Yawgmoth's (Bargain Not Will) Unrestrictable?

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

I remember reading a @Smmenen article years back about going through hypothetical unrestrictions; maybe from SCG or something. I specifically remember Steve saying Channel is the most dangerous card to unrestrict.

Are you talking about this? http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-what-is-the-least-unrestrictable-card-in-vintage/

Time Walk was. Channel wasnt close.

Or this: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/17491_So-Many-Insane-Plays---Exploring-Possible-Unrestrictions--Designing-for-Balance--Channel--and-More-.html?mobile_site_continue=1

@Brass-Man I certainly think it is a negative...

Considering the impact that the printing of Dark petition had on ritual storm, I would be cautious of unrestricting a card that had a similar mana cost, is far more powerful and is less susceptible to commonly played hate (dark petition is weak to flusterstorm and grave hate).
Some might say that bargain is not easy to cast right now, but that's because of how the current curve of the deck is. I'm pretty sure you can build your deck to reliably cast bargain on turn 2 and win on the spot.
Let's not forget that this could also make show and tell problematic.

EDIT: There is also no reason to unrestrict something this impactful for ritual storm. Regardless of the amount of play it is currently seeing it's still a pretty competitive deck, unrestricting one of the most broken cards in the deck could easily push it over the edge.
As a ritual enthousiast I think windfall and memory jar should be candidates for unrestriction long before bargain even enters your mind, because those wouldn't change much (if anything) to the existing deck.
I'm guessing that most of the people saying bargain is safe either don't have experience with the card or are trying to analyze it from a blue mana efficency perspective (if you cant get to 6 mana with your ritual deck you aren't going anywhere anyways). There is no card in storm combo that lets you win as easily as bargain, to put it in perspective Mind's desire (aka a lot of people's boogey man) doesn't come close in terms of consistency and requires a lot more investment than bargain does. Will needs set up, necro has it's own tensions, and draw7s are symmetric.

last edited by Macdeath

@Macdeath I tend to agree with you that Bargain seems a little iffy on those terms. Though whether it would swing DPS into a dominant position is something that the older hands could probably be more reliable to say. I enjoy Storm a lot, and I equally enjoy draw sevens (when I'm casting them).

To tread lightly, and hopefully more responsibly, in the vein of @Brass-Man and not turn an eye from history, could anyone shed some light on the Windfall restriction? Were crazy things afoot with Windfall when it got the boot?

I somehow imagine Windfall might be a safer unrestrict than Jar, as (while I might be Totally off base) it seems like it could be heinously abused by workshop.

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

@Macdeath I tend to agree with you that Bargain seems a little iffy on those terms. Though whether it would swing DPS into a dominant position is something that the older hands could probably be more reliable to say. I enjoy Storm a lot, and I equally enjoy draw sevens (when I'm casting them).

To tread lightly, and hopefully more responsibly, in the vein of @Brass-Man and not turn an eye from history, could anyone shed some light on the Windfall restriction? Were crazy things afoot with Windfall when it got the boot?

I somehow imagine Windfall might be a safer unrestrict than Jar, as (while I might be Totally off base) it seems like it could be heinously abused by workshop.

I don't think storm could ever dominate the format since the skill barrier is high (meaning fewer players tend to play it compared to it's actual power) and there are a lot of ways to hinder storm nowadays.
But the fact that the deck can win turn 1 a considerable amount of the time would reduce the quality of gameplay like 4 LSG 4 chalice shops did.

Windfall was restricted alongside tolarian academy and stroke of genisus as part of the first wave to nerf the Academy decks (which could make windfall reliably draw 7 cards since the deck played 4x time spiral and fow was the only free counter at the time).
It currently barely sees any play even in combo decks that play draw 7s. The only deck I can think of that likes windfall is mono blue belcher.

Jar is powerful but not really what a control workshop deck wants to do. It's bonkers with metalworker but that type of workshop deck hasn't seen play in a while and would add diversity.
It's pretty good with goblin welder too, another marginalized strategy. But it doesn't directly slot into a current top tier deck. It might make two card monte actually good.

@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.

last edited by Topical_Island

@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.

last edited by Hrishi

@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.

last edited by Topical_Island

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? 😉

last edited by twerkshops

@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

last edited by boxian

@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.

  • 143
    Posts
  • 82641
    Views