SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?"

[celticgriffon]

Not to take away from the discussion, but is it possible we are just missing obvious answers to Mentor aided via its Cantrip/Gush/Git Probe/Misstep enablers?

Swords and bolts won't necessarily do the trick anymore. But surely somewhere in the other 10K+ cards designed for magic there is an answer.

I often feel we get too focused on things being solved. I still believe there are hundreds of decks unexplored which could likely turn vintage on its head. But perhaps it is just my own wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Michael

[MaximumCDawg]

Wow. This is a thread. To everyone's credit, from what I can see, everyone is being superbly respectful even as they bitterly argue about Gush. Kudos to you!

I'm going to toss my hat into the "Don't Restrict Gush" ring for a reason other than I've seen so far. I love Vintage for being what Steven described early on -- the retirement home for Wizards' greatest mistakes. I like playing weird decks, even if they lose, and I hate it when toys get taken away because the competitive crowd has used them to too great an effect.

When WotC decides there is a problem with a format -- due to "format warping," stagnation, low diversity, lower player attendance, on-line complaints, or WHATEVER -- they have four realistic options. I'll present them in the order I find them palatable, from worst to best.

1. Power Level Errata. This was the old, OLD school remedy used to crush combos they did not like. It has been resigned to the dustbin of history, and good riddance to it. Today's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks.

2. Change the Rules. The places where Wizards can deploy this trick are rare, but it happens. They just preemptively changed the rules about Split cards prior to Amonkhet to prevent them from comboing off with Brain in a Jar and the Expertise cycle. Clearly, the player experience convinced them this little trick had to go. I find these changes really jarring, but at least it's well within the range of what WotC can do. Thankfully, there's nothing related to Gush or Mentor that really lends itself well to a rules change fix.

3. Banning and Restriction. This is the level where everyone in this thread is chattering. I don't pretend to know half of what most of you guys do, so I'll just add that I am fundamentally unhappy when a card gets banned or restricted, but I would prefer that WotC regulate its formats this way rather than changing card text or rules.

Which brings us to:

4. New Printings. This is the solution to stagnant formats that no one seems to talk about much when the subject comes up. Just like yesterday's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks, today's bugbears are tomorrow's unplayable garbage. We have already seen Wizards take a step in the direction of making very versatile and powerful answers to Mentor in the form of Leovold. What if we get Dread of Night stapled to a hate bear that does something else relevant? What if we had some card that finally, FINALLY ended the reign of Horizontal Growth once and for all -- say, something that made the opponent's spells cost more for each token they controlled, or something like that?

I would prefer to see WotC think hard about ways to make cards that are playable on their own but also narrowly hate out specific decks they believe are over-represented. Don't restrict Gush: just give us reasons to play something else!

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros Why can't you answer these two simple questions?:

1. If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)

Again, a range is fine with a confidence interval. Assume we are talking about the first 3-6 months post restriction.

Definition: Mentor deck = a blue deck with 3-4 Mentors.

Those are pretty simple questions to answer, and it would allow us to actually figure out where you disagree and what exactly is the scope of our disagreement.

[Winterstar]

Any time cards are restricted that fundamentally change the nature of how a deck archetype plays, new decks/deck designs/cards take their place.

And because these restrictions don't take place in a vacuum, it can be hard to evaluate the result of the restrictions alongside the plethora of new printings.

So the inevitable question is "what do I think the metagame will look like if _______ is restricted" and with the follow up of "will I like what comes next."

In way of example:

The chalice restriction saw major change tot he workshop pillar. Previous builds like Martello became sub-optimal. Over the winter of the restriction would see the rise of ravager shops as the dominant workshop archetype.

I occasionally ask players if they preferred playing against martello or ravager shops- the answers I've gotten are usually split.

Ravager shops gave rise to the restriction of Lodestone Golem, which in turn saw the redefinition of the workshop pillar into the thorn pillar and the evolution of the Eldrazi decks. Workshop has continued along the ravager path, with occasional terra nova and uba stax variants poking their heads up (often dependent on where Mentor decks sit, because smokestack isn't an awesome card against a token producer...)

To my imagination, restricting gush will eventually lead to the question of "did you prefer playing against gush mentor or _____ mentor" in much the same way that chalice elicits a question about martello vs. ravager.

