Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

we'll end up with Highlander, with a restricted list stretching miles long.

I am a strong advocate of just skipping the middle steps and just going straight to this. Restrict everything. Be done with all these "shakeup" restrictions that have been occurring as of late, and mitigate the effect of insanely broken new printings (like Delve, Ballista, Outcome, Hollow one).

@vaughnbros

Then why not just lobby to get the Power 9 unbanned in Highlander instead of wanting to fundamentally change Vintage?

@davidlemon

Highlander is not a sanctioned format, and I don't think it "fundamentally" changes Vintage. Vintage comes with one core concept:

Every card is legal to play.

Vintage Highlander doesn't betray that core concept (existing highlander does).

In practice, we end up playing decks that are about 50%+ highlander already, and the existing restricted list (and every argument lately pro-restrictions) are not even based on power level anymore.

"Lets restrict Workshop decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Workshop"
"Lets restrict Blue Control decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Force of Will"
"Lets restrict Dredge decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Bazaar of Baghdad"

Please no. Vintage Highlander would just be Blue.format.

@stuart said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Please no. Vintage Highlander would just be Blue.format.

Mission accomplished.

@stuart

Force of Will, Dual lands, and fetches are restricted in highlander. If any deck would dominate, it would probably be a storm variant, but thats probably a stretch given the two dozen or so good answers to that strategy.

I think there could be fairly significant diversity and due to the restricted mana bases likely a pretty big uptick in 5C decks (blue control, workshop, hatebears).

I have a request for those who are making arguments for or against restrictions based on 'interactivity.' Could you take a moment and define this term and what it means for you? Believe it or not, interactivity or interactive game play is not as objective a term as some people think. For instance I would define interactivity as games where both players attempt to execute their game plan. Whether its on the stack or in the combat phase, both players have the opportunity to cast spells and achieve their goal. By my definition, blue permission is interactive. If I'm on blue permission nothing is stopping my opponent from casting spells. I may be stopping him from resolving them but that is interactivity on the stack. Landstill, Oath, bug would all be interactive.
Current iterations of shops would be non-interactive. Their goal is to stop you from doing anything - waste/strip your lands, sphere your spells and revoker your moxen to leave you dead in the water, unable to act while an army of artifacts beats you down.
But there are people who consider counter-heavy blue decks to be non-interactive because they stop you from resolving spells.
I'm not looking for a debate or argument over what interactivity means. Just looking for some information to help me properly interpret some of the commenters statements in this thread.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

My biggest question here is what are restrictions actually for? Are they to bring problematic decks and metagames in line or are they a tool to shake up and create a metagame? It feels like, more and more, some people want restrictions to create a "better" metagame and to shake up the format. I've always said restrictions should only be used as a last resort.

Obviously, I agree entirely. But Brian Kelly, like Brian Weissman here, has a different vision.

Instead of using the Restricted List as a tool of last resort, and only to curb the most egregious and obvious case - as Sirlin explained in his famous essay in "playing to win," the two Brian's would have used the Restricted List to curb strategies and decks that are not only proven to be problematic in the metagame by objective standards, but that they feel violate some subjective principle of "fair play."

Thus, a Brian Kelly or Brian Weissman Restricted List for VIntage and Type I respectively, would be much, much longer than current restricted lists. Brian Kelly is on record stating that he would add like 10-15 cards to the restricted list (including Show and Tell and Dack Fayden!), and ban a number of cards on top of that.

Suffice to say, and as suggested by the table I linked above, I do not share that vision. Instead, I think that the Restricted List should be as small as possible, with a sharp eye on promoting metagame diversity broadly speaking.

last edited by Smmenen

Then instead of saying MUD is too strong and needs more restrictions, why not unrestrict cards that would help curb Shops "dominance" like Fastbond, or Balance, for example?

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Obviously, I agree entirely. But Brian Kelly, like Brian Weissman here, has a different vision.

