to ban the ante cards and Channel, because they were way unfair, but beyond the few I think they should stay away from banning there at all costs.

    Of course, ideally they would never have to do any of this because there would be know unfair cards. But with Wizards of the Coast we know this will never happen, so you can rule that option out.

  5. arhar Member

    True, true, Apollo.
    Very wise words about Type 1.

    But - I have no problems with bannigs myself. In multiplayer, there are no bannings and no errata, so....

    However, in Type 2, they should strictly adhere to their policy of watch list - imagine what would've happened if Academy wasn't banned? Arrrghh, I don't even want to think!!

    Of course, it would be better if they hadn't released cards that need to be banned at all, but hey - they are people, and people make mistakes :)
  6. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    I think the banned list is fine, as is the restricted list.
    I would like to see the bannings for Block Party lifted or at least re-examined.
    Even playing casually, I generally adhere to particular formats, including the banned/restricted lists.
  7. TomB Administrative Assistant

    They're also professionals, arhar, who have plenty of lead time to ferret out broken cards prior to releasing them. I too, think R&D should do a better job of filtering out broken cards.

    I am against banning on principle, mostly because, to me, it's stupid to sell people cards, then tell them they can't play with them (in tourneys, anyway). To me, it's almost worse than opening a booster pack and having the rare be a Lace, or a Pale Moon, because at least then you know the card is worthless right away, instead of getting all excited about it and going out and buying/trading for the other 3 you'll need to make a deck, only to find out later the cards are no good any more.

    I realize, of course, that even with the best playtesters in the world they'll miss a card every now and then. I think in that case they should try restricting a card first, long before they consider banning. Yes, Restriction increases the luck factor, but let's face it - if you're only allowed 1 copy of a card in your deck it's highly unlikely you'll be building a deck around it.

    This way, a card wouldn't necessarily turn into just so much wasted money. I don't know about you guys, but I don't have nearly enough money to be able to waste it like that. I work hard for what I earn, and I expect value back when I spend it. Telling me, essentially, I was a fool to spend it on your product is not a good way to build customer satisfaction.

    Of course, that's just my opinion...

    CPA Member
  8. Dune Echo CPA Founder, Idea Man

    I totally agree with TomB here, but on the other hand, it's easier to ban than to gauge the potential "damage" a restricted card can do.

    Also, could you imagine everyone trying to fit all the restricted cards into one deck? Yeah it would be weakened, but how would the pros memorize all those decklists if people start customizing by 1 of several different restricted cards? Where would the metagame go? :rolleyes:

    But seriously, I could afford one Tolarian Academy I use because it was banned. I had to shell out at least 16 bucks for each Cursed Scroll I own. Hell, I don't want to kill people with, it just sounds so COOL!
  9. Ophidian New Member

    I have been thinking about this for a while now, because I wanted to give a fair answer.

    I believe they should continue to ban cards. WotC prints certain cards in order to enrich the playing environment. But those same cards are inherently overpowered in a limited environment. So, would you rather not be able to use a card in a limited or T2 environment, or not be able to use it at all since they never printed it. Cards like Memory Jar and Tolarian Academy are wonderful in casual play, but are not severly overpowered. However, when confined to the Saga and Masques blocks, it is just unfair.

    BTW, ban replenish. I am tired of hearing everybody complain about the power of this card. I use it as a utility card, and it is great.

    Man, maybe I should have written an article...
  10. Baron Sengir CPA Founder, Vampire Legend

    I agree that R & D should do a better job of making cards that aren't broken but they're only human. I'm sure that Tolarian Academy was known to be a broken card from the start but how many people at R&D do you think saw High Tide coming?

    I don't like banning or restricting cards simply because they are useful (see Voltaic Key, Lotus Petal and Strip Mine). I think a step as drastic as forbidding a card from tournament play should be only if that card is incredibly broken enough to the point that if you do not have it in your deck you will lose.

    BTW, Ed, mucho kudos on the new forums. You have outdone yourself again.