But then again, I'm not sure we are in a place where anything needs to be restricted. Many of the people who said that the lodestone golem restriction really needed to happen for the health of vintage are some of the same voices saying that the vintage metagame is incredibly unhealthy now.

Which means that the restriction did not meet what they wanted. Note well I am not arguing that Lodestone staying would have created a more healthy metagame, nor am I suggesting that the restriction of Lodestone was a terrible event- I'm simply remarking that it did not satisfy. This could be for several reasons- again, restrictions don't stop cards from being printed and deck evolution from continuing.

Which then creates several interesting questions that wappla alluded to in an earlier post: what are players wanting out of vintage?

[MaximumCDawg]

@Winterstar

Which then creates several interesting questions that wappla alluded to in an earlier post: what are players wanting out of vintage?

This is a good idea for a new thread: What do you want out of Vintage, in one sentence?

"I want a place to be creative and make crazy machines without worrying about cards being banned."

[Dumpsterac1d]

@MaximumCDawg

4. New Printings. This is the solution to stagnant formats that no one seems to talk about much when the subject comes up. Just like yesterday's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks, today's bugbears are tomorrow's unplayable garbage. We have already seen Wizards take a step in the direction of making very versatile and powerful answers to Mentor in the form of Leovold. What if we get Dread of Night stapled to a hate bear that does something else relevant? What if we had some card that finally, FINALLY ended the reign of Horizontal Growth once and for all -- say, something that made the opponent's spells cost more for each token they controlled, or something like that?

While I totally agree with preferring new printings to restriction, I think it'd be pretty tough for Wizards to "target" new printings at solving the problems of any format, other than Standard. I think it happens on accident when a new card does warp or add something to a non-rotating format because WotC either doesn't think a certain mechanic will end up making the cut in eternal, or they just don't consider the entirety of Magic when they innovate cards (to many a brewer's delight). I personally think it would suck to have a card like what you describe printed, Wizards would be addressing the problem with a "play it or beat it" mindset, which would make me super uncomfortable as a Vintage player, not to mention it's far less expensive from their perspective to restrict a card than to print a new card.

Good new printings usually emerge as cards that end up propping up various other archetypes that as a side effect, hurt the big bad deck. Not saying that Shops is hurting right now (quite the opposite), but if Mentor is the target of our discussion then cards like Fleetwheel Cruiser or Walking Ballista are "good new printings" because they help boost the competition. (I personally like it best when WotC makes a mistake and prints a 2-card combo with some obscure Tempest card I haven't seen in a deck since 1997, but that's rare ) Thinking in those terms it would be very difficult to see an "accidental" new printing resolving the Mentor issue, the "other" deck has 3-5 new cards in the past year to combat Mentor and boost its own strategies, but Mentor remains a problem.

Since this discussion has gone into minutiae, this isn't really necessary, but I felt like I should bleep in.

I've been saying this for a bit... Gush wasn't completely busted until we started using a 3CMC "gro-wide" creature as a 4 of. Gush in any other creature-based shell was reasonable, and I can't believe I'm saying this because Pyromancer Gush was/is very annoying and boring to play against, but I'd rather deal with U/B/R Delver with a healthy dose of Elemental tokens flashing back Cabal Therapies than deal with any deck that uses Mentor. Mentor is oppressive, uninteresting, and unfun; taking out tokens is key to surviving the fight of both Pyro and Mentor, but Monk tokens are far more resilient and oppressive than Elemental tokens, and they are generated and pumped by enchantments and artifacts... A much different beast altogether.

Point being that if you don't like Gush decks mentally ruling the metagame, restricting the card that profits off of it the most is probably a good way to go.

Some questions I think need to be asked, and I rhetorically answer them because, why not.

If Gush were the real issue, wouldn't (at least) one other Gush-based deck be a runner-up in the meta, and be an obvious successor to Mentor, should Monastery Mentor be restricted?
Considering the other two Gush decks are at 3% and 4% of the meta (Pyro Delver and Nahiri respectively), they both don't add up to half of the numbers Gush Mentor has in the meta (23% of decks as of 4/10/17), even adding the 1% from Gush/Bond. I assume the percentage of Pyro Delver would go up should Monastery Mentor be restricted, but whether or not it is good enough against new Shops variants, Eldrazi, newer Oath variants, etc, is to be seen. I personally don't think Pyromancer is nearly as good, in any way, as Monastery Mentor, and I don't think any variant of Pyromancer would emerge as the "#1 deck" should MM be restricted. And, to be quite frank, if Gush WAS the problem, wouldn't Gush/Bond really be the way to maximize and break the format, considering everyone's talking about "free spells and mana ramp" as reasons to axe Gush? Curious that Gush/bond is sitting at 1.4% of the format... Other factors certainly bear on that number, still is a bit illustrative that many of us are looking in the wrong place.