Instead of using the Restricted List as a tool of last resort, and only to curb the most egregious and obvious case - as Sirlin explained in his famous essay in "playing to win," the two Brian's would have used the Restricted List to curb strategies and decks that are not only proven to be problematic in the metagame by objective standards, but that they feel violate some subjective principle of "fair play."

Thus, a Brian Kelly or Brian Weissman Restricted List for VIntage and Type I respectively, would be much, much longer than current restricted lists.

That's not an unflattering comparison.

Brian Kelly is on record stating that he would add like 10-15 cards to the restricted list (including Show and Tell and Dack Fayden!), and ban a number of cards on top of that.

That's correct. I believe play experience is more important than fetishizing the length of the restricted list. This view, as you acknowledged with your own links above, is much more consistent with the most successful years of Type 1, a period where the dominant narrative was so focused on sanity and fairness that I, of all people, could barely get anyone to entertain the idea of unrestricting Fork.

In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.

Suffice to say, and as suggested by the table I linked above, I do not share that vision. Instead, I think that the [Restricted List should be as small as possible]

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

My biggest question here is what are restrictions actually for?

I think the answer to this question begins with asking:

"Why is Black Lotus restricted?'
"Why is Tolarian Academy restricted?"
"Why isn't Niall Silvain restricted?'

Difficult as it can be to quantify, there are intrinsic and conceptual "power levels" associated with each card, both in a vacuum and in context, and a few are over the line, at least as that line is conventionally understood. Theoretically, we could abolish the restricted list, and there probably would be a handful of people out there who would love to play in the resultant format.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Are they to bring problematic decks and metagames in line or are they a tool to shake up and create a metagame? It feels like, more and more, some people want restrictions to create a "better" metagame and to shake up the format. I've always said restrictions should only be used as a last resort.

I can only speak for what motivates me, which is mitigating negative play experiences, which are usually a function of imbalanced power level. As Steve mentioned, there are cards I consider restrictable based on power level & purpose alone (ie Show and Tell and Pact of Negation) that are hardly ever played. This is consistent with the knowledge that I would consider Ancestral Recall a restrictable card even if it appeared in 0% of decks, based on power level.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Vintage, to me, is not just about playing shiny new Standard Mythic with Moxen. There's nothing special about that.

That is the most anti-Matt Murray talking point I have ever heard in the Magic community. 😄

For me, the P9 define the format and are the sacred cows. Shop and Bazaar are pretty much on that level too. Nouveau trash like Walking Ballista and Paradoxical Outcome gets no such deference.

@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Targeting Therapy for restriction is on the same level of ludicrous as when folks wanted to target Dark Petition. It isn't even open for debate.

The cards suggested here were Hollow One, Serum Powder, and Golgari-Grave Troll.

last edited by brianpk80

Very interesting discussion. I thought I'd share few words here as I've been playing and following Vintage for a long time. I know there are lots of knowledgable and skillful people posting here. I'm really not looking for any kind of argument and I'm not trying to prove anyone's point here. I'm just bringing my own perspective from an amateur point of view.

I used to own power on paper and play in events, but eventually I stopped (multiple reasons). Later on, I got back with MTGO, but ultimately (and sadly) I've stopped playing Vintage there, too. There has always been a drive for Vintage inside me, but I would find it really hard to continue playing for a long period of time, being still very passionate about it. Recently, when I was playing other formats (having surprising amount of fun), I was thinking about why it is like that. I still remember the time I played few moxen and recall/lotus for the 1st time in my life and I still remember my hands shaking as it felt incredibly powerful and really magical. I felt like a really powerful mage.

The thing is, as time passed, I got used to play with such powerful cards (especially on MTGO where you can cast millions of recalls a day in a competitive match). And the excitement from casting and playing with such powerful cards shifted to something else. It was mostly the question of "do I really have fun and do BOTH players feel entertained in a really good, close and balanced match?" or "is it just one of us doing broken things, feeling good about it while goldfishing the most broken deck they can build with some variance in terms of who is more lucky and get to do that every given match"? I have to say that for me, the answer was the latter. I wasn't thinking that much about it, until I started to play magic more recently again, in different formats, having different perspective and also as I got older, the way I value my free time has changed drastically (I'm over 30).