    I remain
    The Baron
    Of course, High Tide is a blast to play. You haven't lived until you cast half your deck in one turn.
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I agree with having a banned/restricted list (and bring the restricted list back to Standard) ONLY if:

    the card has first shown to be impervious to all current possible solutions (meaning it might rotate out by the time that has happened anyway, at least in terms of Standard).

    Then restrict it until it has been shown that despite this, it is still swinging the game.

    Then ban.

    Of course, older cards that have not gone through the "rigorous" playtesting of today will probably remain banned (hence the need for it in Vintage/Type I).

    People will still probably include the card in their deck even it's restricted; I mean, under the above criteria, it'll probably be a game-winner or giving you a good shot at winning so if it fits, why not (I would do that with say, Demonic Tutor in a generally black deck if it was appropriate). And some cards are TOO useful (when Mishra's Factory and Strip Mine were legal, I would include 4 of each pretty much in EVERY deck I had: 4 "free and colorless" creatures and 4 "free" LD was just too good). But if they were on restricted, well, they still might go in but they're effectiveness is greatly reduced, which is the point. They can be used but not "brokenly".
  12. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Is the card overwhelmingly powerful (as in, able to essentially win you the game almost unpreventably when used)?
    Is the card severely undercosted (4 for a 4/4 comes to mind)?
    Is the card good in virtually every deck?

    If so, that card is simply overpowering.

    And yes, this means that Masticore should definitely be banned in T2.
  13. galtwish Loudmouth

    Mystical Tutor
    Enlightened Tutor
    All Legendary cards (Cradle, Lin Sivvi, Academy)
    Memory Jar
    Vampric Tutor
    Time Spiral
    Stroke of Genius


    I don't think you can restrict a lot of cards, because it makes those decks very draw dependent on seach cards (remember the Mystical/Enlightened/Balance/Zuron Orb days of 1996). This list, however, is intended to reduce the effectiveness of combo decks (specificly Replenish, but to a lesser extent, Bargain). Inadvertantly, it gives Tinker and control a boost, although Bargain could make good use of Memory Jar. In addition, without all the 0 cost artifacts of 5th-Rath cycle, Tolarian Academy is nowhere near as dominant as it was 16 months ago. An Academy/Stroke deck is now available, but hardly as viable as it once was. In essence, I want an environment where combo is possible, but much more inconsistent. And Windfall is just broken, however you look at it, so it can't stay in (Replenish or Bargain anyone?).

  14. Gryphonclaw New Member

    Ban kills before the fourth turn.
    Restrict Deck Me and Draw Go decks to one per person per lifetime.

    My dream...
    Ban all cards that involve paying x life for x anything. These are far too abused.
    Restrict all cards that allow searching for one or more cards. These are the staples for any combo deck.
    Restrict cards of a type, i.e. all cards with the words "counter" and "spell" in that order in their play text, to 7 per deck.
    Crap commons can be used in any amount.

    Seriously though...
    Banning and Restriction is used to prevent a single card or mechanic from dominating the tournament scene. In this vein I would suggest:
    Restrict any card that is being featured in more than half of tourney decks as the kill card.
    Ban cards if Restriction doesn't prevent the card from dominating.
  15. BurlyBrute munchkin wrangler

    Some cards must be banned or resricted due to their ability to break a format, I have no problem with that.
    I never did understand why standard couldn't support a restricted list.
    Many cards were banned or restricted because they started apearing in every deck. For example, PORT appeared 28 times in the top eight decks at Pro Tour New York, six decks ran four, one ran three, and one brave soul kspt to one.
    Guess it will be the next card to get the boot.
    My group plays Type I, with the banned and restricted list, and we have such fun, which really is the point.
    Spare me from the days of four Black Vices, and Rack/Balance, spare me also from cards like Necropotence, which should be at least restricted.
  16. Dune Echo CPA Founder, Idea Man


    Well, it's time to close this.

    Ed: Can you set up the Voting Booth for this subject?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page