JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE



  • the goal of vintage is the minimum number of limited cards ... every new limitation is a defeat for the format.
    how many cards could you take away from the restricted list with the workshop limitation?



  • @griselbrother said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    There's often talk about attracting new players to Vintage and in that regard Outcome could be good to the format. It's powerful, relatively easy to play and a lot of fun.

    Absolutely this! Outcome is a deck that rapidly makes sense to new vintage players who may be turned off by some of the more nuanced decks in the format. It has very specific paths to victory, and is insanely fun for players who have have heard about and want to feel the explosive power of Vintage. To me (danger, Vorthos warning), it also feels more, well, "magical," capturing a flavor of killing with spells instead of dorks.

    Honestly, and maybe others will totally disagree, I feel like this is something we Don't discuss enough in the more rarefied environment here but Outcome - when you're going off - definitely gives...for lack of better words...a sense of "Wahooooo!" This is one of those things that is less tangible, but maybe important for the metagame in a different way 🙂



  • @bandswithothers it gives the pilot that feeling, but the opponent is just sitting there watching you draw 30 cards and replay the same 8 spells over and over.
    What I’ve noticed in this thread is basically people seem ambivalent to restricting anything that isn’t in 40% of decks, or some annoying Shops tax effect. We lack solid data due to the way league results are now reported and, in my opinion, lack data on how often the PO pilot just wins by resolving one copy, and how often when resolving two and whether those numbers put it on par with DTT/Cruise/Gush pre-restriction.

    Some here seem to believe that since PO is worst against fair blue decks and better against Shops it actually diversifies the field (I find this specious at best, people have always played fair FoW decks, and certainly would continue to do so- while as long as Shops remains unrestricted people will play that card.)



  • @wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @bandswithothers it gives the pilot that feeling, but the opponent is just sitting there watching you draw 30 cards and replay the same 8 spells over and over.
    What I’ve noticed in this thread is basically people seem ambivalent to restricting anything that isn’t in 40% of decks, or some annoying Shops tax effect. We lack solid data due to the way league results are now reported and, in my opinion, lack data on how often the PO pilot just wins by resolving one copy, and how often when resolving two and whether those numbers put it on par with DTT/Cruise/Gush pre-restriction.

    Some here seem to believe that since PO is worst against fair blue decks and better against Shops it actually diversifies the field (I find this specious at best, people have always played fair FoW decks, and certainly would continue to do so- while as long as Shops remains unrestricted people will play that card.)

    Both you and someone else have now used as an argument that it's in some way less fun to lose to Outcome. I disagree. It's never fun to lose. Is it more fun to lose to Landstill, getting beaten down by a Factory and being fatesealed for 10 turns when the loss is inevitable? Is it more fun to lose to Jeskai, getting beaten down by a Snapcaster for 10 turns when the loss is inevitable? Is it more fun never to cast a spell against Workshops? I don't really buy the argument, honestly.



  • @griselbrother when you play against landstill etc., if you get them down to 1-2 cards in hand and have advantage on the board you don’t lose that game. It happens all the time vs PO. I’m not arguing that it should be restricted because it isn’t fun, just that saying it is fun isn’t a good reason to keep it around.



  • @wfain Is watching PO go off particularly different from losing to other combo decks? It feels like most such decks have a couple of relatively quiet turns before one long, game-winning one (e.g., storm in modern).



  • @necrogeist no, but it literally is not my argument. I personally don’t mind F6’ing and watching them go through everything. I think the opposite- saying it is fun to play with- is not a relevant reason to keep it.
    My objection to the card is purely power-level vs downside. Super high power-level with very little downside vs similar blue spells that are already restricted.



  • I mean, the power level argument is silly. We're playing Vintage, with the most powerful cards ever printed. Oath of Druids is legal as a 4-of in this format, is that not "super high power level with very little downside"? Saying a card has a high power level is not a sufficient reason to do anything. Cards that do not have a high power level do not get played in this format.

    The restricted list is meant to keep format diversity, not restrict cards that people feel hit some arbitrary measure of power.



  • @wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @griselbrother when you play against landstill etc., if you get them down to 1-2 cards in hand and have advantage on the board you don’t lose that game. It happens all the time vs PO. I’m not arguing that it should be restricted because it isn’t fun, just that saying it is fun isn’t a good reason to keep it around.

    Beating different decks requires different strategies. You're right that card advantage usually beats Landstill but not necessarily Outcome. But a single Sphere effect, a Leovold, a Kambal or a Spirit of the Labyrinth often beats Outcome but not Landstill.