Recently I had a spike of a feeling that I might want to check Vintage again, but in the current state of the metagame, I just know that I would be able to play for few months perhaps and then I'll go away again, so there is no point for me buying into it again.

I know that people feel very strongly about this. I absolutely do respect that people want to play with as many cards as possible (what Hrishi said few comments above) and they have lots of money in that as well. That's why I've chosen to leave the format myself rather then whine on forums and struggle having fun playing Vintage. But I also absolutely agree and understand what Brian Kelly is saying. For me, personally, something like lots of restrictions across the whole field would have to happen to open up the format a bit again.

If I wanted to come back to Vintage today, I'd have literally just 1 deck as an option to play right now (Jeskai Mentor - yes, I'm a blue player) to stay competitive. The drive for Vintage from playing powerful and restricted cards is diminished and I'm interested in more balanced/competitive and interactive gameplay (my definition of interaction would be that both players get to cast as many spells as possible and the outcome is determined by a small margin and strategical decisions - I will add that I still value and enjoy fighting the prison/gy strategies and they absolutely should stay in the format). I understand the hate people might feel towards something like a "Modern Vintage Highlander with moxen" and they are interested in doing broken things with very old and powerful cards they don't get to play anywhere else. That's totally legitimate and that's why I'm currently playing other formats. I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me). I wish I could feel differently about this.

last edited by nanakini

@brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Brian Kelly is on record stating that he would add like 10-15 cards to the restricted list (including Show and Tell and Dack Fayden!), and ban a number of cards on top of that.

That's correct. I believe play experience is more important than fetishizing the length of the restricted list. This view, as you acknowledged with your own links above, is much more consistent with the most successful years of Type 1, a period where the dominant narrative was so focused on sanity and fairness that I, of all people, could barely get anyone to entertain the idea of unrestricting Fork.

Absolutely, but it is precisely that history that shows us how wrong and wrong-headed your preferred approach is.

The Restricted List reached it's zenith in January, 2004, with 54 cards after years of over-restriction (it now sits comfortably at 46 cards).

In 1999, 18 cards were restricted in a single restriction announcement. Did 18 cards really need to be restricted that fall? Did Doomsday, Dream Halls, and Mind Over Matter really need to be restricted? No, but the DCI used your approach, of restricting cards on power level alone, without any reference to tournament play or results. The consequence? Countless players were denied the opportunity to build interesting decks that they would have enjoyed. Imagine the Doomsday decks that could have been built before it was unrestricted in 2004! Imagine the Dream Halls decks that could have been tried.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We've tried your way, and it was a disaster, denying players access to cards that had no justification being restricted. They were no threat to the format, but would have made it much more interesting and diverse.

In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.

I would suggest, instead, it's a result of sustained engagement and a much more careful and nuanced undestanding of the game, metagame evolution, and better grasp of data. DCI management today - over all formats - is far more sophisticated than it was during the Type I era.

Suffice to say, and as suggested by the table I linked above, I do not share that vision. Instead, I think that the [Restricted List should be as small as possible]

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

But how do we do that in a way that isn't predictably biased in favor of blue decks?

As I said above: "a preference for what you call "fairer" or less swingy games is really just a gussied up way of expressing prejudice against fast combo decks, Dredge, and Shops, and a preference for blue decks. A format more centered around decks like Bomberman, Landstill, Leo decks, etc. may be your idea of a good format, but it sounds like dispiriting to me."

The main problem with your approach, of giving primary weight to how decks "feel" and "interactivity" is that it's hopelessly biased against most of the Schools of Vintage Magic, especially those that aren't blue.

@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).

Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?

Vintage is not a friendly format for new players, but that's because it's the deepest format. I enjoy Old School formats immensely, but they can't come close to Vintage in terms of the depth and range of the lines of play that Vintage can offer on a consistent basis. The tutoring, library manipulation, draw and cantripping make Vintage an enormously skillful format, and quite punishing for dabblers or novices.

