November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement

@smmenen But again, the truth isn't what matters. A fun, enjoyable format matters. Magic (and by extension, Vintage) is a game. And in my opinion, that is pretty dang close to what we have right now. Which is why I get pretty nervous when players start saying "unrestrict Channel" and "restrict Mental Misstep". They really don't seem to be considering the fact that Magic is a game and both players should be participants into the equation.

@chubbyrain said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

@smmenen But again, the truth isn't what matters. A fun, enjoyable format matters. Magic (and by extension, Vintage) is a game. And in my opinion, that is pretty dang close to what we have right now. Which is why I get pretty nervous when players start saying "unrestrict Channel" and "restrict Mental Misstep". They really don't seem to be considering the fact that Magic is a game and both players should be participants into the equation.

Oh, the old “magic is just a game” trope.

The NFL is just a game.

Major-league baseball is just a game.

The NBA is just a game.

The Olympics are just a game.

These are way more than just games. And so is magic. Magic is a hundred million dollar product for Hasbro.

This isn’t trivial pursuit or monopoly. This is a game the players invest heavy parts of their incomes & lives into. It’s a platform for community and identity.

The management of the formats matters. It makes a difference in peoples lives.

I happen to agree with you on mental misstep. But it’s galling to trivialize DCI policy by reducing it to “a game.”

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen Oh, for Pete's sake...I never even implied that crap.

Go into politics. Or Fox News commentary. The level of spin here is absurd.

Games matter. I never said they didn't and I wouldn't be on this board talking to you if they didn't.

Are you going to behave like an adult and have a conversation? Or are we done here?

It wasn’t implied; it was explicit. You trotted it out the “it’s a game” trope as a way of diminishing the gravity of what I was talking about.

And when I expressed my sympathies for the underlying idea, you spun that by saying “there’s no presumption of innocence.” Which isn’t even a universal legal standard, And frankly had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen No, I wasn't. I was making my point. Allow me to be explicit.

"Fun should (and does) matter in banned and restriction decisions in vintage and in other formats. I wish vintage players would be more cognizant of that when they are discussing potential decisions."

The implication that games don't matter is false. The implication that rules shouldn't take into account fun is false. Running down your list:

  • The NFL has changed several rules over the past decade to favor the offense and favor higher scoring games.
  • Major league baseball implemented a pitch clock to speed up pace of game.
  • The NBA adjusted the shot clock after offensive rebound to 14 seconds this year.

These are changes made almost entirely for entertainment purposes.

Edit: But it was clear from context that wasn't the meaning of what I wrote....

last edited by ChubbyRain

I never said nor implied that B&R policymaking shouldn’t take account of “fun.” In fact, I said the opposite over and over again. So you’re arguing against the strawman.

Zealous advocacy on behalf of a card is not inconsistent with a case based on fun. One role for a hypothetical “restricted list appellate advocate” would be to show how such cards make games & formats more fun.

As I said:

Every card deserves the strongest, most vigorous advocacy. That’s the only way we know it really deserve to be restricted.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen I would love for a restricted list appellate who focused on that aspect. It's definitely frustrating to put up with less rigorous remarks on here that seem to be "unrestriction for the sake of unrestriction". Perhaps I did misunderstand you opinion as three people responded to my point at the same time. I think have a better view of you position now. Thank you for explaining.

@chubbyrain Maybe I missed it. Who in this thread was advocating unrestriction for the sake of unrestriction? None of us with the info that's available to the public can be rigorous about what should or should not be restricted. There isn't enough information necessary to allow a rigorous analysis of what cards have what effect on the gaming experience.

The best we can do (those of us not working for WotC) is play a lot of games, gather some empirical evidence, maybe gather some basics stats on win rates, metagame diversity and such from tournaments, to support our claims. A lot of these have been done by most people who posted here. I don't think you can expect people to be much more considered than that in this context.

We had an interesting discussion yesterday at the Deal Me In Games tournament with the following changes proposed and supported by a handful of shops players who were in attendance:

Restrict: mental misstep, arcbound ravager, walking ballista
Unrestrict: thorn of amethyst, flash and possibly brainstorm

These of course would be hand in hand restrictions and unrestrictions, to happen all at once. They were not intended to be individual ideas people threw out there.

  • 76
    Posts
  • 6506
    Views