Thoughts on restrictions
-
I've never heard anyone say we need more matchups like Dredge in Vintage...
-
More answers to problems is good, but we do not need decks that are unbeatable without proper hate or cards that are blatantly oppressive (like Trinisphere and Chalice).
-
There are other card games that have trump cards for other cards, that is not magic. Many of those games have also failed. It's not good policy to play deck a or deck b designed to beat deck a.
Diversity is good, it creates a metagame.
Rock Paper Scissors is stupid
-
I am very glad that you are not on the R&D team, they are already going way to hard in that direction.
Lets just make Vintage like every other format! Playing a 2 drop creature on turn 2, winning by attacking, interacting by blocking. Wouldn't it just be so unfair if somebody could counter your cool creature? lets make them all uncounterable, we wouldn't want someone to interact with you outside of combat. Somebody drawing more cards than 1 a turn seems kind of unfair, lets stop that with something...i know how about an ability on a 2/2 so we can attack and block with it?! Uh this guy is trying to produce more mana on turn 1 or is trying to not play basic lands, that seems kind of unfair, i am not doing that so he shouldn't be able to do so as well! Lets get something that hoses non basic lands or any kind of mana acceleration, better lets put that on a creature! This other player wants to play multiple spells in a single turn, i don't understand that, isn't it supposed to be 1 (creature) spell a turn? Lets enforce that by...mmh let me think...putting some hate on a creature! That player is trying to win by some kind of spell or combination, that seems complicated and unfair to me, he should try to win like everybody else by attacking with creatures! The proper way!
Don't draw cards!
Don't win by casting non creature spells!
Don't put 2 things on the stack at once!
Don't counter my creatures, in fact lets just get the stack out of here!
Don't cast more than 1 spell each turn.
Play 1 land a turn
Play 1 creature a turn
Attack
Block
That's magic!Alright i am sorry for the rambling, you probably get how i fell about that design approach.
-
@Evoclipse don't draw cards? Don't put multiple spells on the stack? That might lead to some Bazaar results
-
@desolutionist said:
The problem with that approach is that they've been following that approach for a while and I don't think many people like the direction it's taking us. People want to play Vintage; they want their deck to do powerful things. People don't want to play with a bunch of hate bears. There used to be only 1 hate bear deck but now the hate bear concept is just spread across all the major archetypes and that's not okay.
This is an interesting perspective that I didn't realize was so prevalent.
To me personally, I find it quite beautiful that a deck that would get beaten in Standard can have game in Vintage, and how the deck balances the metagame by keeping broken strategies in check. I distinctly recall watching VSL Season 5 and hearing the commentators squeal with glee as Paul Rietzl brought hatebear decks like white-weenies and spirits, and I shared their delight. But I can see how others might feel differently.
My card suggestions were just starting points for discussion, and I don't think it's necessary that new hate takes the form of bears. For instance, I would love to see ideas like them in the form of Legendary Lands that tap for G, a la Karakas.
With that said, it is easy to see, from a card design evolution standpoint, why hate has come to take on the form of bears. There is a fundamental dichotomy when it comes to hate: (1) hate cards that simultaneously help your own deck's path to victory, and (2) hate cards that don't. A card like Karakas is an excellent example of a non-bear type (1) card - it provides targeted hate against a few cards, but simultaneously taps for W. Cards like Null Rod and Grafdigger's Cage are type (2) - no deck uses those cards for anything but defense.
The first iteration of dredge hate cards like Leyline of the Void and Ravenous Trap were pretty much all type (2) hate cards that only targeted Dredge. So while these newly designed cards helped keep dredge in check, we had the distasteful situation of every deck needing to dedicate half their sideboard to type (2) hate cards. I'd argue this decreased metagame diversity, because any viable deck essentially only had half of a sideboard to position itself well against the other pillars of the format.
The way I see it, two ideas emerged on how to solve this problem. The first was to introduce type (2) hate cards that had more utility against other decks (e.g., Grafdigger's Cage). The second was to introduce type (1) hate cards.