What does Vintage offer after you get used to the power level? It offers only the most intricate lines of play with the starkest deck choices of any constructed format. The separation between decks like Dredge, Dark Petition Storm, Ravager Shop Aggro, and Oath, to take but 4 examples, could not be more stark, and that starkness can't be found in other formats in combination with the depth of the lines of play offered.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen Though I know we have had our disagreements in the past, I'm 100% in agreement with you Steve. I would like to add one more thing to the conversation that begins with an analogy.

I play board games. . . a lot. The ones that stick with me most are the ones where there are elements of meaningful choice, but there may also be a smattering of randomness. The games that come to mind are games like Tzolk'in, the Mayan Calendar Game, and 7 Wonders as well as something like Pandemic. Wether there is much luck involved or not, I most enjoy games where the game balance is optimized and multiple paths to victory are equally viable. I want Vintage to function the same way. I don't EVER want one strategy to dominate, but I also don't want people to call for the pitchforks if they don't LIKE losing to a given strategy, especially if the reason they lose to that strategy more than their share is because they choose to play one of the decks with the weakest inherent match win % vs. said deck. Game balance is paramount in my list of asks on any game and magic is no exception. I really don't see why that shouldn't be the driving metric by which the DCI creates policy.

My thoughts.

-Storm

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Absolutely, but it is precisely that history that shows us how wrong and wrong-headed your preferred approach is.

LOL, harsh.

The Restricted List reached it's zenith in January, 2004, with 54 cards after years of over-restriction (it now sits comfortably at 46 cards).

In 1999, 18 cards were restricted in a single restriction announcement. Did 18 cards really need to be restricted that fall? Did Doomsday, Dream Halls, and Mind Over Matter really need to be restricted? No, but the DCI used your approach, of restricting cards on power level alone, without any reference to tournament play or results.

Oh, I must have missed the part where The Academy deck turned out to have been fringe, nearly absent from results, and largely celebrated by the community.

The consequence? Countless players were denied the opportunity to build interesting decks that they would have enjoyed. Imagine the Doomsday decks that could have been built before it was unrestricted in 2004! Imagine the Dream Halls decks that could have been tried.

Behold this tragedy.
Alone this Doomsday.
Forsaken these Dream Halls.
How we weep,
How we wail.

In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.

I would suggest, instead, it's a result of sustained engagement and a much more careful and nuanced undestanding of the game, metagame evolution, and better grasp of data. DCI management today - over all formats - is far more sophisticated than it was during the Type I era.

No one is buying it. The DCI's shameful neglect produced results that happened to coincide with your hyperlibertarian objectives, so you exalted their dereliction of duty as "prudence."

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

But how do we do that in a way that isn't predictably biased in favor of blue decks?

It's not for the benefit of "blue" decks. How did "blue decks" benefit from restricting Treasure Cruise, Dig through Time, Gitaxian Probe, Monastery Mentor? (all of which I supported) "Blue decks" did not benefit from restricting Gush, a restriction campaign I refrained from joining out of humanitarian concern, namely the cruelty it would issue to you after you had just produced an extensive work on the card.

As I said above: "a preference for what you call "fairer" or less swingy games is really just a gussied up way of expressing prejudice against fast combo decks, Dredge, and Shops, and a preference for blue decks. A format more centered around decks like Bomberman, Landstill, Leo decks, etc. may be your idea of a good format, but it sounds like dispiriting to me."

The main problem with your approach, of giving primary weight to how decks "feel" and "interactivity" is that it's hopelessly biased against most of the Schools of Vintage Magic, especially those that aren't blue.

Really? Don't Dredge and Workshops benefit most from restricting Paradoxical Outcome? Aren't "blue decks" hurt the most by banning Treasure Cruise and Dig through Time (positions you yourself introduced not too long ago)?

This is an example of the delusion that Vintage players are divided into cults who only coldly pursue material self-interest in winning. I don't know where this falsehood originates.

@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).

Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?

Oh dear, scolding, shaming, and blaming those who reject your vision. Where have I seen this before?