Are we certain that restricting Gush would have any effect on the metagame other than nearly wiping out that 7-8% of non-mentor Gush decks? Are we sure that Mentor wouldn't still be in top 8s by making the least effort possible to update to a world with 1 Gush?
I don't think so. Restricting Gush "hurts" Mentor like a bee-sting.
It's funny when folks mention the banning of Splinter Twin in Modern as an example of how to hit Gush... (I swear it's somewhere in the morass above)
Mentor IS Splinter Twin and Gush is Pestermite in this analogy. Splinter Twin has an analogous card that is strictly worse in Kiki Jiki (in the case of Mentor is Young Pyromancer), Twin abuses the functionally identical Pestermite and Exarch (in the case of Gush is literally any other draw spell or free artifact spell) to go broken. Imagine the DCI banning Exarch or Pestermite in order to solve the problem of Twin decks. This is essentially what would happen if the DCI restricted Gush to hit Mentor decks. I acknowledge that this is an imperfect analogy since Gush is better than Preordain to a much bigger degree than Pestermite is better than Exarch, but that is beside the point; the big baddy is Mentor.

Will restricting Gush be enough?
It would take quite a lot of restrictions in order to curb Mentor effectively, we're talking Probe, Gush, Misstep, Preordain, and maybe the next-worst cantrip as well. Eliminating 4-ofs of a single card in a Mentor list would be ineffectual at curbing Mentor unless it's Mentor. "Mentor-the-card" is the problem, its effect has been to amplify nearly every card being called for restriction in this thread and elsewhere.

I would think the goal of any restriction is to not restrict more cards, correct? Be as effective as possible in dealing with imbalances without 8-card restrictions and format micro-management? Seeing as Mentor will get along just fine without Gush and will likely need a second restriction to affect its position, not to mention the side-effect of killing gush/bond decks which are enjoyable to watch (from my perspective) and fun to play against, restricting Monastery Mentor is the most effective way to get the desired effect.

I don't want to seem combative, but it's been irritating seeing people value having the card Mentor in the format more than the card Gush. Gush has been around for such a long time, it has a history in the format for good or ill, and it's powerful but by god are we a far cry from calling Gush/Bond more "broken" than Mentor. Gush is difficult to play and is interesting, Mentor is extremely easy to play and is uninteresting.

Gush needs to be correctly analyzed regarding its power level once Mentor (which profits off far more cards than just Gush) is off the table.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen You hadn't asked. Based on MTGtop8 results:

Id say its pretty much impossible to make an initial estimation without assuming the format %'s stay relatively the same. You could theoretically add in something with the win%'s from the P9 tournaments every month, but that could get very complicated. In addition, an assumption needs to be made on where the old decks go:

Assumption 1, New decks are evenly distributed among existing (ie all these players basically just quit Vintage):
Restricted Gush results in 3% additional PO Mentor and 6% additional "other" blue. (increases in other decks as well)
Restricted Mentor results in 3% additional Delver and 6% additional "other" blue. (increases in other decks as well)

Assumption 2, New decks go to the next most frequent deck (ie Everyone is a Spike and just wants to play the best deck). The next most frequent deck is MUD so there are no new Mentor or Gush.

Assumption 3, New decks are evenly distributed among current blue decks (ie These players just want to keep playing blue):
Restricted Gush results in 7% additional Oath, 15% additional "other" blue, and 7% additional PO Mentor
Restricted Mentor results in 7% additional Oath, 15% additional "other" blue, and 7% additional Delver

Assumption 4, New decks are go to the next most frequent blue deck (depends on interpretation of next most frequent) (ie These players want to play the best blue decks):
Restricted Gush/Mentor both result in 29% additional "other" blue, OR
Restricted Gush results in 14.5% additional PO Mentor and 14.5% additional Oath
Restricted Mentor results in 14.5% additional Delver and 14.5% additional Oath

In none of these scenarios is Gush/Mentor increasing in response to the other being restricted. Because the only way that could happen is if I made an additional assumption that the other decks change in response to that restriction. That is why I kept asking you what other decks are switching into Mentor.