But designing a fair type (1) hate card is very difficult. You risk making the most-broken deck even better. A Grafdigger's Cage with a Sphere effect for example would be much too good. The ideal way to do it is to couple the hate effect with a threat that doesn't coincide with the most-broken deck's aims, and using the beatdown-with-grizzly-bears threat for that purpose is a very safe way to do that.
-
That's an important consideration as well. I think the solution is cards that progressively disrupt the opponent rather than all at once. More Cursecatcher (Thalia if you must but ideally a little more nuanced) and Deathrite Shaman, less Ethersworn Canonist and Containment Priest
-
From a personal standpoint, I'm getting sick of cards being printed that do nothing but specifically hate on "vintage strategies". It's such binary gameplay and extremely boring. Call me a "blue mage" or whatever, but honestly I have the most fun when I play big blue or something like that, slinging the most broken spells ever printed against someone else doing the same, blue or otherwise. Some of my favourite games in Vintage were when I played against Prison Shops, or when I played Storm Combo versus a Big Blue deck, or indeed, big blue creature-less mirrors.
I do not have fun trying to answer a random human whose name I cannot remember whose text basically says "you cannot do X", where X refers to something specifically you do in Vintage.
-
@gkraigher said:
There are other card games that have trump cards for other cards, that is not magic.
Oh really? So, Circle of Protections, etc. are a novel element in Magic?
The very first Magic set was designed with a plethora of trumps for various strategies. Virtually every conceivable strategy was 'answered' in some way shape or form in the early game. Land destruction? Play Consecrate Land. Hand destruction? Here, play cards like Psychic Purge. Reanimation or recursion? Tormod's Crypt. And so on.
That's why Wizards typically designs an answer to almost any strategy in each set. That's why cards like City in a Bottle were created. They created fail-safes to ensure strategic balance.
Far from some external and nefarious force, the very essence of magic is strategy and trump/answer.
rather embarrassing fact that a card like Ponder is restricted in Vintage.
Ponder isn't just restricted because it's a spell count enabler. It's almost a 1 mana impulse. It's absurdly powerful. Imagine how good that is in 2-card combo decks like Oath, which just need to find Oath and Orchard.
From my perspective, what matters for design is cards that increase the number of playable cards in the card pool. (Which I argued here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-designing-for-eternal/ ) I think Wizards has excelled recently in doing that. It's possible that right now we have a larger playable card pool than at any point in recent memory.
-
I would rather lose to broken things than 2/2s that say i dont get to play magic.
losing to (dredge,storm,oath,vault/key, jace, belcher, lodestone, some madman playing an emrakul) are all acceptable as what your doing is on the proper side of the broken/fair scale.losing to (2/2s, flooding, mullagin to 3, dek reg error, and trinisphere) are not acceptable because they did the thing wizards decided was not acceptable. "let me play a game of magic" if back to basics, bloodmoon, and lodestone golem arent acceptable magic cards and chalice of the void isnt an acceptable magic card why is it that putting any of those effects on a 2 power creature is suddenly an ok thing to do? why is restricting their affects to only non creature cards an acceptable thing to do?
you can't claim you want to allow people to play magic and then print cards that prevent people from playing magic.
im not sure where i was going with any of this i knid of just wanted to say i mind losing to broken decks less than grizzly bears
-
Taking the VSL finals as a case study:
If the solution to Oath of Druids is to play a deck with thirty 2/2 creatures for 2 maybe that's a sign that something is not quite right
-
@ajfirecracker said:
Taking the VSL finals as a case study:
If the solution to Oath of Druids is to play a deck with thirty 2/2 creatures for 2 maybe that's a sign that something is not quite right
This is incredibly misleading, if not downright disingenuous.
Case studies are only valuable if generalizable or representative. In this case, the unique structure of the VSL produced a match that would never exist in tournament Vintage. It's completely anomalous. You can't design a deck for one opponent or strategy in most tournaments, and expect win.
In any case, the idea of playing hate cards is fundamental to magic. That's why sideboards exist. They wanted players to be able to include hate to narrow strategies without diluting main decks.
I would rather lose to broken things than 2/2s that say i dont get to play magic.
