Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?



  • @Macdeath Current PO Storm runs Windfall and Jar, though it seems that people are on the fence (based on previous feedback) about whether or not PO will just be a flash in the pan and DPS will take back its place as the dominant storm strategy.

    In fairness: Many of those PO lists look a Lot like Belcher.

    I guess it would be interesting to see if indeed as Wizards intends, the move away Gush will yield fewer mentor decks, which in turn will let Workshop play fewer spheres. It would be super cool to see Welder and Metalworker decks!

    Also, you make a fair point about the quality of game play. I think that is something that is a little ephemeral in a lot of these discussions. People seem to cry foul against particular strategies, but has there been a moment/thread/meeting of the minds where folks in the vintage community have talked about trying to quantify (or heck, qualify) this? It may be one person's 'druthers is another's 'ruthers. But there have to be things like people generally agree that being consistently decked on turn 2 is no fun (unless you are on the Decking end), but it's okay to be sphere locked turn 2 because a well constructed deck has enough answers...etc.

    It seems like a place for another thread, but I would not want to rehash old ground! But could always make a neat poll.



  • @Brass-Man Pardon... you are right and that was really simplistic so let me rephrase what I said. Saying it was know was.... well just wrong because who really knows. When Flash was restricted, what I heard a lot of (and this is another problem... that any one person only ever hears a small sliver of the overall discussion) from folks on both sides of the discussion, people who couldn't stand Flash and people really enthused about playing it, both seemed to agree that the deck wasn't "good". By which they meant it wasn't a "tier one deck", a parlance that got thrown around in those days. That it couldn't hang with top decks in tourneys? In fact, in hindsight I'm not really sure what that meant. I suppose in the parlance of modern logic, it meant that I wouldn't go plus winning percent against the field.

    The reason that I remember tending to hear, was just that people hated the idea of Flash. That when it went off, it happened so soon in the game... something like that. My recolection that the accepted reasoning was not that Flash was over powered, but that it as perverse. In the same way that I run across people occasionally arguing that Dredge need restriction, and as I talk to them, it becomes clear to me that they just don't like playing against Dredge. That is my recollection of Flash.

    But maybe I'm totally wrong. If you say so, then that makes me think I might be. I appreciate that you try to stay neutral on here. That's probably good in the long run I guess, but many times I wish you were less neutral. If that happens at my expense, especially if I put my foot in my mouth. Ok. Certainly don't worry about it when it comes to me. Provoking the opinions of people like you is a big part of why I post on here (so friggin much).

    I don't understand what you mean in your last sentence about the attention of Wizards being a net negative. Can you explain?

    To everyone else, the best way to settle this... (by best I mean to follow wizard's operative definition of the word, in which it is synonymous with "most fun") The most fun way to settle this is clearly just to play match games, in which each player just "unrestricts" one card and builds a deck around it to examine it's broken-ness. I'd be happy to take Windfall against Yawg Will. Heck, I'd be happy to take anything really. Channel and Balance would be great!, but I'm also sure they are totally busted.



  • @Brass-Man said in Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?:

    The idea that Yawgmoth's Will or Flash could be unrestricted lacks so much historical context that it makes me retroactively question things the suggester has said before. This is not unique to this thread.

    No offense, but why? I'm not saying any of the above cards are good ideas, but whenever a card that has been restricted "forever" is brought up as a candidate for unrestriction, older Vintage players herald it as the end of the format. It happened with Regrowth, it happened with Gifts, it happened with Thirst. Hell, it probably happened with Burning Wish. None of those cards made any massive impact on the format at the time they got unrestricted.

    I even have a personal anecdote here, the week Gifts Ungiven was unrestricted, I top 8'd a tournament with Ritual Gifts and I had people tell me all day to "enjoy it while it lasts and that Gifts was not going to last 3 months". Yet here we are.

    It probably makes sense, because such players have what I call "negative nostalgia" with such cards and thus cannot be fully objective. The game is obviously very different to when the above cards were restricted, and sometimes lacking and/or ignoring historical context is a useful tool in evaluating a card in a different environment.

    Note that I don't think Yawgmoth's Will should be unrestricted, before anybody jumps on this post and bites my head off.



  • @Hrishi Ok GAME! You pick a card you think could come off the list, and I'll do my honest best to make a list that shows its still broken (Anyone who thinks that a card should stay on the list, really ought to be able to show you a list that demonstrates it's brokenness.)

