@serracollector said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

This entire article makes me feel like I need a college degree to have any word, thought, or opinion on Vintage instead of the 24 years of playing under my belt.

Don't ever believe that. If someone is trying to make you feel stupid, they may not have good intentions.

There are a lot of brilliant minds who avoid higher education. And higher education is overflowing with wealthy well-educated mediocrities. There are some great people and minds there as well, but it's still just a fraction, very possibly the same % as you'd find in the general population.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

I love you too Brian, just as I adore Brian Weissman

Likewise, there is a great deal of mutual respect in addition to disagreement.

Vintage is the last place where you can play with all of the cards

That isn't true. Not only are there many other places where one can use any card (kitchen table, gaming room) and even other formats (EDH, various homebrew and existing plus forthcoming experimental formats) but there are literally hundreds of Magic cards you cannot play in Vintage. I can't play Gleemox. I can't play Chaos Orb. I can't play Adriana's Valor. I can't play a Collector's Edition Birds of Paradise. There are so many asterisks on the predilection to not ban that the exceptions swallow any rule that might exist (which it does not).

Increasing enjoyment of the experience of the game should clearly be a viable criterion for banning. It's always been on the table and the fact that Mind Twist and Channel no longer meet that criterion does not mean the criterion has been abandoned.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

just shows you frankly ignorant you are about the terms of these debates

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Your paragraph here is so problematic on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start the incision.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Questions like the one you just asked aren't just annoying, they are so long-ago settled that it's impossible to actually address without derailing threads among people who share a set of assumptions and knowledge that you quite obviously lack.

This is so rude, Stephen! Even if you believe, objectively, that someone is ignorant on a topic, there are much less indulgently pejorative methods of communicating that.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Your position is seductive, just like the siren call of nationalism we see around the world. I feel that my position and preference for a smaller restricted list and using restriction as a last resort was hard won, like democracy, but is now in danger of backsliding.

Hmm, in broad strokes I find myself more analogous to "Fun for everyone, not just the 1%" rather than "Make Vintage Great Again." Though certainly, despite the connotation, the latter slogan would fit since Type One was much more popular and heavily regulated than this cesspool of "lol Force ur Dredge hate" and "lol scoop up my board, replay it again."

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

He does not believe that metagame predominance should be a driving criteria for restriction, but instead believes that it should be motivated by play patterns and interactive game play. // No, no, no, no. Brian doesn't care at all about metagame share in B&R discussions.

My position is mostly understood, yes. Props. Though to be clear, metagame data would not be prohibited from consideration; its role would simply not be paramount to the degree it currently is. Rather, it would be a single factor in a totality of circumstances.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

He would restrict cards that have 0% metagame share based upon play pattern alone.

I would acknowledge the reasonableness were that done, yes. Though as a practical matter, with the amount of more urgent work needed to effectuate a Renaissance that carries the format into the next two decades, I certainly would not prioritize cards like Show and Tell.

@stuart said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Could you guys just record a @wfain vs @Smmenen battle royale edition of SMIP so I can stop reading this?

William is more telegenic so he automatically wins, even in audio.

@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

You lose all credibility in my mind when you argue for the restriction of cards that clearly aren't an issue in the format because they are in decks that represent 10% or less of the field and 20% or less of top 8's.

It's been stated countless times that I don't subscribe to the metagame % dominant view of format regulation. Evidently, you do. Hence, there is an obvious mismatch re: individual choices when there is a large a philosophical difference.

If they were to ban Cruise and Dig for power level then they'd have to ban Recall, Walk, Lotus, the Moxen etc etc. You are on record saying these cards are "Sacred Cows." According to who? You?! When did you become emperor?

In 2015. And I'm not only the Emperor, I'm also the Prom King and Miss Congeniality. Now, away with thee, peasant.

More seriously though, and to state the clarion obvious, Power 9 are indispensable fixtures of Vintage while Treasure Cruise and Dig through Time are disposable afterthoughts. This is not controversial or arcane.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Your mockery merely perpetuates the marginalization of those archetypes and the harm done to adherents and disciples of those Schools.

There was no mockery; it was an anguished heartfelt poem.

