@chubbyrain said in [Free Article] Understanding Gush: The Final Chapter?:
It's why I keep saying that three months is a relatively short time in which to gauge the effect of any restriction, including this most recent one.
I have a general policy position that, as a matter of principle, cards/strategies need to prove their dominance over time to merit restriction. The reason is essentially implicit in your point here: that the metagame needs time to adapt, and to demonstrate that it is incapable of adapting, to warrant the extraordinary use of an external policy intervention to address it.
As a practical matter, that means I oppose knee-jerk restrictions when new problems crop up. We need time to see whether dominant decks are truly dominant in a sustainable way, or whether they will fall back the earth.
That framing should suggest why I don't believe 3+ months into this metagame is too little time to take another action. This isn't a "new" metagame in any meaningful sense. It's not like we entered a brave new world post April, and the problems we confront today are wholly novel.
The pre-4/24 and post-4/24 metagames are extremely similar based upon MTGO Challenge Top 8s, except that the post-4/24 metagame is simply the more concentrated version. Neither of the problems that the DCI identified in it's 4/24 policy announcement - the strength of Mentor or the oppression of Workshops - have diminished since the restriction.
Any new restriction would be a stronger prescription for the same ailment, not a Rx for a new one. If we were talking about a new problem, I'd agree with you here.