Assuming by "play magic" you mean, play cards in your deck, please explain why. Why is losing to Storm on turn 1 preferable to losing to a hatebear that prevents you from playing Force of Will or a Sphere that has the same effect? That seems like a silly distinction.
This entire discussion is absurd.
For years, people complained about how unfun Time Vault, Tinker, Yawg Will, etc. were, and how they were ruining Vintage with non-interactivity. Now the exact opposite is happening, and people are literally complaining that they don't want to lose to 2/2 bears in attack steps. I guess the main lesson is that people will complain about anything.
-
@Smmenen or maybe some people complained about Time Vault and some other people complained about Ethersworn Canonist
I think "I would prefer Vintage to be a format that plays out along different axes and tests different skills than other formats" is a perfectly valid preference to have, and one that Wizards has encouraged. The Chalice of the Void ban, for instance, was predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen.
Edited to add: The idea that the only options are hate bears and broken combos is a false dichotomy and frankly one that you seem to have labored to disabuse others of
-
@ajfirecracker said:
@Smmenen or maybe some people complained about Time Vault and some other people complained about Ethersworn Canonist
Maybe. But maybe some of those complaining now about Cannonist would have complained about Time Vault, et al had they played in that era.
I think "I would prefer Vintage to be a format that plays out along different axes and tests different skills than other formats" is a perfectly valid preference to have, and one that Wizards has encouraged.
Certainly. I see nothing in this discussion that would suggest that hatebears diminishes this standard or aspiration. In fact, just the opposite. The unique interaction of, say Gaddock Teeg and Gush is specific to Vintage.
I would like to see hatebears and Aggro strategies become a larger part of the Vintage metagame.
The Chalice of the Void ban, for instance, was predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen.
Eh. The effect of Chalice on Moxen, by the published decision, was a consideration in their decision, but the main predicate was Shops' performance in the metagame. The restriction of Chalice was clearly an attempt to regulate Shop's metagame dominance, not primarily a reaction to the "unique appeal of Moxen."
Edited to add: The idea that the only options are hate bears and broken combos is a false dichotomy and frankly one that you seem to have labored to disabuse others of
I never presented the idea that those are the "only options."
-
"A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
You can argue that this reasoning is incorrect or anything like that, but if you take their reasoning at face value, it was indeed predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen. Moxen are even mentioned specifically in the message.
-
@Hrishi said:
"A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
You can argue that this reasoning is incorrect or anything like that, but if you take their reasoning at face value, it was indeed predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen. Moxen are even mentioned specifically in the message.
You conveniently omitted the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted:
"Workshop decks have become more and more popular. "
The context for raising that concern (the capacity to play Moxen) was the performance/popularity of Workshop decks.
The "problem" in the first sentence you quoted is specifically the Workshop matchup. The first sentence is the topical sentence and sets the context. By copying the relevant text, but omitting it, you are misrepresenting the reasoning presented. If Workshops weren't dominant so popular, then Chalice would not have been restricted. Chalice's use in, say Hatebears decks, was not the predicate for restriction. It's use by Workshops was.
If you re-read my previous post on this more carefully, you'll see my phrasing was carefully constructed to acknowledge this:
The effect of Chalice on Moxen, by the published decision, was a consideration in their decision, but the main predicate was Shops' performance in the metagame. The restriction of Chalice was clearly an attempt to regulate Shop's metagame dominance, not primarily a reaction to the "unique appeal of Moxen."
The reference to the "published decision" was the sentences you quote. But, as I said, the "main predicate," was Shops' performance in the metagame. Notice I use the word "primarily" and "main" to acknowledge that people playing their moxen was a factor, but the idea that Chalice was restricted solely so people could play their Moxen (suggested by the phrasing "the predicate") as a general matter, and not specific to the workshop matchup, is not true.
-
Do we really have to have a debate on the distinction between main predicate and "predicate" without qualifications?