I'm joking, of course. Are you joking about incalculable "harm" done to some mysterious people who weren't able to play 4 Dream Halls in the year 2003? That does not sound very serious to me.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Hardly. I was asking a question in good faith. I understood everything in that person's post, and thought it all made sense, up until that sentence. This player says that there is "nothing" in Vintage for them, and I find that hard to believe. After all, as you just said, winning isn't everything. Vintage has much to offer, even for the casual fan.

The format, by its own virtue, is entitled to his support without any modification on the part of its stewards to make it something he actually enjoys. If he doesn't want to play, then something is wrong with him, not the format. Hmm... I've heard this logic before, somewhere. I can't remember where.

Additionally, wfain made some insightful points with a thought-provoking analogy. There will always be a degree of imprecision with an analogy; that is intrinsic to its definition. However, instead of engaging him amicably, you attempted to humiliate him with a pedantic wall of text that ended up corroborating his point.

Tsk, tsk.

Honestly, it would serve you and your objectives better if you opted for statements like "I disagree because..." instead of "Your statement reflects ignorance."; "This isn't rocket science."; "You just ... don't really understand what I'm talking about.";"You are pretty confused."

These should not be such caustic and humorless discussions. There's absolutely no reason for that demeanor. We are among the very few human beings on this earth with a deep interest in a niche subdivision of a declining strategy game. This is a rarefied group and its voices should not be treated so acerbically.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Everyone can see that the current DCI's manner and mode of analysis is far more sophisticated than in years past and under previous management regimes.

This is an example of projecting your own opinion onto the community at large. Not everyone or even anyone can see these things because the process is not transparent. All you are saying here is that you believe their current approach is more acceptable (and I agree it's better than it was pre-2015) but instead of simply saying that, you declare it as though it's axiomatic and universally known to a degree such that anyone who did not share your opinion would be a delusional pariah worthy of ridicule. This is all the more alarming considering the statement being advanced here is so wrong on its face, that being the falsehood that "everyone" can see something that is, in reality, notoriously hidden.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Brian Kelly's views are a radical outlier, as Matt Murray pointed out.

"I don't agree with you, Brian, but I love you. You are my favorite radical outlier in Vintage."

You've decontextualized and cited this comment twice, so I suppose you believe its worthy of remark.

Matthew understands the Overton Window. Popular mainstream ideas are often scorned by the powerful as fringe or "radical" to deter their proliferation. As I said before recently, my "radical" ideas (which are not grounded in unpopular lunacy) frequently (though not always) become fully mainstream once they are explored in depth. I don't expect my viewpoint to be shared universally but I believe it is valuable and should be stated. This is very distinct from believing "I have all the answers and I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt why everyone else is wrong." I don't find your opinion threatening, but I do not find that sentiment to be mutual.

@ribby said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Dredge needs dealing with. It’s become an impediment to fun gameplay.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Succinct and the greatest takeaway from this thread (especially the pre-Rabbit Hole part).

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Absolutely, but it is precisely that history that shows us how wrong and wrong-headed your preferred approach is.

LOL, harsh.

The Restricted List reached it's zenith in January, 2004, with 54 cards after years of over-restriction (it now sits comfortably at 46 cards).

In 1999, 18 cards were restricted in a single restriction announcement. Did 18 cards really need to be restricted that fall? Did Doomsday, Dream Halls, and Mind Over Matter really need to be restricted? No, but the DCI used your approach, of restricting cards on power level alone, without any reference to tournament play or results.

Oh, I must have missed the part where The Academy deck turned out to have been fringe, nearly absent from results, and largely celebrated by the community.

The consequence? Countless players were denied the opportunity to build interesting decks that they would have enjoyed. Imagine the Doomsday decks that could have been built before it was unrestricted in 2004! Imagine the Dream Halls decks that could have been tried.

Behold this tragedy.
Alone this Doomsday.
Forsaken these Dream Halls.
How we weep,
How we wail.

In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.

I would suggest, instead, it's a result of sustained engagement and a much more careful and nuanced undestanding of the game, metagame evolution, and better grasp of data. DCI management today - over all formats - is far more sophisticated than it was during the Type I era.

No one is buying it. The DCI's shameful neglect produced results that happened to coincide with your hyperlibertarian objectives, so you exalted their dereliction of duty as "prudence."

