JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL



  • @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.


  • TMD Supporter

    @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 😜



  • @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 😉



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

    @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.

    100% agree.



  • @desolutionist Mentor isnt good in other formats because there arent so many cheap/free non-creature spells. Vintage is the only format where cards like Moxen, Gush, Misstep are legal.

    Board sweepers being ineffective in a majority of other MUs certainly plays a part too, but its not the main reason. Board sweepers arent even that good of an answer to Mentor as they are at best a responsive 1 for 1 that costs more mana/resources.



  • I found myself thinking the other day about how I would feel if a card existed along the lines of...

    Abrupt Plague: instant, 2b: as you cast Abrupt Plague name a creature type. Destroy all creatures of the named type with converted mana cost 3 or less.

    Ultimately mashing together Abrupt Decay and Engineered Plague. A powerful tribal oriented sweeper. Unfortunately, it would be the nail in the coffin for goblin, elf, merfolk, and human -based tribal decks.



  • @rbartlet since "Create" now seems to be something they are willing to use on card text, I don't see why they couldn't just do a card that said: Destroy target creature and all creatures created by that creature. You could call it Bloodline Obliteration or something...



  • @themonadnomad Or destroy target creature and all tokens that share a color/creature type woth it.



  • Sorry guys, I really feel discussing possible printings to solve a problem is... well, an useless discussion. If you all recognize there aren't good cards that deal with Mentor in the format, then why are you so concerned if it gets restricted?

    And don't fool yourselves: Mentor is quite strong in Legacy too - just not broken.



  • I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary). It isn't necessarily the power of Mentor which often kills you, it's how far ahead you get thanks to Gush. Even Oath decks are now playing Gush to keep up. They certainly don't need Mentor to finish the game.


  • TMD Supporter

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    It isn't necessarily the power of Mentor which often kills you, it's how far ahead you get thanks to Gush. Even Oath decks are now playing Gush to keep up. They certainly don't need Mentor to finish the game.

    But here's the question: If Gush is restricted, does anyone really think Mentor will be any less good?

    Because I don't. In fact, it might even get better or more abusive, as people shift to more Moxen heavy decks with more spell celerity and faster Mentors.

    Just look at what happened when Dig was restricted. It did nothing to slow Mentor, and I don't think restricting Gush will either. The post-Gush Mentor deck will just run 1 Dig, 1 Cruise, 1 Gush, 2-4 JVP, 1 Mystical/Scroll, and the rest of the stuff and go nuts. Or it will be a big mana deck with all of those cards except Gush.



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

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    I guess I should have clarified my stance (and worded it better). I believe restricting Mentor isn't going to do much to cut down on Gush's dominance. Clearly restricting Mentor will change the metagame, I'm sorry if I made it seem like it wouldn't.

    I believe if Mentor is restricted, Gush decks simply change win conditions, but keep their engine. That doesn't change enough, in my opinion, to bring it's power down.


  • TMD Supporter

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

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

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    I guess I should have clarified my stance (and worded it better). I believe restricting Mentor isn't going to do much to cut down on Gush's dominance. Clearly restricting Mentor will change the metagame, I'm sorry if I made it seem like it wouldn't.

    But what about the flip side? What effect would restricting Gush have on the prevalence of Mentor decks?

    Because I don't.

    As I said: In fact, it might even get better or more abusive, as people shift to more Moxen heavy decks with more spell celerity and faster Mentors. Just look at what happened when Dig was restricted. It did nothing to slow Mentor, and I don't think restricting Gush will either. The post-Gush Mentor deck will just run 1 Dig, 1 Cruise, 1 Gush, 2-4 JVP, 1 Mystical/Scroll, and the rest of the stuff and go nuts. Or it will be a big mana deck with all of those cards except Gush.

    There is a case that Mentor is actually held back by Gush decks that don't run full artifact acceleration.

    I predict that if Gush is restricted it's more likely that Mentor decks become a larger part of Vintage metagame than the probability that it becomes a smaller part.

    In other words, 3-4 Mentor, anchored by 1 Dig and 1 Cruise is not going anywhere, and may actually get stronger, not held back by Gush shells, and can now go all in on big mana, and then things like Top.


 

WAF/WHF