I still don't see what would be the problem with printing a dual land that also provides C mana (like "painlands" without the pain)? That kind of card would function the same way that duals always have until a year or so ago, but nowadays with C mana, it's a different card. This wouldn't unbalance Magic, it would help a few pillars get better (including budget), doesn't break the RL (if they are committed to C as a "sixth color"), and is even great for casual formats like Cube. Print them in a Conspiracy or Eternal set to keep them out of the other formats.

The only reason not to do this, is because they don't want to crash the dual land market. If card value is the central issue, just announce them a few years in advance. People have time to unload their duals at a fair price, casuals and cubists will still be interested in traditional duals, and nobody can claim loss of investment, as they had adequate time to unload.

It's not breaking the RL if you make a strictly better card, right?

Disclaimer: I personally don't care if they reprint duals or not, but for the interest of this thread I am assuming they could.

I think this whole debate basically comes down to dual lands, right? I don't think too many of us expect them to re-release Moxes or P9, so duals are about the only thing that would make most people in favor of RL-disruption, happy. So what about taking this discussion in an opposite direction? I'm sure this has been said countless times somewhere else, but what about making cards that are better than the RL cards??

You could easily print a new dual land that says:

Deserted Continent
Land Type Continent: Plains Mountain

T: Add 1C to your mana pool
T: Add R to your mana pool
T: Add W to your mana pool

If you control any non-Continent land that can product multiple colors of mana, that land produces C instead. (or produces zero, or taps, or whatever)

The biggest problem with trying to fix dual lands, is the fear that if you make them equal to or better than the original dual lands, people will play them WITH dual lands. That doesn't fix the problem. I'm not an expert on templating by any means, but this is more elegant way of stating "cannot be in play with a dual land." Or at least working in that direction.

There really isn't any other way to reprint duals, without crashing the dual market.
1.) If you make an equal dual, you break the RL.
2.) If you make a sub-optimal dual, you haven't fixed the quality gap problem.

The only solution (IF they want a solution) is to make a better dual or a dual that needs to operate independently from other duals (like Gates, or viable tri-lands). Any other option or concession, once again introduces the have/have nots. You need to make a dual that people will play with equally or differently.

Previous to "colorless mana", [a Continent] wouldn't even function differently than an original dual land. It's almost strictly better, and yet doesn't really unbalance the game that much. It obviously makes playing certain eldrazi decks way easier, but that's not necessary a bad thing, is it? It's also great for cube and casual in that it opens up a lot more colorless space.

That said, this is often a fruitless debate because we're not even sure Wizards wants quality dual lands in Magic, or wants to disrupt the RL list. There are far better design minds tackling this problem than us. It's just one of those early mistakes they probably wish they could make go away. It would be great for Vintage/Legacy/Casual though!!

Wow, so much for getting rid of locks! I could see this bringing Stax back from the dead (in addition to there being a lot less tokens running around now (presumably)). Plays very nicely with Revoker. Can allow Cotv to be more complex. And really helps with a Stax decision tree of when to go for the Crucible lock, aggro, or run out the Smokestack. I hate cards that let you see your opponent's hand, but this certainly improves on the currently playable Pithing Needle. Only downside is shops decks usually want a card that does two things (has a body or slows down multiple spells). This might be a little too slow for maindeck shops. But looking forward to testing it!

If nothing else, blue decks might have to mix up their fetchland assortment a little more thoroughly. It's certainly an "unfun" card.

Wow, this is like the most articulate DCI response ever. Full explanations for their decisions. Careful discussion of alternative options. Wow! I'm going to have to give a hand clap here. This is a DCI I can get behind! From their explanation, it seems like they really thought this through from multiple perspectives.

Found it interesting regarding shops that they were okay with the explosive mana, powerful threats, but chose to focus on the "artifacts that disrupt opponent's ability cast spells..."

My only request for future B/R is that they create a "watch list." They appear to want to preserve Mishra Workshop in Vintage, for now but it would be nice to see if they consider it a strong candidate for restriction. They didn't mention MW's unbalancing effect.

I'm happy with the results, and they make sense. Wizards will continue to print strong and stronger artifacts (and the fact that those artifacts still fail to penetrate other formats, means they will likely get stronger). Workshop isn't out of the woods by any stretch. I just hope it goes in the more complex direction, instead of faster aggro direction, that seems doubtful though.

While I'm sure people might not agree with the decision, I applaud their handling of it! Great job DCI.

@brass-man said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

When I combine this with my Venn Diagram comment, I wonder ... on TMD, on Facebook, amongst my friends, the most common chorus is that vintage is terrible and vintage is dying. But if people are saying this while Vintage is objectively growing, what's the implication? Is this small subsection of the community the only group that knows the truth? Or (which seems more likely) are we just becoming less and less informed, and less and less relevant, as we get further and further removed from the average vintage player?

I'd say it began with the VSL. From all outward appearances, it appeared that the VSL/Pros had influence over the DCI (whether true or not). I think that made the average Vintage player feel like the DCI had been compromised, hence everyone feeling the need to raise their voice.

Players have been complaining about the B/R since the beginning of Magic. Whenever the DCI made a mistake, we assumed it was out of ignorance of the format. Nowadays, some people feel like policy could be directed by biases, if they were prominent enough.

It was easier when nobody thought their opinion mattered :)

I would also say I am sure there is a healthy dose of echo chamber at play. If all you hear is how bad Vintage is, people will begin to repeat it. I personally think it was better a few years ago, but that's because it was really, really good! Ebbs and Flows. Ebbs and Flows

But in all honesty, there has never been a better time to be a Vintage Player when you consider all the resources, opportunities, and tools. Not to mention ALL THE NEW CARDS!