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

But how do we do that in a way that isn't predictably biased in favor of blue decks?

It's not for the benefit of "blue" decks. How did "blue decks" benefit from restricting Treasure Cruise, Dig through Time, Gitaxian Probe, Monastery Mentor? (all of which I supported) "Blue decks" did not benefit from restricting Gush, a restriction campaign I refrained from joining out of humanitarian concern, namely the cruelty it would issue to you after you had just produced an extensive work on the card.

As I said above: "a preference for what you call "fairer" or less swingy games is really just a gussied up way of expressing prejudice against fast combo decks, Dredge, and Shops, and a preference for blue decks. A format more centered around decks like Bomberman, Landstill, Leo decks, etc. may be your idea of a good format, but it sounds like dispiriting to me."

The main problem with your approach, of giving primary weight to how decks "feel" and "interactivity" is that it's hopelessly biased against most of the Schools of Vintage Magic, especially those that aren't blue.

Really? Don't Dredge and Workshops benefit most from restricting Paradoxical Outcome? Aren't "blue decks" hurt the most by banning Treasure Cruise and Dig through Time (positions you yourself introduced not too long ago)?

This is an example of the delusion that Vintage players are divided into cults who only coldly pursue material self-interest in winning. I don't know where this falsehood originates.

@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).

Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?

Oh dear, scolding, shaming, and blaming those who reject your vision. Where have I seen this before?

Rather consistent with your stated view that Vintage should not be a democratically organized format. Can I be The Mana Drain's official superdelegate?

@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

but I also don't want people to call for the pitchforks if they don't LIKE losing to a given strategy, especially if the reason they lose to that strategy more than their share is because they choose to play one of the decks with the weakest inherent match win % vs. said deck.

Mr. Smith, this cartoon logic and was rejected many times in the earlier part of this thread. Do you think I have a significant handicap in Vintage? Am I losing all of the time? Do you believe I am lying about enjoyment of the game being extremely important to me? If so, then say it, because what you're insinuating is both delusional and insulting.

I have a very high win rate against Paradoxical Outcome; the card should be restricted. I play Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time; they should have been banned. I have a favored Shop match-up most of the time, particularly on Druids. Trinisphere should be banned. Dredge is drawing 15 cards for {0} while drawing 3 cards for {U} is restriction-worthy. Allowing it to continue existing in its current form thwarts the game balance you purport to value.

It should be obvious from the most cursory reading of my arguments that they are not driven by a base desire to win more; I don't have that need. It's about qualitative experience. Even Stephen who disagrees with much of my philosophy at least understands what I am saying. Sheesh.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Obviously, I agree entirely. But Brian Kelly, like Brian Weissman here, has a different vision.

Instead of using the Restricted List as a tool of last resort, and only to curb the most egregious and obvious case - as Sirlin explained in his famous essay in "playing to win," the two Brian's would have used the Restricted List to curb strategies and decks that are not only proven to be problematic in the metagame by objective standards, but that they feel violate some subjective principle of "fair play."

Thus, a Brian Kelly or Brian Weissman Restricted List for VIntage and Type I respectively, would be much, much longer than current restricted lists.

That's not an unflattering comparison.

Brian Kelly is on record stating that he would add like 10-15 cards to the restricted list (including Show and Tell and Dack Fayden!), and ban a number of cards on top of that.

That's correct. I believe play experience is more important than fetishizing the length of the restricted list. This view, as you acknowledged with your own links above, is much more consistent with the most successful years of Type 1, a period where the dominant narrative was so focused on sanity and fairness that I, of all people, could barely get anyone to entertain the idea of unrestricting Fork.

In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.

Suffice to say, and as suggested by the table I linked above, I do not share that vision. Instead, I think that the [Restricted List should be as small as possible]

And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

My biggest question here is what are restrictions actually for?

I think the answer to this question begins with asking:

"Why is Black Lotus restricted?'
"Why is Tolarian Academy restricted?"
"Why isn't Niall Silvain restricted?'

