October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement



  • @fsecco Restricting misstep definitely would bring diversity. Shops definitely needs a nerf. The deck is ridiculous. Format is the worst it's been in years and continues to trend in that direction.



  • @bobbyvictory I... disagree. And I'm not alone. So no, it's not "definitely".



  • @garbageaggro said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @chubbyrain said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    hey are trying to win tournaments. What most people should be doing is playing Ravager Shops themselves, but because of card availability and player preference they are not. And so it's not worth the deck and SB slots. That leaves an unbalanced format where Shops consistently has a win rate considerably higher than other decks. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people are building their decks wrong and Shops is addressable given the metagame constraints. That's why Ryan and I continue to invest tons of time in collecting data from every available source we can get our hands on.

    So is it up to the B&R list to handle the fact that people are (by preference) not playing shops enough given its matchup win percentage? If you think so, i feel like we can have a different conversation, but to me the time for intervention is when something sees a ton of play, has a huge % of the meta, and people still can't beat it. (Affinity in standard way back when)

    Edit:
    I guess what I am saying is if the rational thing is to play shops right now, because until a certain % of the meta game is shops you will get reward because people won't play the hate needed to beat you. People don't do that, except for folks like Rich, who as it turned out made the right call and top 2d the event. I don't know, the current state of vintage feels to me like it is rewarding the people who make the right meta calls, and punishing the people that try to make something else work instead. If enough people make the right meta call it is super easy to beat the deck.

    This actually feels exactly like Survival getting banned in legacy because people weren't playing the decks that beat it enough (combo). That probably weakens my point, because I think I am in the minority about survival, but I want the B&R lists to be based on what happens when people react correctly to the meta.

    Shops can't exceed a third of the meta in paper because not enough shops were printed to do that. The number of rares in each set were decided to roughly equate to the number of rares in the other sets back then so that each payer could have equal opportunity to collect a set. Now that MTGO exists people are no longer constrained by the availability of Mishra's Workshop which is why it peaked to almost twice the amount possible in paper. Mishra's Workshop has been in need of restriction for over ten years now and the same debunked arguments keep getting repeated to try to preserve the card in the face of glaringly obviously logic. It's been going on for so long that the people who have been playing that whole time have become completely acclimatized to it. Enter MTGO and all of a sudden a huge number of new players have access to Vintage and are seeing that there is this blaring problem that no one has dealt with for reasons that they can't understand. Political reasons like "Don't restrict my favorite card or I'll quit". I'm completely certain every Shops player already knows this and are just continuing the same old routine of play dumb that's worked for almost two decades but of course that's really none of my business because "people are stupid" and "data is meaningless" etc. etc. etc... Same drivel different decade.



  • @aaron-patten There were 31 thousand copies of workshops printed. Champs had 427 competitors. If all 427 players wanted to play workshops, they could. 427 X 4 = 1,708. That is only 1,708 copies out of the 31,000 printed. There is more than enough to go around even if the vintage player base grew 10 times the size it is now. All of them could play it.



  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • @bobbyvictory you know whats AIDS? The actual disease. You know whats not? Anything else. Try using another term to describe your feelings for Mental Misstep's presence in the format.



  • I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Bobby's made his feelings clear, and as long as he simply repeats himself I suggest ignoring him.



  • @ajfirecracker I promise you that ignoring the misstep problem won't make it go away, nor will it make me go away. I could see more people who don't use this forum coming here and posting about the misstep issue as well.


  • TMD Supporter

    @13nova said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @bobbyvictory said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    Restricting misstep definitely would bring diversity.

    Bobby, this is not meant to be hostile, but to emhpasize something important.

    ANYONE who thinks restricting Misstep will stop the blue circle jerk is FUCKING DILLUSIONAL. Blue matchups are 50%+ of the metagame, blue mages will replace those missteps with more flusterstorms, spell pierces, etc. Nothing relevant to shops will occur by restricting Misstep.

    While I would not put the matter quite in those terms, Soly is essentially right.

    Bobby, you've been railing for some time against the predominance of "blue" in the format. I think you misunderstand the reason this is, and something fundamental about the nature of the game. The problem is not innovation or creativity or even the power level of blue per se.

