JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL



  • I would have liked a change because every time they change something there is more excitement about brewing in the new meta game. Even the small things like unrestriction of Frantic Search or Crop Rotation is enough to get someone, somewhere excited enough to build some creative decks.

    Old School has a rotation that's based on spicing up the format; why shouldn't Vintage have the same? So you can't play with Mishras Workshop or Gush for 6 months... wouldn't that just be a healthy change of pace for an otherwise stagnant game?



  • @desolutionist said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    I would have liked a change because every time they change something there is more excitement about brewing in the new meta game. Even the small things like unrestriction of Frantic Search or Crop Rotation is enough to get someone, somewhere excited enough to build some creative decks.

    I would be totally in to a change like this but they'd have to clarify ahead of time that the goal is to shake things up - some unrestrictions might be quickly re-restricted, etc.



  • @desolutionist said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    I would have liked a change because every time they change something there is more excitement about brewing in the new meta game.

    Which I would hate. And I know many others would as well.

    One of my favorite periods in Vintage history was the five years when nothing was restricted or unrestricted.

    Remember, some people literally play Vintage 2-3 times a year. This is a format that's supposed to serve those people, for decades if not a life time. While some people crave change, many others are grateful that the format changes slowly. I consider that a positive good.

    That's why I wrote this article: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-notes-on-the-state-of-vintage-january-2017/ It illustrates the needs of different player segments, and reminds players acclimated or socialized to the MTGO rhythms that there is a vast player base out there that drives to Gencon once a year to play Vintage, or dusts off their cards for Vintage Champs or a Waterbury. The format serves those people as well.

    Even the small things like unrestriction of Frantic Search or Crop Rotation is enough to get someone, somewhere excited enough to build some creative decks.

    Old School has a rotation that's based on spicing up the format; why shouldn't Vintage have the same? So you can't play with Mishras Workshop or Gush for 6 months... wouldn't that just be a healthy change of pace for an otherwise stagnant game?

    Old School is a casual format. I hold Old School and Vintage to completely different restriction criteria. What you describe would be anathema to many Vintage players.


  • TMD Supporter

    My original intent for the OP poll was to see if there was some sort of discrepancy between what was posted on the TMD forums and what people might think even if they aren't vocal about it.

    Based on what I saw on the facebook, twitter, TMD etc. my assumption was that there was a vocal minority present in the vintage communities that I follow chanting: "we need to ban/unban X". I thought that surely most of the people feel like the B&R announcement was ok and they just simply don't have the need to take part on the discussion. I wanted to create a simple yes/no poll just to see if that discrepancy existed. And yes I know this poll has it's problems in many ways, but it shows how about 100 people on this forum was feeling about the decision: More people thought that their decision to make no changes was the right decision.



  • I didn't get to see the Twitter poll in time, but I've played enough Vintage during the first half of Aether Revolt to know I don't want any part of an identical second half. Hopefully Amonket will be relevant change. Sorry to all my Vintage-specific friends that I won't get to see until then, especially since this includes skipping Waterbury.



  • @The-Gremlin-Lord I do not fault you at all for wanting to take a break until the meta shifts.

    To me, this is the biggest issue that separates vintage B&R debates from literally every other formats; The fact that the hyperbole layden "I'll quit if this doesn't change" talk that you see for standard, modern, and legacy is very very real with vintage players, and it hurts the game in both the short and long run. Even if a relative percentage of standard players have "quit" over the rock paper scissor meta, it's a drop in the bucket relative to when vintage players decide to hang it up.

    The notion that a stagnant (or steady, for the glass half full crowd) meta better serves a community that only gets to play big events 2-3 times per year is an outdated view that went out the door with MODO. If even a third of the 38% of people who disagree with the B&R over the past year stop playing, that is felt in Dailys that never fire and TOs forced to cut prize support. Sometimes a change, even if viewed by a population as "a change for the sake of it", will shake things up enough to Jumpstart the format.



  • @p3temangus said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @The-Gremlin-Lord I do not fault you at all for wanting to take a break until the meta shifts.

    To me, this is the biggest issue that separates vintage B&R debates from literally every other formats; The fact that the hyperbole layden "I'll quit if this doesn't change" talk that you see for standard, modern, and legacy is very very real with vintage players, and it hurts the game in both the short and long run. Even if a relative percentage of standard players have "quit" over the rock paper scissor meta, it's a drop in the bucket relative to when vintage players decide to hang it up.

    For everyone "I'll quit if this doesn't change" there are at least as many "I'll quit if the DCI restricts X."