Difficult as it can be to quantify, there are intrinsic and conceptual "power levels" associated with each card, both in a vacuum and in context, and a few are over the line, at least as that line is conventionally understood. Theoretically, we could abolish the restricted list, and there probably would be a handful of people out there who would love to play in the resultant format.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Are they to bring problematic decks and metagames in line or are they a tool to shake up and create a metagame? It feels like, more and more, some people want restrictions to create a "better" metagame and to shake up the format. I've always said restrictions should only be used as a last resort.

I can only speak for what motivates me, which is mitigating negative play experiences, which are usually a function of imbalanced power level. As Steve mentioned, there are cards I consider restrictable based on power level & purpose alone (ie Show and Tell and Pact of Negation) that are hardly ever played. This is consistent with the knowledge that I would consider Ancestral Recall a restrictable card even if it appeared in 0% of decks, based on power level.

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Vintage, to me, is not just about playing shiny new Standard Mythic with Moxen. There's nothing special about that.

That is the most anti-Matt Murray talking point I have ever heard in the Magic community.

For me, the P9 define the format and are the sacred cows. Shop and Bazaar are pretty much on that level too. Nouveau trash like Walking Ballista and Paradoxical Outcome gets no such deference.

@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Targeting Therapy for restriction is on the same level of ludicrous as when folks wanted to target Dark Petition. It isn't even open for debate.

The cards suggested here were Hollow One, Serum Powder, and Golgari-Grave Troll.

I do object to the over-reliance on metagame % not only because it seeks to disparage subjective experience but because the raw data itself is corrupted by players' choice and attendance level. For instance, if I decide an afternoon nap would be preferable to playing a challenge, Oath of Druids suddenly has a 25-50% lower metagame representation. Who even knows what happens to the win rate. If two Shop players attend a wedding instead of a Vintage event, there is likewise a palpable decrease. Since these attendance variables happen all of the time, imagining that the results %'s prove whatever it is we might be tempted to believe is its probative value is absurd.

The metagame is as bad as it was last year, because of the refinement of Pitch Dredge. It's an outrageous blue deck whose hand is sculpted by a free Dack Fayden and whose Arabian Nights land draws ~18 cards instead of 1. While I always thought Cabal Therapy was over the line, I never hated playing against Dredge the way I do this year.

Paradoxical Outcome/Big Blue is not a horrible deck in and of itself--it's simply the single card Paradoxical Outcome that I and several others take issue with. There's no historical metric that would excuse that degree of one-sided card draw and self-replication (ie the Mind's Desire problem).

Shops has its issues, but they are far eclipsed by the Dredge deck and the illegal-power-level 4x namesake in PO. Getting rid of its free win-ball and then restricting Walking Ballista or Revoker should abate any lingering concerns.

I will write about this more in depth in the coming weeks. I have started an article to post here and without any intention of rushing it.

Either way, although we differ starkly on views of the format, I am thankful that your perspectives are stated eloquently. I hope that a fleshed out new theory adopting a "qualitative experience" perspective will help fill the vacuum that's been there for many years.

@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@ribby said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

I look forward to Smennen’s kids digging up this thread in 20 years and tracing it as the origin of why Bazaar was restricted.

Generally agree with Brian’s points. I continue to hold the opinion that in some form Dredge is necessary for Vintage so that players don’t just get to play Slaver with 15 free SB cards and call that “skill”. But even this is too much.

Agreed. I don't want to destroy any deck; I just believe the "big four" could all use some toning down, ie, Equally Distributed Sanity.
None of this will come from fanciful metagame % analyses; Wizards themselves said this year that they don't abide by them so it's time to stop playing make-believe with numbers.

Can you cite this? To my knowledge, the DCI has ever said that they don't look at relevant performance metrics when making decisions.

What is this straw man? I never said they "don't look" at metrics; I said they don't "abide" by them, which is objectively correct given their decisions and admissions re: Mishra's Workshop are not in accordance with the numbers you revere.

Aaron Forsythe, on twitter, said that the format is managed for the Vintage community, but they have never refuted the notion that performance metrics matter.

You would have a point if I'd said they don't "matter." It's very easy to refute manufactured statements!

I don't think there is any real evidence of 'malaise' other than it being the summer months when folks are on vacation.

There's "testimony," silly. You can say you like the metagame, but it's insulting to state the no one feels any malaise. I do. My friends do. Local events have been dwindling all year, before summer, and the metagame was stated as the reason. Do we not count for some reason? If so, what is that reason?