  • @hrishi The power level argument is perhaps poorly phrased but legitimate. What people essentially mean by "power level" is "uninteractivity". For instance, the 8 pieces of Power are obviously powerful (I mean, it's the name). Their actual effect on game play is accelerating the course of a game, leading to impactful or game-ending plays as early as turn 1. Wheel of Fortune and Timetwister are powerful in the same way - they can be leveraged into a large, potentially game-ending advantage on turn 1. Same with Channel, Tinker, Flash and much of the remaining restricted list. If the game ends on turn 1-2, that is almost always an uninteractive game, as most players and Wizards of the Coast would define it. There is limited counterplay from the loser, and the outcome of the game was determined mostly from the opening hands. I know you and some other players have a very different take on what constitutes uninteractive gameplay. You are entitled to that opinion - fun on an individual basis is subjective. But you have to understand that fun on a collective level is not subjective: it is objective.

    I'd actually argue that most cards in Vintage are restricted because of this concept of interactivity. Far fewer are restricted due to diversity (though most of the recent restrictions fit this category). It's a complex question on whether or not Paradoxical Outcome crosses that line.



  • @chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    But you have to understand that fun on a collective level is not subjective: it is objective.

    For a game "fun" for the most people possible is definitely THE objective. However, I do not think that fun can ever be objectively measured. How each individual defines "fun" varies and when you aggregate up to the population of people that variation still exists. It also matters what group of people you are aggregating to. You used the word "collective". Who are these "collective" whose "fun" matters?


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    But you have to understand that fun on a collective level is not subjective: it is objective.

    For a game "fun" for the most people possible is definitely THE objective. However, I do not think that fun can ever be objectively measured. How each individual defines "fun" varies and when you aggregate up to the population of people that variation still exists. It also matters what group of people you are aggregating to. You used the word "collective". Who are these "collective" whose "fun" matters?

    I know that Wizards gets a lot of heat from the internet, but I would suspect that by now they have a very good understanding of what makes Magic "fun" and "unfun." There might be a small subset of people that love getting taxed out of the game, or don't mind an opponent countering every one of their spells, but I would suspect this is a very small percentage. We all enjoy "vintaging" and maybe even getting "vintaged" once in awhile, but I'm guessing few like it over time, in droves.

    It's actually a very easy metric to measure (though maybe not as much in Vintage). If they are selling tons of packs, people are having fun. If boxes are being closed out, the design team obviously did something unfun. After 20yrs, they probably know why these situations occur. This could also be carried over to MTGO as well. It might not be accurate all the time, but if more people are playing, and more matches are being played, people are having "fun."

    Maybe too simple and unsatisfying of an explanation for people into statistics and outliers, but very simple from a sales and marketing perspective.



  • @joshuabrooks For standard that definitely works. I dont think eternal formats are really influencing sales though.


  • TMD Supporter

    @wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @necrogeist no, but it literally is not my argument. I personally don’t mind F6’ing and watching them go through everything. I think the opposite- saying it is fun to play with- is not a relevant reason to keep it.
    My objection to the card is purely power-level vs downside. Super high power-level with very little downside vs similar blue spells that are already restricted.

    Cards should never, ever be restricted in Vintage for “purely power level reasons.” Such a criteria could be used to justify a restriction of a card that has no tournament impact, and thereby unnecessarily curtail player card & deck options. Bargain is way more powerful than much of the restricted list, but not problematic in tournaments.



  • @winryder said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    With PO Wizards don't need to do anything, the players can fix the deck by themselves all they have to do is play less shops, more fair blue, and include some stonys/null rods.

    I'd like to highlight this for a specific reason: Vintage issues often feel unsolvable because players are unwilling or, more importantly, unable to adapt. Paradoxical Outcome may very well feel unbeatable to some because of a lack of monetary ability to fight the deck. I, for one, can't be one of the players that switches from Workshops to fair blue in paper because it's out of my price range. I won't because I don't find fair blue interesting to pilot, but that's irrelevant and should not be taken into account. Money is a reason we, as a format, are slow to adopt, slow to react, and often call for outside intervention to make our metagame changes for us.