Maybe you can draw some conjecture as to where the format is going from this point, or maybe you could bring in some assumption about win%, but in either situation you are making more assumptions. And more assumptions = Lower Probability of the event actually being true.

Let's ask a few other alternative scenarios:
If Thorn were restricted would you expect the % of Eldrazi, or Shops to increase?
If Bridge were restricted would you expect to see the % of Bazaar to increase?
If Orchard were restricted would you expected to see the % of Oath to increase?
I'm not sure how you can objectively answer, yes, to any of these. In a similar fashion, it seems crazy to me that you expect the % of Mentor to increase if a card in the best Mentor deck is being restricted.

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Smmenen You hadn't asked.

Then it's obvious you aren't reading what I'm writing. I had already asked you twice:

At the very end of post 139, I wrote:

"So, can you give me a specific percentage range or estimate answer for these two questions:

1. If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)"

In other words, the two questions you just said I hadn't asked in response to my previous post.

And, in post 112, I asked the same thing: "If you don't agree with any of those estimates, then indicate exactly what your estimates would be, not just that you disagree."

By not reading carefully, you compel me to repeat myself.

Id say its pretty much impossible to make an initial estimation without assuming the format %'s stay relatively the same.

It's no more impossible than asking what the NASDAQ average is going to be a month from now, within a range.

Now, please just answer the questions, and I'll address the specific assumptions.

Maybe you can draw some conjecture as to where the format is going from this point, or maybe you could bring in some assumption about win%, but in either situation you are making more assumptions. And more assumptions = Lower Probability of the event actually being true.

Of course there are assumptions embedded in any forecast. But only by making the forecast, can we illuminate what those assumptions are. Until you do so, we are debating assumption rather than forecasts.

Please provide an estimate of answers to the two questions I asked, and we can then evaluate exactly 1) what the degree of disagreement is between your position and mine, and 2) only THEN can we try to burrow down and try to figure out what the specific differences in our assumptions are.

If your estimates are not actually that far off from mine, then delving into the specifics of our various assumptions it not actually necessary. Your approaching this backwards.

Of course there are going to be huge margins of error and confidence intervals. The future isn't knowable with any precision. But it's not impossible to forecast a reasonable range. I already made this point over and over again with respect to 1) tomorrow's temperature or 2) the Dow or NASDAQ averages at COB. Please just indicate, roughly or with a range, what you think the likely effects are of either restriction, and we can debate the assumptions thereafter.

Let's ask a few other alternative scenarios: [...] I'm not sure how you can objectively answer, yes, to any of these. In a similar fashion, it seems crazy to me that you expect the % of Mentor to increase if a card in the best Mentor deck is being restricted.

Although I already answered that question very comprehensively in post 112, I will be happy to cover that ground again as soon as you answer the two questions I've been asking you to answer for days now.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen I was busy having an aneurysm from the rest of your post trying to tell me that you didn't make any assumptions in the creation of your %'s, and didn't make it down to the bottom of your post.

I've already given you an estimate, and pointed out the key difference of assumptions. You are making the assumption that some non-trivial number of currently non-Mentor decks are going to switch to Mentor. So much so that they will replace all of the Gush Mentor decks plus some.

Why do you keep using Post numbers? These aren't numbered. Give me a time stamp if you really want to reference a previous post.

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Smmenen I was busy having an aneurysm from the rest of your post trying to tell me that you didn't make any assumptions in the creation of your %'s, and didn't make it down to the bottom of your post.

I've already given you an estimate, and pointed out the key difference of assumptions.

Yes, but tell me which one you think is most likely. That is, gun to your head, which do you think is most likely to occur?

Also, you didn't answer the question. The question wasn't what happens to the metagame generally from either restriction.

The specific questions were: what happens to Card A if Card B is restricted? With Cards A and B being Mentor and Gush. You didn't fully answer the question.

You are making the assumption that some non-trivial number of currently non-Mentor decks are going to switch to Mentor. So much so that they will replace all of the Gush Mentor decks plus some.

I didn't say I didn't make any of those assumptions. I said that I didn't make most of those assumptions. There were at least 2 which I conceded I made. Again, please read more carefully. It seems like most of these posts could have been avoided had you simply put more effort into careful reading.