Rather consistent with your stated view that Vintage should not be a democratically organized format. Can I be The Mana Drain's official superdelegate? 😉

@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

but I also don't want people to call for the pitchforks if they don't LIKE losing to a given strategy, especially if the reason they lose to that strategy more than their share is because they choose to play one of the decks with the weakest inherent match win % vs. said deck.

Mr. Smith, this cartoon logic and was rejected many times in the earlier part of this thread. Do you think I have a significant handicap in Vintage? Am I losing all of the time? Do you believe I am lying about enjoyment of the game being extremely important to me? If so, then say it, because what you're insinuating is both delusional and insulting.

I have a very high win rate against Paradoxical Outcome; the card should be restricted. I play Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time; they should have been banned. I have a favored Shop match-up most of the time, particularly on Druids. Trinisphere should be banned. Dredge is drawing 15 cards for {0} while drawing 3 cards for {U} is restriction-worthy. Allowing it to continue existing in its current form thwarts the game balance you purport to value.

It should be obvious from the most cursory reading of my arguments that they are not driven by a base desire to win more; I don't have that need. It's about qualitative experience. Even Stephen who disagrees with much of my philosophy at least understands what I am saying. Sheesh.

last edited by brianpk80

@brianpk80 All I am "insinuating" is that I want game balance to be paramount. You should read my whole post and not take one comment out of context. I argued in my post that I like games that are balanced. . . period. If the existence of a card as a 4-of in Vintage causes an unreasonably unbalanced format then I will always entertain it for restriction. You lose all credibility in my mind when you argue for the restriction of cards that clearly aren't an issue in the format because they are in decks that represent 10% or less of the field and 20% or less of top 8s (yes you have argued for the restriction of cabal therapy to me in the past). Phyrexian Revoker and Sphere of Resistance are in a deck that is far more powerful than Dredge and you've called for those cards' restrictions. While that is more defensible I also believe you'd have to have a daisy chain of restrictions to offset the fact that Shops would no longer have a viable mana denial angle whatsoever and would be relegated to the garbage heap of Vintage decks as it struggles to try and turn 3 or turn 4 you with an aggro plan that helplessly flails to any blue strategy even remotely broken, because blue has far better cards to choose from at that point.

Again, I'll say it again. I like board games like Tzolk'in that have incredible attention paid to balance. I want the same for Vintage. I'd like do accomplish this with the most cards playable possible. Your proposals would turn Vintage slowly, but surely, into Commander. That format already exists. I don't want a bastardized version of it as well.

Furthermore, on what earthly grounds do you ban any card in Vintage? That is NOT THE POLICY OF THE DCI ANYMORE. They haven't done it for years and they shouldn't do it again. If they were to ban Cruise and Dig for power level then they'd have to ban Recall, Walk, Lotus, the Moxen etc etc. You are on record saying these cards are "Sacred Cows." According to who? You?! When did you become emperor? Those cards are clearly far more powerful than Cruise and Dig but they are just allowed to live while Cruise and Dig get banned? That makes no sense to me. You see how your arguments begin to sound like proselytizing and not logical arguments backed up by any sort of facts or data?

If we banned Cruise and Dig for power level as 1-ofs we'd probably have to ban axe a bunch more cards on the restricted list and then we are just a bastardized version of Legacy. It's a very very slippery slope man.

last edited by Stormanimagus

@brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

In 1999, 18 cards were restricted in a single restriction announcement. Did 18 cards really need to be restricted that fall? Did Doomsday, Dream Halls, and Mind Over Matter really need to be restricted? No, but the DCI used your approach, of restricting cards on power level alone, without any reference to tournament play or results.

Oh, I must have missed the part where The Academy deck turned out to have been fringe, nearly absent from results, and largely celebrated by the community.

The Tolarian Academy deck had already been severely wounded, if not crippled, by the preceding two waves of restrictions that year. After all, Academy, Jar, Windfall, and Time Spiral, among other cards, were restricted already. More restrictions were needed, including TInker, Vampiric Tutor, and Yawg Will, and likely Mana Crypt and Mana Vault, but not EIGHTEEN. That was overkill, and it took more than a decade to reverse most of the damage caused by those over-restrictions.