    Restrictions have driven more people from the format than stagnant metagames. Look at how upset some Workshop players were when Golem was restricted. Nick Detwiler posted that it almost killed his interest in Vintage. Rich Shay claimed in a VSL broadcast that the restriction of Brainstorm and co. wrecked the New England Vintage community.

    Every time a card is restricted, the DCI takes away some player segment's favorite cards. I saw many Workshop players apoplectic after Golem's restriction, especially coming after Chalice, claiming not only that the DCI overreached but that they made a decision to placate a vocal minority. That kind of policy making alienates far more players than a "stagnant" metagame.

    In any case, the notion that we inhabit a stagnant metagame is pretty absurd. Paradoxical Outcome (a relatively brand new card) was in 12% of MTGO daily decks in February, and in a constantly evolving set of archetypes. This, after just 4 daily appearances in January. And Walking Ballista is a brand new card that is seeing tons of play, a printing that was only legal as of mid-January.

    The notion that a stagnant (or steady, for the glass half full crowd) meta better serves a community that only gets to play big events 2-3 times per year is an outdated view that went out the door with MODO.

    What happened to those people? They just disappeared? Not at all.

    That's why I wrote this article. It's so that MTGO grinders might remember that there is a large player base out there that doesn't play in daily events, but plays in local tournaments that may occur once a month or even once a quarter. And there are many other players that only go to the annual big events like Gencon, Vintage Champs, and Waterburies. You all know who these people are.

    Vintage is an eternal format. That doesn't mean that the format has to stay the same forever, but there is much less of an imperative to make sure that the format is constantly changing than for other formats. In fact, that's the whole point of the format: it's a format that you don't have to constantly buy into, but you can play for decades if not a lifetime.

    Just because MTGO arrived doesn't mean that we throw that concept out. The people who play in paper vintage tournaments at least once a year dwarfs the number of people who play Vintage on MTGO. Vintage B&R list policy should not be geared primarily towards MTGO players, just so that they can play fresh decks every week. That would be disastrous for paper players.

    If even a third of the 38% of people who disagree with the B&R over the past year stop playing, that is felt in Dailys that never fire and TOs forced to cut prize support. Sometimes a change, even if viewed by a population as "a change for the sake of it", will shake things up enough to Jumpstart the format.

    Well, for starters, January and February 2017 both had 24 daily events reported, which means at least 24 dailies fired. I think that's more than have ever been reported per month before. As a point of comparison, February, 2016 had only 14 reported daily events. So, by that measure, there has been a 40% increase in the number of dailies that fired from February 2016 to February 2017.

    Restriction is a tool of last resort, and should never be used to "shake things up." "Shaking things up" inevitably means driving some players from the format.



  • @Smmenen

    Restriction is a tool of last resort, and should never be used to "shake things up." "Shaking things up" inevitably means driving some players from the format.

    But it hasn't been implemented as a tool of last resort. Mind's Desire was restricted preemptively and never came off.

    With the exception of Flash, all the restrictions made while I have been playing Vintage have been to shake things up. Could hardly say that Gifts, Lodestone, Chalice, Brainstorm, etc. we're restricted as a "last resort"- as in they've tried everything they could and they just had to restrict it. Every time they restrict something it's basically a complete surprise. If something is so distorting that it needs be restricted as a last resort, then I feel it should be more obvious.



  • @desolutionist said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @Smmenen

    Restriction is a tool of last resort, and should never be used to "shake things up." "Shaking things up" inevitably means driving some players from the format.

    But it hasn't been implemented as a tool of last resort. Mind's Desire was restricted preemptively and never came off.

    That's the exception that proves the rule. The only card in the history of the format (going back to the pre-Type 1 days) that was pre-emptively restricted.

    With the exception of Flash, all the restrictions made while I have been playing Vintage have been to shake things up. Could hardly say that Gifts, Lodestone, Chalice, Brainstorm, etc. we're restricted as a "last resort"- as in they've tried everything they could and they just had to restrict it. Every time they restrict something it's basically a complete surprise. If something is so distorting that it needs be restricted as a last resort, then I feel it should be more obvious.

    Absolutely none of those restrictions was surprising in any respect other than that they took longer than expected.

    Treasure Cruise, Dig, Chalice, Golem (the last four restrictions) were all widely discussed and even anticipated restrictions.

    Cruise was probably the most expected restriction in 17 years. Even going back further, Thirst and Gifts were both predicted and called for restrictions.



  • As Vintage being the format where anyone should feel free to play all "viable" cards, wouldn't restricting Mental Misstep open up so many other cards? Swords, Bolt, Fatal Push, Claim, Fragmentize, and Dark Ritual all become staples again, completely changing the game and introducing the viability of many more archetypes while destroying none of them. Who would quit or care if Mental Misstep got restricted? Thats a poll I would like to see.