  • @smmenen if you’re going to quote someone, at least quote them. I think you misinterpreted exactly all of what I wrote in the post you were attempting to quote.
    I didn’t say it should be restricted because of its pure power-level, or purely its power-level.
    My complaint is purely a power-level vs downside issue. It has very, very high power-level and, practically speaking, no real downside. It doesn’t require much in the way of special deck-building, intelligent play, or complex sequencing. You just play cards you’d play in your blue vintage deck anyway (aside from Mox Opal), you get to stop playing expensive sorcery speed cards (like Tezzeret) and the most commonly played anti-combo and anti-shops cards aren’t even that good against it. Unlike Bargain- since you brought it up- which needs the deck to be built around it, requires resolving not only it, but some key spells before it, but also leaves you quite vulnerable to, say, lightning bolt. In addition, Bragain doesn’t generate mana when you land it, you have to still have a land drop or hit one of only a couple cards to generate more colored mana (assuming of course you didn’t have any left, which is not always true), multiples are dead, and it is much more susceptible to thorn effects, Flusterstorm, and other forms of hate.

    In summation, my complaint with PO is that it is all upside combined with an extremely high power-level and it dodges quite a lot of general sideboard cards. I’ve even seen it be overly good in a crazy RUG Titania list (which has posted about as many 5-0’s as my Survival deck). I’m just not convinced this card is less ridiculous than Gush, DTT, and Treasure Cruise.



  • @joshuabrooks
    Not completely an explanation for fun or not fun. Jtms sold more Masters 25 packs not because better drafting experience but because jtms was now unbanned in Modern.
    Out of this whole thread, what bothered me most was the attempt to make opinions a fact.
    Fact Is, there's no absolute metric for objectification of "fun", ever.

    On that note,
    Like power level, "fun" should never be used to restrict a card.
    My 2cents.
    Carry on.


  • TMD Supporter

    @wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @smmenen if you’re going to quote someone, at least quote them. I think you misinterpreted exactly all of what I wrote in the post you were attempting to quote.

    Ummm. I literally used the quote function to quote you verbatim. I did, actually, quote you.

    I am pointing out that the concept of “power level” is non-existent as you conceive it & hopelessly contextual, and therefore a terrible ground for restriction. If PO were that powerful, it would be banned in Legacy like Gush & Treasure Cruise. It’s not even close.

    In your own post this becomes evident as PO does have to be built around to maximize:

    It doesn’t require much in the way of special deck-building, intelligent play, or complex sequencing. You just play cards you’d play in your blue vintage deck anyway (aside from Mox Opal), you get to stop playing expensive sorcery speed cards (like Tezzeret) and the most commonly played anti-combo and anti-shops cards aren’t even that good against it. Unlike Bargain..

    Actually, it’s exactly like Bargain in that respect. You need more accelerants to support & maximize it. And, yes, Bargain generates mana via card advantage.

    We restrict cards primarily in Vintage based upon tournament performance. Anything less risks harming the competitive balance & diversity of the metagame.

    In addition to being the first good deck in ages to knock Shops off its perch, PO has brought big blue decks with Tinker, Yawg Will & Time Vault back to the center of the Vintage metagame. That is a GREAT thing. This deck has been virtually absent for almost 5 years, and the format has been stuck in the nightmarish quagmire of Shops v Xerox. PO is helping break that open.

    The Vintage format is better now than at any point since Khans of Tarkir. PO is the reason.



  • @ten-ten said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    Out of this whole thread, what bothered me most was the attempt to make opinions a fact.
    Fact Is, there's no absolute metric for objectification of "fun", ever.

    This is flat out wrong. If I poll everyone on TMD and ask them "Do you consider X to be fun?" and tabulate the results, I have generated an objective measure of fun. Now you can debate my sampling method, examine bias, argue about applicability, etc. but the very fact that you can do this makes it objective. If it were subjective, you would not be able to argue that. I can't argue with you on what you find to be fun. I consider the World Cup entertaining, but that has no bearing on whether you enjoy it. And the term "absolute measure" has no scientific meaning in this context... I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are trying to hedge on semantics.

    On a general note, the users saying that "fun should never be factored into B&R decisions" are making emotional appeals to an arbitrary sense of justice and not dealing with reality. It's pretty clear that Wizards takes fun into consideration when designing sets and managing formats. It's a game, not a court of law. The purpose is fun, not justice. Discuss cards appropriately on their own merits and effects on the format. Don't simply restate platitudes.

    Edit: @Smmenen I actually think the restrictions of Gush, Mentor, 2 Delve spells, and 3 lock pieces have created more entertaining and interactive games with more diversity in deck selection. Hinging an entire formats health on one card seems a bit of a stretch.



  • @smmenen I’ll be honest, I’m glad I don’t know you. You, like Outcome, are too powerful and should be restricted.


 

WAF/WHF