Your mockery merely perpetuates the marginalization of those archetypes and the harm done to adherents and disciples of those Schools.

The harm of that decision is incalculable. We will never know how many Zvis, Emidlins, Chapins, etc. would have cut their teeth on decks in that era, bringing energy, attention, and enthusiasm to Type I at the time. We will never know the brilliance that could have been. We will never know how many decks could have won tournaments or at least been competitive in those years thanks to those unnecessary restrictions. Instead, all of that promise and potential was washed out by a sweeping set of unnecessary restrictions. As a result, combo decks were unnecessarily crippled, and varieties washed out into a homogeneous, Restricted List combo deck, until the printing of Burning Wish.

If your preferences were implemented, the Restricted List would balloon to 60 more cards, denying players access to cards they should rightly enjoy.

Contrary to what you may believe, I seriously doubt many players here would ultimately prefer a restricted List that enacted your preferences. In the post I linked above, Matt even called you "radical" when it comes to your preference set.

No one is buying it. The DCI's shameful neglect produced results that happened to coincide with your hyperlibertarian objectives, so you exalted their dereliction of duty as "prudence."

Everyone can see that the current DCI's manner and mode of analysis is far more sophisticated than in years past and under previous management regimes. It's light years ahead of the Buehler/Lapille/Turian/Lauer eras of DCI management. Ian Duke provides a far more nuanced, incisive, and coherent analysis.

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

But how do we do that in a way that isn't predictably biased in favor of blue decks?

It's not for the benefit of "blue" decks. How did "blue decks" benefit from restricting Treasure Cruise, Dig through Time, Gitaxian Probe, Monastery Mentor? (all of which I supported) "Blue decks" did not benefit from restricting Gush, a restriction campaign I refrained from joining out of humanitarian concern, namely the cruelty it would issue to you after you had just produced an extensive work on the card.

You are slightly distorting my point here. What I am saying is that the principle you are espousing, of trying to restrict cards and tactics that offend some subjective sense of "fair play" and "sanity," has a 'disparate impact' on certain strategies. It is not neutral. It will, more often than not, level down decks that are not blue control decks, especially of the slower and grindy kind. That doesn't mean they never will prompt restrictions for those archetypes (after all, you even suggest Dack as a restriction target), but that the cards that earn your ire are more likely to be outside of those categories. My primarily criteria - focusing on statistical dominance - is strategically neutral across archetypes and strategies. That's one reason its a better approach.

@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).

Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?

Oh dear, scolding, shaming, and blaming those who reject your vision.

Hardly. I was asking a question in good faith. I understood everything in that person's post, and thought it all made sense, up until that sentence. This player says that there is "nothing" in Vintage for them, and I find that hard to believe. After all, as you just said, winning isn't everything. Vintage has much to offer, even for the casual fan.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).

Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?

Vintage is not a friendly format for new players, but that's because it's the deepest format. I enjoy Old School formats immensely, but they can't come close to Vintage in terms of the depth and range of the lines of play that Vintage can offer on a consistent basis. The tutoring, library manipulation, draw and cantripping make Vintage an enormously skillful format, and quite punishing for dabblers or novices.

What does Vintage offer after you get used to the power level? It offers only the most intricate lines of play with the starkest deck choices of any constructed format. The separation between decks like Dredge, Dark Petition Storm, Ravager Shop Aggro, and Oath, to take but 4 examples, could not be more stark, and that starkness can't be found in other formats in combination with the depth of the lines of play offered.

I'm going to address this so that there is no misunderstanding. Perhaps my statement came off as too general, but I meant it very subjectively. That's why I put the "(at least for me)" in the brackets there. I agree that Vintage, generally speaking, has a lot to offer and a really good Vintage match feels far superior to anything else in magic.

