On the topic of gush vs. mentor, I have a hard time believing that a 4 gush 4 YP deck wouldn't mop the floor with a 4 mentor 1 gush deck, and any other non 3-4 gush blue deck. If there is only 1 gush, you have to warp your deck at least a little bit around mentor.
I wasn't suggesting a world where you can play a 4 Gush Pyromancer deck and a 4 Mentor, 1 Gush deck. That doesn't make sense If Gush were restricted, there wouldn't be a 4 Gush Pyromancer deck.
You made the argument that if Mentor were restricted, then eventually Managorder Hydra and Pyromancer would need to be restricted. I think that's pretty far fetched. There's no chance that Hydra would ever be restricted, let alone Pyromancer, IMO.
Not only do I think that's very unlikely, but my point was that basic argument you developed applies with greater force to the restriction of Gush. If Gush were restricted, I think it's more likely that Mentor would continue to be a problem than if Mentor were restricted that Pyromancer would be a problem.
So, I was asking which is more likely: 1) that a 4 Mentor deck would dominate the format followed the restriction of Gush OR 2) that a Pyromancer deck would dominate the format following the restriction of Mentor?
I think the former is more plausible, and not the latter.
I think one of the problems with the idea of restricting Gush to neuter Mentor decks is that, at this point, so many cards have been restricted from the Gush deck (Dig, Treasure Cruise, Ponder, Brainstorm, Scroll, etc.) that I don't think restricting Gush can actually do much good in keeping Mentor down, if Mentor proves to be a problem.
After all, restriction of Gush in most of those lists is probably just:
- 1 land/Probe
- 1 Scroll
- 1 Mystical Tutor
If Mentor dominates Vintage over the next few months, I don't think restricting Gush is going to change that much at all. Because Mentor is the problem.
It's simply the best creature ever printed. The fact that it can far more reliably race an Oath or a Blightsteel Colossus puts it in a completely different class than Pyromancer.
I would remind folks that just a month or so after it's printing, people on the old TMD were asking just these questions. Is it the best creature ever? Is it inevitable it will need restriction? The fact that people even asked these questions shows how powerful the card is.
Every single time in the history of Vintage, prior 2015, that the DCI restricted more than one card, it's unrestricted at least one of those cards, except for Consult and Necro. I think it's fair to say that history & reason supports the contention that multiple restrictions are likely to be overbroad. That doesn't mean it's always wrong, just that it's led to many, many unnecessary restrictions (see 1999 for the best examples of this). The track record of multiple restrictions is poor as judged by history.
That assumes restriction was a mistake if it is later unrestricted - I don't think you can assume that. Fact or Fiction, Gifts Ungiven, and Thirst for Knowledge were incredibly powerful cards at certain points in Vintage's history, but adding a thousand or so cards each year means the relative power level changes with time. Currently, FoF and Gifts are almost nonexistent in the Vintage metagame, and Thirst is arguably Tier 2. Regarding multiple restrictions, if you can make a compelling argument based on data AND theory, why not restrict both? The Personal Tutor and Chrome Mox restrictions were poor because the reasoning behind them was lazy, not because there were other cards restricted at the same time.
No, I completely agree with the point that subsequent unrestrictions doesn't mean that the restriction was unnecessary. That's not inconsistent with what I said. The main sentence in the paragraph above is:
I think it's fair to say that history & reason supports the contention that multiple restrictions are likely to be overbroad.
I think that's just an inescapable truth. When you restrict two or more cards aiming at the same problem, it's logically necessary that the second restriction becomes less important to solving the problem. Doesn't mean it isn't necessary - a deck could still be a problem with just a single restriction - but any given restriction will weaken the deck that is the target, making the second restriction less important.
Also, having been playing and heavily involved in Vintage during all of those times, we all knew that those restrictions were a bit overbroad at the time. People didn't agree with them - to your point about lazy reasoning.
Is Mentor a good card? Yes, and better with Gush.
Is Pyromancer a good card? Yes, and better with Gush.
Is Managorger Hydra a good card? Yes, and better with Gush.
So, that if Mentor is restricted, Young Pyromancer and Hydra are next?
Yeah, I don't think it's at all realistic.
Problem solved. Gush is the problem. Always has been, always will be.
That's definitely not true.
Gush has been unrestricted since October, 2010. You think it's been dominating ever since? It's been terrible for many months/years in that period. Guess how many Gush decks were in the 2012 Vintage Championship Top 8? Zero. Always been a problem? Not hardly.
Those kinds of superficial and far too easily made generalities are dangerously misleading.