    Andy, it's totally cool. Bite my head off anytime man. Just keep the site up.



  • Another angle to consider unrestrictions from is, rather than whether it's likely to make a deck consistently broken, whether it's likely to turn a previously decent deck into a glass cannon with a slightly higher win rate than its previous iterations that just makes the format generally more miserable.

    I think Bargain fits into that category. If you unrestrict Bargain, you make it almost too tempting to play 4x Bargain and run yourself into brick walls all day long trying to play rituals and other fast mana into a T1 or T2 Bargain and win on the spot, just because it gives you a 61% win rate rather than a more skill intensive and resilient, but less explosive storm iteration.

    That sort of thing has a knock-on effect on other decks, too, who can't rely on their regular counter or sphere suite to put the squeeze on storm and have to start maindecking extra hate for that deck.

    @Topical_Island said in Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?:

    @Hrishi Ok GAME! You pick a card you think could come off the list, and I'll do my honest best to make a list that shows its still broken (Anyone who thinks that a card should stay on the list, really ought to be able to show you a list that demonstrates it's brokenness.)

    How about Gush? ;)



  • @twerkshops Exactly... although I suppose I could do it via quantity rather than quality, by just submitting every decklist using Gush from the past year. That seems to be sufficient...

    But seriously not seriously, pick a card.



  • @Topical_Island Okay, for the sake of argument and fun only (thank goodness not two mutually exclusive things on TMD):

    How 'bout a deck with 4x Yawgmoth's Will?

    It seems to be the card that most people agree should not under any circumstances come off of the list. At the same time, I'd be interested to see the deck that would honestly rather draw Will than some other kind of gas or similar recursive effects like Snapcaster. So let's see what Nancy Regan has to say about THAT. Extra kudos if it becomes known as the Mamie Eisenhower deck...



  • @Topical_Island said in Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?:

    @twerkshops Exactly... although I suppose I could do it via quantity rather than quality, by just submitting every decklist using Gush from the past year. That seems to be sufficient...

    But seriously not seriously, pick a card.

    Ohh, please let me break memory jar. I see so many people on here saying jar could be unrestricted and I just laugh. I would have so much fun with it unrestricted though. Too much fun in fact. It would be so much fun people would be calling for its re-restriction before a deck even saw serious tournament play.



  • @BandsWithOthers I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but my hunch is that the best "Unrestricted YawgWill deck" would probably not start with 4x Will.

    Chances are good the ideal number is somewhere more like 3 or 2, because Demonic Tutor and Vampiric Tutor are still good (and very flexible).



  • @Topical_Island if I may, I think that @Brass-Man meant that Wizards paying attention to Vintage players feedback would be a negative if the feedback is "devoid of historical context" or critical thought, which would make restrictions less based on objective data and more on emotional outcry by a vocal minority.



  • @boxian I totally agree! Heck that's what I've been saying all along. As I said before, I wish that the people who I assume are being paid to make these decisions, would playtest the cards they are talking about. (BTW, I mocked up a Flash deck last night... and, erm. It looks pretty good. The lists I was thinking of, I don't remember such widespread and effective use of the Summoner's Pact and Pact of Negation... I'm also trying to remember the conversations I used to have on Magic Workstation about flash with... can't remember his real name now. He won a big tourney in Chicago at one point, using Uba Shops with Bazaar, Squee, and Barbarian Ring... Who was that?)

    I honestly don't see much problem with threads like this, so long as empiricism prevails. Aside from the personal embarrassment of having been on the wrong side of it (at least at first?), I don't see anything really wrong with threads like this. They can be frustrating, but people are talking about Vintage... they really aren't screaming at each other and it seems pretty rational. All that seems good for the site, good for the game, and really good for people like me who know a lot less than people like Andy (notwithstanding how many times he declares himself to be "not that good").



  • @Topical_Island I agree, I think that as we all talk about the B&R and generally we all want to play with the cards, we should consider how to use them and then be able to make arguments to pull cards off or not and get ideas going.

    There would be some value, imo, in getting a thread about each Restricted card and building decks to prove how it's broken or not since we get new cards every 3 months that changes the context. There are likely some cards that don't need to be considered in such a way, but a main thread like this one could do that. Meanwhile, the Single Card Discussion - Unrestriction threads would be a great place to store institutional memory of why a card is busted, spring boards for decklists, and counterarguments with examples.

    edit: I wish that the official banlist site included links to the banned list announcement archives that tied to each card, so there was an Archive, but each card had for instance

    Gush [1] [2] [3] and each [X] is a link to an announcement about that card. It'd be good to be able to see it, but it would also be nice to see how much time has passed since a card was restricted.