I've been playing pretty much all the archetypes (or pillars, if you want) in Vintage and I've enjoyed all the "good stuff" Vintage has to offer. Seeing the "arrogant" blue mage's face twitch when they see Bazaar T1 or Workshop->Trinisphere is fun (for me)! Slowly baiting countermagic, setting up with cantrips and patiently waiting for that Duress so that eventually you are able to slip the critical spell through in a "calm before the storm" fashion is very satisfying, too! And of course I know how good it feels when you kept a risky hand with Oath, no Orchard and your opponent goes Workshop->Inspector/Ravager.

One thing I would point out is that for me (subjectively speaking), Vintage can't deliver those really good Vintage matches on a consistent basis (we disagree here), at least not anymore. Of course, we could speculate why that is? And there is certainly a whole range of possibilities which could explain that, specifically for my case. But, seeing as lots of people are unhappy about the current state of Vintage and seeing arguments being brought up which sound very familiar to me, it feels like there is something in common.

I would say that the ratio of really good, close and interactive matches versus the matches where players are essentially taking turns in blowing out their opponents is a little bit off. Vintage always had this interesting and scary feeling that someone can chain lots of broken things together and win out of nowhere and it's something I've always enjoyed and loved the format for. But when the broken things happen with too much consistency, it takes over and becomes the race of who can do that more quickly (taking away the interaction in the process and trading it for speed). Also, one of the best ways to win this race is winning the die roll.

Please, keep in your mind that this is my opinion only. I'm not saying that things should change to accomodate my thinking and what I personally would find more enjoyable. I know that there are lots of people who enjoy Vintage specifically for what I've just said and that's perfectly fine. Because it's also a question of perception, which is very subjective and I'm no judge and jury.

This is Keynesian v. neoliberal now- only one side freely admits everything is just a subjective opinion while the other side pretends everything is objective logical. We’re going nowhere until both groups operate in good faith on the same basis! The neoliberal side very much needs to realize that their arguments too are purely subjective value judgements not objective reality.

Sure, you can bring numbers to the table- but the extrapolation of “better format”, the lament of “how many Chapins did we lose!” are purely subjective. One could just as easily say that era of, as @Smmenen calls it, over-restriction saved the format. No body knows or can know. All we know is what did happen and, since we’re still here talking about vintage in 2018, it didn’t destroy the game. It was not some cataclysm. Maybe it was close, but here we are. Acknowledge your rhetorical tricks please, and refrain so good faith can be engendered.

last edited by wfain

@stuart At this point, it really is a feature. But let me take you back to Star City Games Chicago Power 9 in 2005, prior to Dredge being a thing:

Your sideboard were much more a 15 card sideboard, because you didn't need much for graveyard hate. The real Graveyard deck at the time was Dragon, which you could attack different ways.

A lot of us who played before 2007, when manaless dredge really became a thing, can go back to these times with fondness. Our sideboards were 15 cards that allowed us to meta.

The thing a lot of people forget is how underpowered these decks are due to power levels of some cards from the last 1/2 life of the game's existance, as well as the fact that there were many other decks to be prepared for back then.

last edited by Brass Man

@13nova said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@stuart At this point, it really is a feature. But let me take you back to Star City Games Chicago Power 9 in 2005, prior to Dredge being a thing:
Your sideboard were much more a 15 card sideboard, because you didn't need much for graveyard hate. The real Graveyard deck at the time was Dragon, which you could attack different ways.

A lot of us who played before 2007, when manaless dredge really became a thing, can go back to these times with fondness. Our sideboards were 15 cards that allowed us to meta.

The thing a lot of people forget is how underpowered these decks are due to power levels of some cards from the last 1/2 life of the game's existance, as well as the fact that there were many other decks to be prepared for back then.

I mean, Shops--as a real, effective prison deck--didn't exist back then, right? You're even avoiding a real need for the other chunk of cards to get out of jail! (though, tbh, that deck doesn't need to quite as much).

Thanks for posting this--it's actually a very cool counterpoint and aside to the discussion!

  • 135
    Posts
  • 30299
    Views