Which skills does Gaddock Teeg and Gush test? Which axes of play does that interaction represent, which are not present in other formats? This isn't just nitpicking, this is the very essence of our complaint. I am (and I imagine many others are) pro-hatebears, pro-aggro, and pro-diversity. I am also anti-"you don't get to play" and anti-"well I didn't draw card X so I just lose" which taken together means I am opposed to individual cards which singe-handedly swing matchups without further input or further decisions. Your example of Circles of Protection actually exemplifies this - these produce hugely un-fun games. Wizards has moved away from these cards and bringing that style of effect back is not a good idea just because it's attached to a 2/2 creature.
-
@ajfirecracker said:
Do we really have to have a debate on the distinction between main predicate and "predicate" without qualifications?
In this case, yes. That's because your statement was deeply misleading, if not factually wrong:
"The Chalice of the Void ban, for instance, was predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen."
First of all, Chalice wasn't "banned." It was restricted. Those are different things.
Second, your statement misrepresents the reason for it's restriction. While the DCI certainly expressed the idea that Vintage is a place to play those cards, that statement, taken alone, does not form the main reason that Chalice was restricted. If that were true, then Chalice would have been restricted much earlier, but was unrestricted in the format for more than a decade. That fact alone demonstrates that there is no independent principle here operating on B&R list policy.
Rather, it was clear that the main "predicate" was the popularity/performance of Shops, and how Shops used Chalice in that manner. The structure and text of the explanation make this clear, and the counter-factuals I just pointed out reinforce it.
Chalice existed for more than a decade unrestricted, and wasn't restricted until there was a consensus in some quarters that Workshops needed taken down a peg. Some people, and I happen to be among them, specifically think that discussions on the VSL contributed to this. Those discussions were always in the context of Shop.
Which skills does Gaddock Teeg and Gush test?
Deck design (skill), for one. That's probably the most important skill in Vintage.
Which axes of play does that interaction represent, which are not present in other formats?
The axes of play not present in other formats is the fact that Gaddock Teeg shuts down Gush, which isn't legal in other formats.
Your example of Circles of Protection actually exemplifies this - these produce hugely un-fun games. Wizards has moved away from these cards and bringing that style of effect back is not a good idea just because it's attached to a 2/2 creature.
It depends on what you mean by "these cards." If, specifically, you mean Circles of Protections, that is true. But, the idea that Wizards moved away from something is irrelevant to Vintage. Vintage is full of cards Wizards has "moved away from." It's safe to say that most of the best cards in Vintage would not exist under modern design principles.
Moreover, I presented COPs as examples of the principle that Wizards prints hosers/trumps as a general practice in it's normal card pool. It does this, as I said before, as a disincentive for narrow strategies.
One of the reasons that Wizards printed color hosers (like COPs) in the first place was that they wanted people to play multiple colors, and not play mono color decks. Hatebears perform a similar function, but with respect to strategy, not color. Containment Priest means that Oath players need either another way to win, or an answer. I fail to see a problem with this. This is baked into the very design of Magic.
-
@Smmenen said:
You conveniently omitted the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted:
I didn't "conveniently" omit anything. If I wanted to omit something, I wouldn't have provided a link. Rather, I quoted the part that was relevant to my mind. I do not think anybody believes "workshop decks becoming more and more popular" is a problem. In fact, while nitpicking on my quotes, you neglected to quote the second sentence.
"However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn."
If you re-read my previous post on this more carefully, you'll see my phrasing was carefully constructed to acknowledge this:
The effect of Chalice on Moxen, by the published decision, was a consideration in their decision, but the main predicate was Shops' performance in the metagame. The restriction of Chalice was clearly an attempt to regulate Shop's metagame dominance, not primarily a reaction to the "unique appeal of Moxen."
Actually, if you were to go by the DCI's wording, the restriction of Chalice had nothing to do with Workshop metagame dominance as the only problem they referenced was games being decided on the first turn. In fact, you talked about Shop performance in the metagame but this isn't even mentioned. A deck can be popular but still perform poorly. We know it performed well, but DCI wording does not even reference this.
All this being said, this is only looking at DCI wording. I'm sure we all have our own beliefs on why Chalice was restricted and whether it was a mistake or not. I'm not interested in getting into that.