Why do you keep using Post numbers? These aren't numbered. Give me a time stamp if you really want to reference a previous post.

Again, look more carefully.

Posts are numbered. Look at the URL in the browser window, and you can see the post number. For example:

http://www.themanadrain.com/topic/1062/smip-podcast-63-where-do-we-go-from-here/150

Also, as you scroll down through a thread, there is a little bar at the top of the window that tells you what post you are reading... It's right next to the search bar at the top of the page.

It's not hard to miss. You just aren't looking carefully.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen
And many of my posts could be avoided by you being clearer, and more concise.

In my estimation, its most likely the % of Mentor drops with a Gush restriction. Based on the estimates I provided above, I'd place the range of change in Mentor from anywhere between -22% and +7%.

[Smmenen]

OK, we are making progress now, but your answers are still unclear.

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

In my estimation, its most likely the % of Mentor drops with a Gush restriction. Based on the estimates I provided above, I'd place the range of change in Mentor from anywhere between -22% and +7%.

Q: 1) If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

A: Your answer is that Gush might fall by as much as 80% or as little as 42%? It's not clear from post 148.

You said under assumption 1 restricting Mentor results in 3% more Delver. Under assumption 2, it's unclear. Under assumption 3, you said 7% more delver. Under assumption 4, you said 14.5% more delver.

For transparency, my assumptions are as follows:

1. Gush Mentor is about 18-22% of the metagame
2. Gush decks are around 22-33% (depending on the month, even, and the metagame).

Feel free to contest either assumption in refining your answer. I just want to make sure we are on the same page in terms of at least understanding your position.

The operation I'm making to calculate the percentages is so subtract the portion of Gush Mentor (if Mentor is restricted) from the current metagame, and then adding the % of Delver decks you indicated under each assumption. Please confirm that I'm reading you correctly.

Q: 2: If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)

A: Your answer is that Mentor will fall between -22% to +7%?

If Mentor is only 22% of the metagame now, are you saying that the low end estimate is that Gush's restriction causes Mentor to completely disappear? Recall that only 20% of the decks at the BoM were Mentor. Source: http://www.bazaar-of-moxen.com/en/index.html

I'm just trying to clearly understand your estimate.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen My estimates for Gush and Mentor are near identical based on whats currently in the meta. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It would also be -22% to +7%.

This is based on Mentor Gush being 22%, Delver at 7%, and PO Mentor at 7%. The low end of Gush being restricted is that only PO Mentor remains. The same is true of Mentor being restricted, only Delver remaining.

There may be some residual Gush/Mentor in the "other" blue category, but I didn't scrub through that.

[Dumpsterac1d]

I think there's a fundamental disagreement that is based on metrics, one of which I think is defensible and the other, not so much.

There are sets of folks who think Gush Decks are the problem. Agreed, because the number of decks that run Gush is super high.

There are sets of folks who think The Mentor Deck is the problem. Agreed, without the Mentor deck, the current gush-based meta is miniscule.

So which is the best way to look at this?

Personally, I don't think lumping "Gush Decks" into one category is a useful metric when talking about restriction. They share characteristics, surely, but some are clearly better than others, and they are not equal. Some non-trivial percentage of the total number of Gush-based decks are decks that are causing the current problem, ignoring the fact that those causing the problem have the card Monastery Mentor as the crux is irresponsible. When people say "Gush decks" within the context of this entire discussion, it is about Mentor decks. It is revolving around Mentor decks. It is the basis for analyzing what will happen to Mentor decks. If all Gush-based decks are a serious problem in the current metagame, those wanting Gush restricted will probably have to show why Pyromancer Gush, Nahiri, and Gush/Bond are problematic in the current meta, or that those decks will be a problem in a Mentor-less meta, or were a problem before Mentor was printed (sans Nahiri).

That's where stuff gets very tricky.

The argument that the currently un-problematic Gush-based decks are still somehow destructive to the metagame is one not based off of data, or the current/past metagame. I agree, Gush being in the format is stifling to other archetypes, but calling for a restriction based off of a personal desire to see an idealized state of vintage is not defensible, especially if we're calling for official DCI intervention. Restricting Gush may be "good for the format", but it doesn't solve the immediate problem which is the Mentor deck. If we want Gush restricted because of some generalized feeling about how vintage should be, then I don't think it's reasonable. Remember (not so long ago, and currently, forever) people were opposed to the card Mishra's Workshop because of a notion that people should be able to play spells because they're playing Magic: The Gathering, and Workshop "enables" Sphere and Thorn and Tangle Wire? Same thing.