I honestly believe this is one the best Vintage environment we've had in years. Certainly better than the nightmare we had for the last 5 or so years where Shops was just dominating every event. Shops is still too good for my liking, but PO has been pretty amazing for the format, bringing back 'big blue' players and strategies.

I have different experiences, as does Andy, our resident Shops guru. I feel Shops is one of the easier decks to control (which says a lot, since it's not "easy" per se) due to PO and Dredge executing plans that minimize your agency even more. Andy thinks Shops has felt more uphill than ever this year, due to PO.

Compared to that, this format is actually much better. It's more diverse, and it's more interactive, and in my experience at the SCG P9 tournament in June and the few leagues I've played more recently, it's more fun.

How are "Tap Bazaar, lol, Force ur Dredge hate" or Paradoxical Outcome more "interactive" than Jeskai Mentor, Bomberman, UW Landstill, Oath of Druids, Workshops or Dredge pre-Pitch/Hollow One? That makes no sense. The format is more overrun with blowouts now than it has been in a while.

@ribby said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

I look forward to Smennen’s kids digging up this thread in 20 years and tracing it as the origin of why Bazaar was restricted.

Generally agree with Brian’s points. I continue to hold the opinion that in some form Dredge is necessary for Vintage so that players don’t just get to play Slaver with 15 free SB cards and call that “skill”. But even this is too much.

Agreed. I don't want to destroy any deck; I just believe the "big four" could all use some toning down, ie, Equally Distributed Sanity.
None of this will come from fanciful metagame % analyses; Wizards themselves said this year that they don't abide by them so it's time to stop playing make-believe with numbers.

Dredge happens to be the one that has never had to account for its infractions to the community since the cleaning up of Vintage began in 2015. Of the four, it's also the most awry and downright wrong.

Ideally, I'd regulate several things from Dredge, 1 card from Big Blue (Paradoxical Outcome), ban the Delve spells, ban Mentor, ban Trinisphere, and restrict maybe one more artifact like Ballista. This isn't simply done to address the current malaise, but changes that will pave the way forward for the next decade. A decade from now, this time period should be one looked upon with bewilderment and the question:

"How the hell was that ever legal?"

@blindtherapy said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

force is obviously worse than hate removal the more the player mulligans.

Right, the game revolves around the Dredge player's mulligan.

@stuart said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

To me Pitch Dredge isn’t really more egregious than other combo decks that get to play countermagic (Paradoxical and Oath being the big ones that come to mind).

Unlike those though, Dredge needs to find one unrestricted card in its Top X cards (not sure how many they see exactly, which varies, depending on the Powders). All of the goods in PO and anything that could make Oath kill you as quickly as Dredge are restricted (ie Time Walk, Mox anything).

@blindtherapy said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

Hollow One is a 0-mana 4/4 with no drawback once in play.

there's this card called dack fayden

There's a card called Sanctum Prelate! Let's unrestrict Black Lotus!

@stuart said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@dr-j Well, I’m comfortable believing Dredge’s detractors that it’s not about losing. I just don’t get the idea that it’s not an interactive or engaging deck to play against. Specifically, unless I have a hand with literal nothing, I’m on the edge of my seat asking myself, Will my hate resolve? Do they have a Nature’s Claim? If not, can I close the game out before they recover? Do they have a Plan B (i.e. Hollow One), and if so, can I answer it? Dredge doesn’t always have it, or you don’t always have it, and I think the tension between those makes for exciting gameplay.

Once in a while there is a good game v. Dredge, but those are less common now that it competently eschews non-CMC-1 Dredge hate on the stack and can put 12 power into play for {0}. The games are a lot different when they revolve around timing Tormod's Crypt's.

The game revolves around their mulligan round. If they kept 7, you are unlikely to win irrespective of your hand to a degree that wasn't possible a year ago and prior. Hollow One and Prized Amalgam are game changers.

Nutty things happen in Vintage, but they generally always involve cards that are restricted. Bazaar of Baghdad is restrictable on its face, but it's kept around for the same reasons Mishra's Workshop is. However, unlike Workshop, Wizards hasn't adequately restricted around it. I believe it's time for that to change.