  • @Serracollector do those cards mentioned not already get played? Mental misstep plays a similar role in modern Vintage that Force of Will did in the days of Type 1.



  • @Serracollector I would 100% be fine with a Misstep restriction. It's not playing the same role as Force. Force imposes deck building constraints that Misstep doesn't, and carries a real cost to cast. Misstep is a highly focused and effective Counterspell stapled to Channel. There is zero downside.



  • I'd say the real problem is actually Mentor. It's like having 4 Tinkers when Blightsteel was a big deal.

    PS: also, NO ONE would quit the format if Mentor got restricted. Win-win. :)



  • @fsecco Mentor is really better than tinker.



  • @fsecco Eh, I'm kinda tired of restricting threats. There are a million ways to kill Mentor in vintage, and 90% of the good ones are weak to Misstep.



  • @Cambriel said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @fsecco Eh, I'm kinda tired of restricting threats. There are a million ways to kill Mentor in vintage, and 90% of the good ones are weak to Misstep.

    Well the reason that Mentor isn't good in other formats like Modern is due to the prevalence of 3+ cmc sweepers. Mentor is good in Vintage because it's strong against cmc-1 targeting spells. (Should always get at least monk out of the trade)

    I agree that free spells like Probe, Misstep, FoW, and Gush take Mentor to an entirely different level; but if there were a popular 2 mana sweeper, Mentor wouldn't be viable.

    I've experimented with Terminus and it's great against Mentor and the rest of the field, until you run into a combo deck; sweepers are very hit or miss in Vintage so you can't just go ahead and start a deck with 4 of them. But if you could, Mentor would be in trouble. (while Yawgmoths Will would be excellent)



  • @desolutionist said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    I've experimented with Terminus and it's great against Mentor and the rest of the field, until you run into a combo deck; sweepers are very hit or miss in Vintage so you can't just go ahead and start a deck with 4 of them. But if you could, Mentor would be in trouble. (while Yawgmoths Will would be excellent)

    This sounds a bit like Legacy where Miracles has to deal with a similar amount of combo decks as well. I could see some variation of it become viable in Vintage as well.

    On the topic: couldn't it be a solution to restrict Preordain, Probe, Misstep and Mox Opal to keep Gush and Mentor in the meta? Blue decks would be forced to play better manabases again and could play more not so conditional counters.



  • @Tom-Bombadil You're talking about restricting 4 cards instead of restricting just 1 (Mentor). I don't see how that's better. I also don't believe restricting Gush stops Mentor - but restricting Mentor makes Gush less oppressive.

    It really hurts to hear that "Mentor dies to removal". That's not understanding how Mentor works AT ALL. You can easily play a Mentor and generate 2 tokens immediately with it and not care about spot removal. If trading 1-for-1 with removal (tapping out for Mentor without phyrexian mana or moxen) is a common play in Vintage is just because you have 4 Mentor therefore you have the possibility to gamble on your opponent not having removal. If people only had 1 Mentor in their decks, I HIGHLY DOUBT playing Mentor turn 3 without any other spell would be a common play.

    Also, if you're playing sorcery speed mass removal to deal with Mentor, you're limiting yourself a lot. Terminus is only good in Legacy because they have Brainstorm. If you're playing bad mass removal like Radiant Flames or Supreme Verdict, I'm really fine with it: if it resolves it's still 1x1 in terms of "pure card advantage" (but you had to pay 3-4 mana for it); and I get to play with 4 Mentor. If you shove 4 mass removal spells in your deck, then well... me winning with Mentor or even a PW is just a matter of outplaying those 4 suboptimal slots.



  • @Tom-Bombadil It seems strange to me to restrict a bunch of cards that have historically been used by a wide variety of decks in order to limit the use of completely different cards. None of those cards were on anyone's radar as problematic until mentor was printed.

    On the other hand, if Brainstorm were unrestricted that would allow Miracles to be played in Vintage and there would be a natural predator of going wide as there is in Legacy.

    Edit: I see I have been ninjad by about one second ;P



  • @Aaron-Patten If Brainstorm were unrestricted the LEAST they could do is unrestrict Chalice of the Void with it. Or else the format will be a blue-based fest. Even then, CotV at zero can be mostly undone by a single Brainstorm.

    Also, people should just get over their problem with creatures getting restricted. You can't talk about how there has been a power creep in creatures over the last years and then say creatures shouldn't ever be restricted.

    EDIT: HAHAH YES i posted and your post came right after mine. Good we were saying the same stuff though ;)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.