    The fundamental problem is the design of the game. In a game that is composed of only 5 colors, with ABU(R) dual lands and Onslaught fetchlands it is too easy to build a resilient and reliable 3 color deck that can find a basic land on turn 1.

    As a result, every single "colored" deck is likely to be at least 3 colors. Given that cards like Ancestral Recall and Time Walk exist, how often is blue going to NOT be at least a secondary or tertiary splash, if not the primary color? Put another way, how often is Blue going to be one of the two worst options for splashing? Very rarely.

    Before Onslaught, there were many more mono-color and two color decks. 3-5 color decks often needed cards like City of Brass for reliability. But once the Onslaught fetchlands were introduced, the entire game changed. Ever since, 3-4 color decks could be built with basic lands found on turn 1.

    So, your railing against "blue" is really misplaced. Blue isn't ubiquitous because people just want to play blue, or are lazy and not creative. Blue is everywhere because Onslaught fetchlands make it easy to play 60-80% of the colors in the game at almost no cost.

    Rationally speaking, the only decks that are unlikely to splash blue are going to be intentionally "colorless" decks, like Workshops/Eldrazi, or decks that are mono-color and don't play fetchlands or splash second or third colors at all. Everything else is just going to have blue for the reasons I just mentioned. If you really want to see more decks that aren't colorless or blue, then you'd have to ban Fetchlands.

    If Magic were a game of 7 or more colors, and if the Onslaught fetchlands had never seen print, you would see much less blue. Before Onslaught, blue was not quite as ubiquitous. I think the institutional memory of pre-Onslaught Magic masks how fundamental that change wrought.



  • @bobbyvictory said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @ajfirecracker I promise you that ignoring the misstep problem won't make it go away, nor will it make me go away. I could see more people who don't use this forum coming here and posting about the misstep issue as well.

    TMD doesn't need additional chicken littles from the FB Vintage group.



  • @smmenen Fantastic post, Steve. This is incredibly insightful.



  • @seksaybish Now now, no need for name calling :). Just because you don't agree with something or someone doesn't mean you have to resort to lowbrow behavior



  • @smmenen It's islands/bazaars/shops or bust. No one is splashing islands into their deck, they are splashing other colors into a blue deck. The majority of the deck is blue. Counterspells + card draw + blue walkers(usually) + whatever style wincon they want. If it were the other way around, i'd agree with you, but it isn't.
    This IS due to the power level of blue.

    I'm not saying that blue shouldn't be splashed at all, but when every non bazaar/shop deck is blue based with other colors being secondary/tertiary, that has to be a huge tell of blue's power level. Blue is never secondary/tertiary because of the power level.



  • @bobbyvictory said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    I spent money on cards that I don't even want to use anymore because there isn't anything fun these days that I enjoy playing. Tired of the same old bazaar/islands/shops strategies. I resent my decision to purchase these cards. Every vintage website, group and store that supports vintage should have a disclaimer that says:

    Vintage is bazaars/islands/shops only, you've been warned.

    Seriously, because If i had known this ahead of time, I would have never bought in. It doesn't make sense that the format with the largest card pool to choose from has the fewest playable options. It's downright stupid :(.

    I write this without trying to insult you, so please keep that in mind. Your words here and elsewhere create the distinct impression that you don't actually play the format, nor have paid any attention to it for at least the past decade. Vintage revolves around the most broken cards and strategies, and blue decks, Workshop decks, and Bazaar decks have been 3 of out of the top 4 strategies that have consistently risen to the top for over a LONG time (Dark Rituals and dedicated combo being the other, which is in a lull right now). Decks like Fish, Null Rod tempo things, and Colorless Eldrazi simply arise as reactionary forces to this when the metagaming is correct to do so.

