Thoughts on restrictions
-
@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.
-
@Smmenen I asked you not to deconstruct my post and understand it's meaning instead, and you respond by quoting my post, sentence by sentence and deconstructing it. It's exhausting and I'm not interested.
I should have taken my own advice to myself. I'm no longer interested in engaging in discussion with you in this thread. Have a good day, Steve.
-
@Hrishi said:
@Smmenen I asked you not to deconstruct my post and understand it's meaning instead, and you respond by quoting my post, sentence by sentence and deconstructing it. It's exhausting and I'm not interested.
I would request that people who reply to my posts carefully read my posts before replying, but you didn't do that either. You replied with a point that I explicitly referenced and acknowledged in my OP. It was built into the very edifice of the original post you responded to, but responded as if it wasn't.
Requesting that someone address or reply to a debate or point of disagreement in a particular way or manner is unreasonable if that manner is the clearest and most effective way of making the counter-argument. For example the rules discussion regarding Priest/Cage interaction necessitated that kind of deconstruction. Similarly, here, the very nature of the debate is interpretation, and deconstructing the DCI's statement. Asking me to defend my reading the DCI's statement without being able to break down your analysis into it's constitutive parts is like asking me to box with one hand tied behind my back. It's unreasonable.
As regards your overall meaning, I addressed this head on at the end of my previous post:
"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."
-
@Smmenen Alright, on good faith, I'll continue this, but please try to keep in mind that you do not have to pounce on the slightest misstep that a person makes. For example, pouncing on @ajfirecracker saying Chalice was banned rather than restricted was absurd. I'm guessing that final sentence was edited in, as it wasn't in your original reply?
"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."
This is not my argument. When deconstructing my post, surely my meaning couldn't have escaped you like that? My argument was that Chalice itself was possibly chosen as a candidate (out of many other possible candidates) for restriction because the ability to play Moxen was held in high regard. I believe DCI's wording itself says something to that effect here.
If I ever claimed that Workshop dominance itself was not the cause for restriction, I apologise, but that was never my meaning.
-
@Smmenen lost to storm. why did i choose to not play force of will. lost to a 2/2 that says i can't play the cards in my deck. why did i choose to not play swords.
force of will is only uncastable when my opponent does somthing that cant be countered.
swords is only uncastable if my opponent has 0 creatures, or bad if he has unlimited creatures.the number of cards force of will interacts with is 60-the number of lands in my opponents deck
the number of cards swords interacts with is 60-the lands-the spells-the artifacts-planswalkers... if you were to make a bet on whether force of will or swords will get cast in any given game of vintage the odds would indicate force should get cast more often.if you make the choice based on which spell has more chance of not being dead force of will has a better chance of being cast. which in turn means i should play force of will and me choosing not to do results in my lose to storm being my own fault. while choosing not to play swords is not my fault because the numbers clearly indicate i should play force of will.
the end result is that because i made a choice to not play either of the cards when i get punished for my not playing force of will 25/60* chance its easily acceptable as my fault where when i get punished for not playing swords 8/60** chance clearly i am being punished by variance.
*number of cards people force of will in storm
**draw 1 of the 2 bears that happen to be relevant in any given matchupjust for reference cards i hate to lose to (mentor, thotnot,trinisphere, misc other 2/2s) pretty much ok with any thing that isnt those. im ok dieing to these guys but stil anonyed when it happens, ( 3 mana thalia, lodestone, pyromancer, trike, 2 mana thalia, revoker)
-
@Hrishi said:
@Smmenen Alright, on good faith, I'll continue this, but please try to keep in mind that you do not have to pounce on the slightest misstep that a person makes. For example, pouncing on @ajfirecracker saying Chalice was banned rather than restricted was absurd. I'm guessing that final sentence was edited in, as it wasn't in your original reply?
"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."
This is not my argument. When deconstructing my post, surely my meaning couldn't have escaped you like that?
Indeed it did.
The issue being debated is whether 1) Workshop popularity/performance OR 2) whether there is some other principle independent of Workshops (specifically, that playing "moxen" is a format goal) that forms the (main) predicate for the DCI's decision.
Option 2 was first articulated in this thread by this statement "The Chalice of the Void ban, for instance, was predicated on the unique appeal of Moxen."
The structure, text, and clear import of your original post was that you disagreed with (1), and supported (2). Each subsequent post has been a debate of whether the text of the DCI's explanation better supports (1) or (2).
My position has been that (1) is the core predicate, but that the DCI considered (2) a relevant factor (but not the main concern). In fact, that's almost exactly what I said in my OP.
My argument was that Chalice itself was possibly chosen as a candidate (out of many other possible candidates) for restriction because the ability to play Moxen was held in high regard. I believe DCI's wording itself says something to that effect here.
Yes, but why was Chalice a candidate for restriction, and how was scope for other possible candidates drawn? I believe the explanation and context answers this: an attempt to regulate Workshops.
If it weren't, then the DCI didn't provide nearly enough information to understand this decision. I mean, why choose Chalice over Stony Silence or any other card that negates Moxen? And, why were cards even being considered for restriction in the first place? It's almost impossible to generate a plausible textual reading that writes out Workshops the way you initially did.
Chalice would have been restricted long before had (2) been the operative principle.
If I ever claimed that Workshop dominance itself was not the cause for restriction, I apologise, but that was never my meaning.
Well, you did just say that both explicitly and deductive logical inference. You said:
"You can argue that this reasoning is incorrect or anything like that, but if you take their reasoning at face value, "
Then, you said, " if you were to go by the DCI's wording, the restriction of Chalice had nothing to do with Workshop metagame dominance..."
So, if your argument is that we should take a pure textual reading, then that logically rules out Workshops metagame performance as the core predicate.
-
@Smmenen Yes, but as my own quote says, I'm not talking about what I claimed at all. I was merely talking about DCI wording and what one could infer from it. Surely the DCI's wording itself shows you that the ability to play Moxen was held in high regard?
In fact, now that I remember, didn't you talk about this very issue in that episode of SMIP? About how the DCI specifically referenced the ability to play Moxen? It seems to flow logically (and please correct me if I am wrong) that if you wanted to simply address the power of Workshops, the DCI could have gone after Lodestone Golem right away.
-
@Hrishi said:
@Smmenen Yes, but as my own quote says, I'm not talking about what I claimed at all.
LOL. This statement has to represent some kind of inflection point in this thread.
Why would you develop an argument that differs from what you believe to be true? That's sophistry or, alternatively, argument for the sake of argument.
Your selective omission of the first sentence of the DCI's explanation removed the critical context that illuminated the meaning of the subsequent statements, and made it seem like you were arguing predicate (1) over (2). Hence, how I interpreted your line of argument.
I was merely talking about DCI wording and what one could infer from it. Surely the DCI's wording itself shows you that the ability to play Moxen was held in high regard? In fact, now that I remember, didn't you talk about this very issue in that episode of SMIP? About how the DCI specifically referenced the ability to play Moxen?'
For the third or fourth time, I never denied that the 'ability to play Moxen' formed a consideration in the DCI's decision matrix. What I am denying is that this consideration forms the core operative principle or main "predicate" for the DCI's decision.
Anyway, I think we are clear now.
-
@Smmenen said:
Why would you develop an argument that differs from what you believe to be true? That's sophistry or, alternatively, argument for the sake of argument.
Clearly because it doesn't matter what I personally believe. What matters is what the DCI believes when it comes to B&R policy and looking into their reasoning is useful rather than talking about my own personal beliefs as to why any action was taken.