We need to understand that "Dredging 6" is drawing 6 cards, and Dredging 18 is drawing 18 cards. For {0}. The fewer and fewer cards dumped into the yard that are useless are still just analogous to the cards one draws when actually drawing like excess lands or inapplicable counters. Serum Powder is a 0-mana draw 7. Hollow One is a 0-mana 4/4 with no drawback once in play. Cabal Therapy effectuates Mind Twist, a card banned for many years, onto the opponent for {0}. And these perverse advantages are heaped onto a deck that already wins g1 as a "free gift" 90% of the time. I don't see why this should be acceptable.

Requiring the Dredge player to destroy Dredge hate rather than Force it typically bought another turn and served as a speed bump that extended the game and provided the positive experiences you referenced. "Force ur Dredge hate, lol tap Bazaar" does the exact opposite. They chose a casino deck whose self-destructive need to mulligan is abated by free Draw X's and if they find 1 card in the top 13 or 18, you lose; it didn't matter that you existed, cause "Force ur Dredge hate, lol."

In today's league, I had a lot of matches, some won, some lost. Almost all involved good games that required tight play. Except Round 4. I drew one of my maindeck Jailers, but "lol Force, ur Dredge Hate" and he had a full graveyard before I had a second turn. Game two, he mulliganed a few times so I won. Game 3, he didn't mulligan so it was easy to slip around my dredge hate, and outlast my 2 Wastelands since he had four Bazaars. It was the same experience as it always is. When they mulligan to 5 or less, you win fairly easily and when they don't, you generally can't win or even meaningfully participate in the game.

In all of the other matches I won or lost, I felt good about the experience. During the entire Dredge match, even while winning, I thought about what life would be like if I just sold tens of thousands of $ in Magic cards and bought extravagant new music equipment and maybe the biggest bouquet of flowers for mom the world has ever seen.

This is why the deck needs out. As more and more people come to understand how stacked the deck is against them when they encounter Force of Will dredge, I expect the feeling to spread.

@neo_altoid said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

@smmenen I've been playing for a while, but I'm not quite that old! I'd rate some of my favorite metagames as "Right before Khans" (so, Pyromancer Gush existed, but not "Everything is Gush"). Re: your question, I think you'd find a medium high positive correlation, but I could easily be wrong. I think people hate being randomly blown out more than anything else, which is a measure of interactivity, but it's not perfect. Gush era was very interactive, but the fact was that there were a pretty large proportion of games where two sides ground out eachothers cards, then one person drew gush and the game ended.

I guess I'd describe a good metagame as one where you lose by 1-2 cards, rather than 5. For example, you should be able to have the bad beat of "I had EE in hand to beat him, but he drew Wasteland so I died." Or "I just needed a removal spell for his Delver, and I was golden!"--things where the margins between victory and defeat are small. The reward for tight play--picking up slight advantages--hasn't felt as big as it used to be.

@p3temangus That risk is why I don't go and play as much. I think the odds of 0x good games when going to play Vintage is shockingly high. If I play Modern, the odds of 2-3x good matches out of 4 (even if I'm on the losing end) is essentially 100%.

Well said and I entirely agree with how you ranked the three worst offenders--Dredge is the worst, followed by Paraodixcal, followed by Shops.

Typical Dredge match goes like this, an account one of I experienced earlier. Opponent plays Bazaar. "Let's go to g2." Opponent mulls to 3. "Let's go to g3." Opponent plays Bazaar and Forces Dredge hate. "Good games." [and we're done, ie I'm not going to sit here and watch you masturbate].

Bear in mind, I have a reasonable win rate v. Dredge, it's just that my decisions or even existence there have almost nothing to do with the outcome. These are comically low quality experiences and they're increasing in frequency.

Force of Will being now supported by Dredge is an enormous problem for the format. Its prior inability to interact competently on the stack was one of the only plausible redeeming factors that excused its presence.

And the solution will have nothing to do with poring over metagame %'s which has been the wrong lens, but more obviously now that Wizards outright said it's subordinate to other factors, namely promoting our happiness. Inducing players to follow this narrow mathematical analysis has misled the community. Analyzing results %'s and then fabricating an arbitrary system of thresholds to pretend what life would be like if the DCI actually used it is fanciful and absurd.