April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement



  • @fsecco said in April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement:

    I don't want to get into a parallel discussion about this, but you're wrong. Paper Competitive 1x1 Commander is divided between Duel Commander (the "french" list") and 1v1 Commander (MTGO's list). So yeah, people do use MODO B&R list in paper Commander too, and as far as I know, it's a bigger crowd than people that use Duel's list nowadays. As far as side events on GPs, I believe Commander has a lot of those too. I know for a fact that GP SP has them every year and GP Seattle also hosted Commander MTGO side events this year. So yeah, I still can't say that Aaron's statement is the only thing that made Workshops spike.

    You're correct that Seattle (and Hartford) had 1v1 side events. However, judging by the event websites on this page, 1v1 is not being supported in the near future. I can't imagine buying cards for paper format that flopped.



  • I can't imagine buying cards for paper format that flopped.

    I still bought my LED just for Tiny Leaders 😄



  • @aelien said in April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement:

    I can't imagine buying cards for paper format that flopped.

    I still bought my LED just for Tiny Leaders 😄

    I originally bought my power for the now-defunct 5-Color format, but I also wasn't kidding myself that I was playing a casual format with physical stock options.



  • @hierarchnoble Well, a lot of people do, because GP support is just an extra. A LOT of people played Duel Commander (which is why a bunch of duel-commander only cards were more expensive than they should - Devastation I'm looking at you) and those people are migrating towards 1v1 Commander. So it's not an issue with official support or whatever, but with people that are moving the market towards this format, that's not as small as it seems. I'm sure Workshops spike has a LOT to do with Aaron and buyouts and RL, etc. But we shouldn't dismiss the Commander unbanning.

    EDIT: also, does the link you posted have a list of side-events for each GP?



  • @fsecco said in April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement:

    @hierarchnoble Well, a lot of people do, because GP support is just an extra. A LOT of people played Duel Commander (which is why a bunch of duel-commander only cards were more expensive than they should - Devastation I'm looking at you) and those people are migrating towards 1v1 Commander. So it's not an issue with official support or whatever, but with people that are moving the market towards this format, that's not as small as it seems. I'm sure Workshops spike has a LOT to do with Aaron and buyouts and RL, etc. But we shouldn't dismiss the Commander unbanning.

    EDIT: also, does the link you posted have a list of side-events for each GP?

    Yes, it does. That was the entire point of my post.



  • IMHO:the goal of vintage is the minimal appeal to B & R

    at this moment :
    limit 1x:
    mishra workshop
    mental misstep

    unrestrict
    lodestone golem
    flash
    Fastbond

    watch list for future unrestrict:
    thorn amethyst
    monastery mentor


  • TMD Supporter

    @chubbyrain said in April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement:

    @smmenen This is a fundamental disconnect between you and me (and the DCI). Cards aren't restricted because of 'brokenness' - they are restricted because of uninteractivity (and balance and diversity, but that is beside the point here).

    I wasn't suggesting that cards were 'restricted' because of 'brokeness'. You used the term 'broken,' so I responded within that frame.

    I think we are roughly on the same page. To restate:

    In my view, the DCI's primary role is to promote format diversity, and it does this by regulating dominant decks through restriction. Secondarily, yes, it has - very rarely - restricted cards on the grounds that it is non-interactive, rather than statistical prevalence or dominance. The only two clear cases of this are Flash and Trinisphere.

    What I'm saying is that unrestricting Fastbond would clearly serve the first goal. The Lands deck being powered up would be another metagame competitor that isn't 1) blue, and 2) isn't brown. It would be a viable deck, and a fun one, I think. It would be good against Workshops and tokens decks, but weak to PO and Combo.

    Where I disagree with you is that I think it would be interactive. Not all decks would care about it's angle of attack. Nor would it very often win on turn one or Strip away an opponents deck. If you've played against Lands before, you know it takes a few turns to get it's engine going. Sure, there would be games where it barfed a T1 DD out. But Lands can already do that with Manabond right now. So I don't think Fastbond would amp it up to the level where it would be alarming.

    Do you think that Fastbond is unlikely to see play even if unrestricted? If so, that is a valid reason to advocate for its unrestriction.

    I'm not sure. But it's certainly possible that the long run equilibrium point for a Lands deck is +/- 1-2% of the metagame. I think that's probably about right in the long run, once people get over the novelty.

    If you think Fastbond would "balance out" the metagame, that isn't really valid.

    Let's not use the word "balance.' "Balance" is a term that makes even less sense in magic than it does in Star Wars. Metagames are too complex and multifaceted to be characterized by such a binary concept as Balance.

    I prefer the term "diversify." Would Fastbond help diversify the format? Unquestionably.

    That means it would have to see a considerable amount of play (20% of the metagame?)

    Not necessarily. If Fastbond decks were 8% of the metagame, that would increase the diversity of the metagame considerably by reducing the share of other decks. Thus, if Workshops went from 30% to 25%, even if Lands was only 7%, it has helped diversify the format.

    and that would create a lot more uninteractive games IMO as I think the ideal Fastbond deck would be a combo-based lands deck.

    Which I think would be interactive and fair by vintage standards. Certainly no worse than PO, Dredge or Workshops.

    Interactivity is a spectrum, and also an ambiguous concept. Landstill, from one perspective, is very interactive. But not from another, as it doesn't let you resolve spells. Hell, Trinistax is interactive from one perspective: it interacts with the opponent by preventing them from playing spells.

    In any case, I think that a better Lands deck would be more interactive for Vintage than the norm for Vintage decks.

    In the final analysis, I think unrestricting it would therefore would serve the goal of diversifying the format, without making it less interactive.

    The latter may be debatable, but the former isn't. And even if the latter is debatable, the fact that it's debatable means that it's at least a viable candidate for discussion.



  • @smmenen I think we ended up in the same place - the crux of the argument is again the vague concept of interactivity. I will just restate that I think the lands deck that people are playing now in Vintage and Legacy is different than a Fastbond-enabled Lands deck. That deck would be much more comboish than current versions.

    Cheers Steve.



  • @smmenen said in April 16, 2018 Banned And Restricted Announcement:

    Which I think would be interactive and fair by vintage standards. Certainly no worse than PO, Dredge or Workshops.

    Which is crux--PO, Workshops and Dredge all require relatively specialized tools to beat (in order of specialization). Adding another one of these decks to the format in Combo Lands brings Vintage closer to Modern, where you simply can't have all the right tools. Modern is a roaring success of a format--so that's not necessarily a bad thing.



  • Lands is already a pretty cool deck in Vintage (shame it was so misplayed in the VSL). I believe it's 1 or 2 steps (or new printings) away from becoming really good. Damping Sphere may be one of those steps.


 

WAF/WHF