As I said, Bazaar I think is something else. Although I agree with @Smmenen that it never had results to warrant restriction, I believe it's because you have to dedicate hate towards it. The CA Bazaar generates in unsurmountable in any aspect. Steven himself once theorised that one way to evaluate a card's power is to count how many zone changes it provides (for example, Ancestral Recall is 3 zone changes from library to hand, etc). Count what Bazaar does in 1 activation and you'll see how it's bizarrely broken. I wouldn't be against restricting it because I don't think it keeps anything in place. It's just a monster we're used to dealing with. I have no formed opinion on whether I personally would restrict or not, but I see merit in discussing it, while I don't see merit in doing that for Shops.
OK so with GGT restricted Bazaar puts 2 Stinkweed Imp into your hand then back into your graveyard, and you discard a card which is favorable in the very early game but unfavorable as the game goes on. So the only clearly favorable zone change is that you mill 10 cards. Of those 10, you're looking at about 4 that actually do something meaningful from the graveyard (i.e. free creatures and spells). So Bazaar "draws" 4 useful cards per turn but you start with 0 useful cards in the graveyard and on average something like 3 useful cards in hand, and Bazaar doesn't advance your board state until the second activation, and even then there's some inconsistency in terms of hitting dredgers.
So by the end of Turn 2, you should have something like 3ish useful cards in hand (or played from hand) and 6ish useful cards from the graveyard. That puts you one card ahead of a deck with literally no ability to generate advantage, and most Vintage decks do not fall in that camp. By the end of Turn 3 you should have something like 15 useful cards in all zones, which is certainly good but on the other hand the countermeasures available to fight this whole deal are roughly a million times stronger than anything available to fight any other strategy. I think a Vintage deck getting a strong advantage by about Turn 3 if the opponent can't find any counterplay (when many strong options exist, including the simple Wasteland) is pretty fair by Vintage standards.
I think there's a Catch-22 here. Belcher won an event. If it was a "good" deck (high expected match win %) the format is broken because Belcher is fast and it's undesirable for fast decks to be "good". If it was a "bad" deck (low expected match win%) the format is broken because this bad deck got lucky, and it's undesirable for players to be subjected to variance in which a bad deck might sometimes just get lucky. Is that an accurate summary of what's already been said?
Based on what I collected before, Dredge was killing at 27% by the end of turn 2, and 60% by turn 3. Effectively would be less than that. So Dredge "effectively" decides its games very quickly.
I'm a little skeptical about that. Most Dredge lists I've seen recently did not have a Dread Return target that gave haste or did direct damage, so the Turn 2 kill % should be zero for such lists.
None of the lists on Goldfish's metagame right now have a haste or direct damage target: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/vintage-wubg-96200#paper
Even if you're right that Dredge is "effectively" killing on a very early turn (which I think is a fair claim if you're just saying in an abstract way that Dredge is faster than most blue control decks), I think Dredge is scoring kills more slowly than it typically has in the past, which raises the question of why a restriction due to speed would take place now.
You can "blank" one artifact or creature per turn, so this card answers Time Vault as well as Blightsteel Colossus, which seems to me somewhat unique. Obviously it needs a main phase and you still have to deal with the resulting 3/3 in some way, but stripping all abilities from any creature or artifact is something
Is 40-50% enough to restrict multiple cards? That's the percentage of top 8's BUGx had in August and it being one of the few decks that could compete with Dredge without being completely warped was a major reason why. Focusing solely on a Dredge's metagame percentage from August as a counterpoint to restriction is an intellectually dishonest argument. It's cherrypicking a statistic and not providing relevant context.
Brian provided the statistic and explicitly said it was the one to look at. I'm not cherrypicking anything.
I really don't understand the attitude here towards Dredge. 14% metagame share was high enough to merit two restrictions, but now "Dredge will be a deck to watch–if it’s metagame % creeps up, nix another card until it feels like a reasonable deck." What metagame percent is acceptable if 14% is enough to trigger multiple restrictions? What does feeling like a reasonable deck have to do with anything? If you think Dredge is fundamentally unreasonable when it's just another deck you should just restrict Bazaar and be done with it. Dressing it up as some sort of concern over metagame share is pure nonsense.
Survival might be the best Bazaar deck now...
I don't think so.
Restricting a single dredger is kind of like restricting a dual land but no fetch lands - you're still going to find it pretty quickly and use it over and over. Granted, fetchlands find their target a bit more quickly, but a single GGT is way more impactful than a single of some other draw engine card like Library of Alexandria or Gush.
Probably not. It was legal before but it's been a long time since that's been a desirable option for the deck. The fundamental issue is that green mana source + Crop Rotation is less consistent than Serum Powder and costs a lot of space in the deck that could be used for more impactful things like free counterspells or more reliable speed elements such as Fatestitcher.
The podcast is freely available content focused on a niche subhobby of a niche hobby that we're lucky to have. It's lively, thought-provoking, and consistently entertaining. Attacking Stephen and Kevin's generous work in wholesale fashion reeks of unjustified entitlement. Props to Stuart for addressing this in the comment above.
Who is attacking their generous work in wholesale fashion? I said it's less exciting to hear predictions after the cards come out and have a chance to be played, but I'm sympathetic to the personal obligations that apparently made that impossible. How could you possibly criticize something in a way that is less of an attack in a wholesale fashion?