    Restricting Workshop isn't going to do anything other than eliminate Workshop decks as a pillar of the format that prevent it from simply charging towards a 85-90+% blue dominated metagame (and yes, I realize not all blue decks are created equal that fit this category, and many have different strategic aims; I'm simply grouping these together for these simple-minded arguments). The critical mass of insane blue spells in Magic's history (many of which are already rightly restricted) are so much higher in power level that it will probably not ever become a format where blue doesn't appear in most of the best decks. It will also likely result in a lot of people quitting Vintage and moving on with their lives (if you do not believe this to be the case, you were not around when the blue apocalypse happened, and Brainstorm/Ponder/Merchant Scroll/Flash all got restricted in one fell swoop, and tons of players quit and set the player-base back massively). If you want Vintage to become a more broken and swingy version of the homogeneity Legacy has moved towards the past 3 years, restricting Workshop is a great over-reactionary idea that will lead to worse outcomes.



  • Steve and Jaco, you guys are putting up some absolutely great posts in this thread. Bobby, Vintage is a lot of fun, but the large card pool is part of why the format isn't nearly as "diverse" as something like Legacy. I, and many others, find a lot to enjoy and love about Vintage. But the format's pillars are what they are because they are so much more powerful than the alternatives.


  • TMD Supporter

    @bobbyvictory said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @smmenen It's islands/bazaars/shops or bust. No one is splashing islands into their deck, they are splashing other colors into a blue deck. The majority of the deck is blue. Counterspells + card draw + blue walkers(usually) + whatever style wincon they want. If it were the other way around, i'd agree with you, but it isn't.
    This IS due to the power level of blue.

    I'm not saying that blue shouldn't be splashed at all, but when every non bazaar/shop deck is blue based with other colors being secondary/tertiary, that has to be a huge tell of blue's power level. Blue is never secondary/tertiary because of the power level.

    I'll take one more bite of the apple here.

    Your goal is to have more decks that aren't blue. And I'm saying that the only way that's going to happen is if you either 1) increase the % of colorless decks, or 2) ban fetchlands.

    Any "colored" deck is almost certainly going to have blue because the fetchlands make it too easy to include blue, and thereby get access to cards like Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, etc.

    The key distinction isn't between blue and non-blue decks, which you ceaseless harp on. It's between colored and colorless. The Onslaught Fetchlands make it too easy for any "colored" deck to have access to the best cards in the entire format. They might start with a desire to include Ancestral and Time Walk, but it's too easy, and desirable, to build to a critical mass that then allows you to play Force of Will (all you need is about 17 blue spells). Look at something like BUG, with cards like Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, etc. and you can see how you end up with Forces, Missteps, etc.

    Your crusade to see more non-blue decks ignores fundamental structural features of the format; specifically, the existence of ABU dual lands and Onslaught fetchlands, that render almost any multi colored deck blue.

    Just think it through: What color combinations can you conceive of that aren't improved by including blue? Since it's so easy to build a 3 color deck, there are very few combinations of colors that won't include blue. The only possible non-blue three color decks are: WGR, WBR, WGB, and GRB. That doesn't leave much room for non-blue decks. Most of those decks are going to be improved with a blue splash.

    You are fighting combinatorial math here.



  • @jaco I do not believe restricting the card Mishra's Workshop is the correct move. At one point, I did and I had even comes up with a solution to address the restriction. Rich had brought up the blue apocalypse earlier this week. I was unaware of it. This made me reconsider and think about what else contributes to the explosiveness of the deck. What could possibly be done to the shops archetype to tone down the power level without having a risk that would lead to the "blue Apocalypse" of shops players. The next enabler without a drawback of the shops deck is Foundry Inspector. It's the second card without a drawback in the shops deck that creates the explosiveness that shops has. The card is much better than most think and it plays a large role in the success of the deck nowadays.

    And yes I do play vintage, I have for the last 3 years since i've bought in. Due to the stagnant nature of the format, i've been sitting out of events since the end of April 2017. I qualified for a free spot at NYSE this summer, skipped out. I skipped out of champs. I even thought about playing vintage last months local vintage 1k, prepaid, then skipped out again. This sort of thing should be a sign of the direction where vintage is currently heading. If it is not, we can talk about how attendance is down since 2015 and has never been the same.

    Misstep still needs to get the axe. Blue will still be fun without 4 copies of it and other types of players will also have an opportunity to invest in vintage cards/have fun in the format.


Locked
 

WAF/WHF