  • @Topical_Island Agreed. I know that B/R threads are probably maddening for a lot of the more steady hands on the wheel, but at the same time I figure if there WERE cards that could be tested in a reasonable way (say by your idea of just building some decks and generating some actual conversations) we could actually MAKE empirical arguments that people Wizards listens to could point at when talking up an unrestriction.

    Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, a good use of time Might be to try and come to some consensus about play oriented (as opposed to purely emotional) complaints within the format. People don't like playing against certain strategies but it doesn't necessarily make them ban-worthy no matter how much they complain. Yet a lot of people might agree that something like Flash or Channel should stay restricted because the decks they generate are aggressively boring and homogenizing. Or that Yawgwill should stay restricted, if for no other reason than who knows how it could abuse new printings and that keeping it restricted is best for healthy vintage.

    It would be interesting to do some norming about what constitutes an undesirable state of play to get some better operational language.



  • I've said for a year that Windfall and Bargain, and even maybe Memory Jar, were candidates for unrestriction.

    Rarely do decks play ANY Draw 7s, let alone conditional ones. Windfall was always the first card I cut. I could only see Workshop decks fearing this card due to Hurkyl's Recall/Not interacting when on the draw.
    We have a Super Bargain with a split cost of 1G/2U (Oath/Show and Tell).
    Memory Jar as a 4x isn't busted. It costs 5. There's probably fun things you can do with it, but I almost always hated drawing my Memory Jar, I don't think I want 3 more chances to draw that shitter; plus, we live in an environment where Goblin Welder dies 8 ways from Sunday. (Mistep/Plow)



  • Anyone who says Flash could be unrestricted needs to take special education classes.

    4x Flash + Academy Rector with Omniscience + Bargain is NOT a World I want to live in.



  • @MSolymossy said in Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?:

    I've said for a year that Windfall and Bargain, and even maybe Memory Jar, were candidates for unrestriction.

    Rarely do decks play ANY Draw 7s, let alone conditional ones. Windfall was always the first card I cut. I could only see Workshop decks fearing this card due to Hurkyl's Recall/Not interacting when on the draw.
    We have a Super Bargain with a split cost of 1G/2U (Oath/Show and Tell).
    Memory Jar as a 4x isn't busted. It costs 5. There's probably fun things you can do with it, but I almost always hated drawing my Memory Jar, I don't think I want 3 more chances to draw that shitter; plus, we live in an environment where Goblin Welder dies 8 ways from Sunday. (Mistep/Plow)

    Here's the problem with memory jar being unrestricted - and I did this to plenty of people in the mid to late 2000's with just 1 copy in my deck:

    activate jar, have a way to look at opponents hand.
    activate jar a second time, look at opponents hand.

    Stack jar triggers to give your opponent the worst hand of the 3 choices (their original hand vs 1 of the 2 jar hands). That is if you don't just flat out win. Usually by the second jar activation tendrils count is high enough to kill your opponent and get you a game 1 win in the next round, too.

    But from your opponents perspective its - Oh look , a solid hand going to waste, at least I have a decent hand face down I'll get back. Oh wait, you can stack the triggers? I get this 5 mana, 2 nothing spell hand back and just watched all my counters and business spells go to my yard? Yeah, I guess I'll sit here and hope for a top deck while you kill me at your leisure.

    Its honestly not fun to play against. It really pisses people off and takes them out of the game just as sure as, "Shop, mox lodestone, go. turn 2 thorn, wasteland" takes somebody out of the game.



  • @Khahan Sure, but if you're activating 2+ Memory Jars, you might as well just hardcast GOD. Or you have welder, etc (That was a trick I did with slaver), but realistically, if welder stuck around, I deserved to lose for not killing a shitty 1/1.



  • How about Gush? ;)

    http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=14996&d=290696&f=VI

    Next!!!

    But, seriously, I do think the concept is a good way to have a fact based discussion here about unrestriction.



  • @MSolymossy show me the decklist



  • Wouldn't you play 4x jar in a deck with 4x workshop to make the mana cost less relevant?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.