I'm mostly interested in playing what I find fun. I do not find the current route of design WOTC has taken when it comes to Vintage playable cards very fun to play or play against.
Additional, I know you're a lawyer, Steve, but please try to avoid deconstructing people's posts as though you are in a courtroom. It's extremely exhausting to discuss anything in this fashion. You do not have to deconstruct my post as though you are cross-examining a witness in a court of law. Try to understand the meaning behind my post rather than nit-picking at minutia.
-
@Hrishi said:
@Smmenen said:
You conveniently omitted the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted:
I didn't "conveniently" omit anything.
You took the opposite position that I presented, and then presented the quote in support of it, but omitted the very sentence that establishes why my reading is correct. In terms of developing a persuasive argument, that is effectively convenient to your argument, whether intentional or not.
If I wanted to omit something, I wouldn't have provided a link.
As if I couldn't find the rest of the explanation without a link? The selective quotation functions as a critical omission by itself. Adding the link does not make this less so.
Rather, I quoted the part that was relevant to my mind.
Of course. Because you disagreed with my reading of the DCI's explanation.
I do not think anybody believes "workshop decks becoming more and more popular" is a problem. In fact, while nitpicking on my quotes, you neglected to quote the second sentence.
"However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn."
No, if you read my post more carefully, you'll see that my reading depends upon the second sentence. The fact that "too many games are decided on the first turn" is a function of the increasing popularity of Shops.
The DCI isn't talking about combo here. They meaning of the second sentence is clearly related to the first. The "problem" of too many games "effectively decided by the first players first turn" is clearly, in the DCI's view, a consequence of Shops popularity/performance.
If you re-read my previous post on this more carefully, you'll see my phrasing was carefully constructed to acknowledge this:
The effect of Chalice on Moxen, by the published decision, was a consideration in their decision, but the main predicate was Shops' performance in the metagame. The restriction of Chalice was clearly an attempt to regulate Shop's metagame dominance, not primarily a reaction to the "unique appeal of Moxen."
Actually, if you were to go by the DCI's wording, the restriction of Chalice had nothing to do with Workshop metagame dominance as the only problem they referenced was games being decided on the first turn.
Just because two sentences are separated does not make them unrelated.
Consider:
I climbed Mount Everest today. I need to get some rest because I'm exhausted.
The fact of my exhaustion, and need for rest, is not a general trait or feature of my disposition. It's clearly a consequence of my climb/exertion.
Your reading is simply wrong, both as a natural reading of the explanation as well as a matter of fact.
Saying: "Workshops are increasingly popular. Too many games are effectively decided on the first turn. " is analogous. The problem articulated in the second sentence is a function of the first.
In fact, you talked about Shop performance in the metagame but this isn't even mentioned. A deck can be popular but still perform poorly.
We know it performed well, but DCI wording does not even reference this.The fact that we know it performed well establishes this as a tacit premise. Anyone following Vintage at the time reading the explanation was expected to understand this.
All this being said, this is only looking at DCI wording. I'm sure we all have our own beliefs on why Chalice was restricted and whether it was a mistake or not. I'm not interested in getting into that.
Nor am I. The explanation presented by the DCI, and the events and context around it, make it clear that Workshops were the reason Chalice was restricted.
If you really don't believe that Workshops were reason Chalice was restricted, ask members of the DCI themselves. I'm sure anyone in the DCI would tell you.
Additional, I know you're a lawyer, Steve, but please try to avoid deconstructing people's posts as though you are in a courtroom. It's extremely exhausting to discuss anything in this fashion. You do not have to deconstruct my post as though you are cross-examining a witness in a court of law. Try to understand the meaning behind my post rather than nit-picking at minutia.
Had you carefully read my post, which you responded to, I would not have had to do that. My original post made it clear that I had read, and was familiar with, the DCI's explanation and text. Clearly explaining the flaws in your reasoning necessitated that approach.
I understand your meaning. Your argument is tantamount to claiming that Workshops were not the core cause of the restriction of Chalice. Virtually everyone knows that not to be true. It's almost too absurd for debate.