On the flipside, if we view the "Mentor Deck" itself as the problem, we can easily see that the mechanics of the central card benefit greatly from more cards in the deck than just Gush. We see Probe, Preordain, Jace(s), Dack, and a number of other restricted spells that generate the game state none of us enjoy being under. Gush isn't even a fundamentally required part of the Mentor deck. Restricting Gush doesn't hurt this engine, there are ample replacements for Gush just waiting to be utilized. The problem of "Gush Decks" being the best decks would be solved immediately if 100% of the Mentor decks switched overnight to U/R Delver/Pyro-Gush. Since that's not going to happen, I'd imagine some of that to be spread around nicely. The reason nobody's talking about Pyromancer in terms of Gush's restriction is those decks are far less menacing and it doesn't fit a narrative that Gush is the sole reason Mentor is king.

So... it seems like if you've always wanted Gush to be restricted, "Gush Decks" have always been the problem, so Gush is the problem. That's just not good enough. I think a lot of people are using Mentor's dominance as a means to leverage their distaste for Gush without actually thinking about what would happen to the Mentor decks and their standing if Gush were restricted (very little).

I'm not even a Gush player, I'd love to play weird brews and decks enabled by old cards that people don't use anymore, I like "breaking the game" and finding fun, unintended interactions between cards. That's what draws me to Vintage (and Magic in general). I rarely can do this. Seems at odds with my defense of Gush? I just think people need to be reasonable in their assessment of what's actually wrong with the format right now and what's the most effective way to fix it with the least amount of steps possible. If something Gush-based emerges after Mentor to be annoying, unfun, and choking the meta, then look at Gush.

And think about it... If Gush is gone, you will have to rework the metrics of "Gush Decks" to "Mentor Decks" anyway since the deck will still be regularly making top 8s.

So I guess the question is, is it "Gush Decks" or is it "The Monastery Mentor Deck" that's causing problems?

[ajfirecracker]

Do you think the two prior restrictions of Gush were not correctly decided?

[Chase_Dagger]

@wappla said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

the data doesn't support restricting anything from the Gush decks

I think Wappla has the argument right here. I don't think anything should be restricted or banned.

[Dumpsterac1d]

@ajfirecracker They probably were, as was the restriction of Gifts Ungiven, Thirst, Frantic Search, etc.

The question is whether the current situation requires it now.

My assessment is the current situation exists because of the printing of Monastery Mentor, not the unrestriction of Gush 7 years ago.

[vaughnbros]

@Dumpsterac1d I assume you are referring to me and Steve? Except that I've already stated multiple times that either a Mentor, or a Gush restriction would be fine with me.

Honestly, as a Dredge player I would much prefer Mentor to go. People playing W is a much more difficult thing for me to beat, and having my opponent durdle around with Gush is much easier to win against than a Mentor killing me on turn 2. But that wouldn't be objective. Objectively, either is a fine restriction.

Steve's argument has been that if a restriction should occur, it should be Mentor and not Gush. I'm arguing that there shouldn't be a distinction. Either card could satisfy reducing the power level of Mentor Gush.

Gush has mostly homogenized draw engines similar to how Mentor has mostly homogenized win cons. Both seem problematic in terms of diversity to me.

[Smmenen]

Took this to PM to avoid having to have a technical back and forth, but we were able to get on the same page on a number of issues:

@vaughnbros asserts the following premises, which I will stipulate to for the sake of this argument:

1. Gush Mentor is 22% of the metagame
2. Total Gush decks are 29% of the metagame (meaning that non Mentoir Gush decks are 7% of overall metagame)
3. Total Mentor decks (Gush Mentor and non-Gush Mentor decks) are 29% of the metagame

So far so good.

Now, back to the question:

1. Q: 1) If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

Vaughbros best estimate was a 7% of decline in Gush decks, to 22%.

My estimate, in post 112, was that between 33-50% of Gush Mentor players would switch to a non-Gush deck.

Using the stipulated premises above, that means a 7-11% decrease in Gush decks from 29%.

In other words, after all of this debate, Vaughnbros prediction is exactly in line with mine.

Now, let's turn to the second question:

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the effect on Mentor?

Vaughbros best estimate is that Mentor would fall to 21% of Top 8s if Gush is restricted, but estimated a range of 7%-36%.

The range I estimated in post 112 is actually very similar. I estimated a post-Gush Mentor range of 16-37%, distributed among three different post-Gush restriction Mentor decks.

So, we agree on some broad generalities, although we disagree on many specifics.

My main argument is that Mentor should be restricted instead of Gush, because a restricting Mentor will bring Gush decks, overall, to an acceptable level. Vaughnbros said he agrees on this point (the latter clause, not the former).

whew that was like pulling teeth, but we got there!

We can now turn to issues on which we disagree.

I'll start:

1. I think that the chances that Mentor either maintains or actually increases it's % of the metagame are not as improbable as he believes. Specifically, I think that the combined chances that Mentor either maintains or actually marginally increases it's % of the metagame are better than he believes.

I'm not saying that the chances that Mentor maintains it's current % or increase are more probable than a decline, but I think it is certainly more likely that Mentor would increase post Gush restriction than that Gush would increase post Mentor restriction.

That's the most important part of my claim because, if true, that makes Mentor the better restriction.

The reason for this is that Mentor is so portable among blue decks, unlike the cards Vaughbros mentioned earlier, like Thorn or Bridge. And as the best win condition in the format, post-Gush blue decks will readily adopt Mentor as a dominant win condition.

It just depends on how the post-Gush Mentor decks shake out. But the ranges and estimates on provided in post 112 show how this might happen. I'm not saying that they will, just saying that they might.

@ajfirecracker said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

Do you think the two prior restrictions of Gush were not correctly decided?

The first was correct, or at least reasonable. The second was, imo, incorrect. I have SCG articles analyzing both, and staking out these positions.

The reason I think the second was incorrect is because I believe that the combined restrictions of Scroll, Brainstorm and Ponder were more than enough to rein in Gush decks. Gush's performance from 2010-2012 suggests that I was very likely correct about this.

[Dumpsterac1d]

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Dumpsterac1d I assume you are referring to me and Steve? Except that I've already stated multiple times that either a Mentor, or a Gush restriction would be fine with me.

Honestly, as a Dredge player I would much prefer Mentor to go. People playing W is a much more difficult thing for me to beat, and having my opponent durdle around with Gush is much easier to win against than a Mentor killing me on turn 2. But that wouldn't be objective. Objectively, either is a fine restriction.

Steve's argument has been that if a restriction should occur, it should be Mentor and not Gush. I'm arguing that there shouldn't be a distinction. Either card could satisfy reducing the power level of Mentor Gush.

Gush has mostly homogenized draw engines similar to how Mentor has mostly homogenized win cons. Both seem problematic in terms of diversity to me.

Not specifically talking about you both, I'm referring to everyone who says "Gush Decks" are the problem, and that Gush is the problem and needs restriction. i.e. Rich says on stream regularly (and more frequently as of late) that "Gush is the only way to beat Gush", like he's playing Pyromancer to beat Mentor or something ridiculous. The distinction needs to be made between Gush Mentor and every other Gush deck because it's useless to lump them together unless your main goal is to get Gush restricted.

In a perfect world I'm for the Brian Kelly approach (get rid of all of them) but that is based on the type of Magic I want to play. If the target is to hit Gush Mentor, it's a missed opportunity if you just hit Gush, simply because the deck works fine without Gush, it doesn't need Gush, and will probably reformulate it with Moxen and an alternative draw engine and be similarly oppressive, or find a way to abuse another "formerly restricted" draw engine that will also come to be oppressive and people will want re-restricted (jeez, Gush would be re-re-restricted).

Prioritizing the existence of Mentor the card vs Gush the card in vintage is the problem because Mentor amplifies minor problems in Vintage that become major problems and need dealing with.

edit: People will probably argue that Gush does a similar thing, but when in the past 10 years of Gush's unrestriction have people legitimately been calling for 5 cards to be restricted from Gush-based decks at once? The targets of restriction are erratic in ambivalence and target; Probe, Gush, Misstep, Preordain, Mentor, Outcome are all being discussed. The thing linking all of these to this specific moment in time is the card Monastery Mentor.