@krazug said in [HOU] Hollow One:

Has anyone tried such a Survival/Bazaar list in the last two months?

Getting close....http://themanadrain.com/topic/1441/8-19-17-team-serious-open-proxy-vintage-at-kidforce-collectibles-berea-oh-results

@brass-man said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

@joshuabrooks is attendance down? It doesn't seem that way to me, but I don't think we've been tracking that information the same way we've been tracking everything else. I certainly haven't been.

Polls and articles and interviews add to my personal confusion, because it feels more and more that the overlap in the Venn diagram of "Vintage Players" and "TMD users" is steadily shrinking. This alone has left me far more aimless than the metagame has.

I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying attendance was down, was stating that no matter how much data we analyze, or how much theorycrafting we do, tournament attendance is the final arbitrator.

The purpose of the original post was pretty simple. There's been a lot of moaning the last few months (years) about the format, this is nothing new. However, once I started to hear the concept of restricting Mishra's Workshop being thrown around very flippantly, it gave me a moment's pause. I wanted to start a thread that would address whether or not we should protect iconic or long-term format cards at the expense of newer cards? I obviously understand that someday Workshop might need to be restricted, but I would hate for it to be a result of a new card like Hangarback or Ballista or because Ravager came back into the spotlight. I personally think iconic cards are important. Others do not. And I think Workshop is a unique case in that restricting it is much different than restricting a Treasure Cruise or Dig (both of which can be found rather easily through manipulation). Shops players don't have that.

I did like your comment about the Venn Diagram, however, and I think it worth a discussion. The way I see it, TMD attracts about seven different kinds of users (note: this hasn't been run by the marketing department ;)

1.) The Pros- People on the VSL, Top Vintage Champs finishers, Top MTGO players, the top 1%.
2.) The Names- Prominent players. People who dominate their local scene, podcasters, writers, etc. People with recognizable names in Magic.
3.) The Regulars- People that consistently play in tournaments, occasionally Top 8. Play lots of matches. Better than average
4.) The Elders- People who have low investment in the game (ex: bought their Lotus 20yrs ago), and still play because they have little invested and still like it. Might play once a year, or once a week, but don't take it too seriously.
5.) The Rogues- People who like to try new decks or their primary focus is enjoyment, not winning.
6.) The Shooting Stars- People that come into the format, power-up quickly (ex: in paper 1-2yrs), play a ton of matches over a few years, do well, and then burn out, quit, or need the funds for something else and sell out.
7.) The Theoreticals- People that do not actively play paper or MTGO (or don't have access), but have vocal opinions, or enjoy the theoretical and discussion side of Magic.

I understand this isn't comprehensive, and I just threw this together on the fly, but I think most people fall into one of those categories. I know I personally float in between a few of them during different life stages.

The issue that TMD faces is that an undesirable spiral can occur if there is too much untested theoretical, which turns off the prominent players, and then this perpetuates its own problem. I personally can't play more than 1-2 times a month right now, so my voice needs to become more diminished (though I felt a defense for a 20yr old card a worthy thread).

I guess my point is: The Pros, the Names, and the Regular's opinions should be weighted more heavily, because they are the ones that will keep Vintage moving forward. Casuals will likely play no matter what (though might drift away). Shooting Stars will come in and out. And Theoreticals, unless they gravitate to a different category, can have a negative effect on the game if they are loud enough. I'm confident there are a TON of people on TMD that have never actually played or played against a current Mentor/Shops deck, and yet have very strong opinions. This is a bad thing.

That said, Magic players inherently have biases (even Pro Players!), and I think that's why so many people feel compelled to push back against the more prominent voices. We all have our ideals of what Magic should be, but I guess at the end of the day, we need to trust Wizard's judgment, as there really isn't any other option. Their lack of transparency and guidelines for decision is what makes it so difficult.

Sorry for the sidebar @Brass-Man , but I think the Venn Diagram is a worthy frustration for you.

(After-comment): There's just no good solution. Restriction adds more variance to the game ("I would have beat him, but he drew his _______") and that's never a good thing. Which is why I'd prefer to nix cards that might just fade away, over iconic stalwarts.

@brass-man said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

@joshuabrooks said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

I think the biggest issue is that restricting Mishra's Workshop, is in many eyes, the same as banning Mishra's Workshop.

If this were true, what's the implication? A lot of players would enjoy the format more with a Workshop ban. Have we made the slightest attempt as a community to figure out which group is larger?

I'm not sure how you do that, as we've had numerous polls, articles, interviews, and analysis. Are we any closer to understanding what Vintage needs right now? To me, it feels like we are more entrenched in our positions (much like politics today) than ever. We can't even agree that if something needs to be fixed? Attendance is the only honest metric.

That said, I think a lot of players feel the DCI has been compromised. This makes accepting their decisions a little tougher, and hence the more outrageous opinions.

But you might be right. I haven't tested Shopless-Shops. If the DCI thinks it has to go, I'll accept the decision, and at the end of the day, I'm not a Face of Vintage player. I just hope their decision comes from the right place.

@13nova said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

The sky didn't fall when Brainstorm was restricted.

The sky won't fall when Workshop is.

You might be right, but I can't predict hypothetical metagames. I will say that I am not sure if Brainstorm is an equivalent comparison to Workshop. I personally believe most Shops players could eventually stomach almost any restriction to Shops, except Workshop. But Brainstorm was what, the fifth most endearing blue card at the time? And there are so many substitutive cards for Brainstorm that it's not even a core card anymore.

Regardless, I'll agree that Vintage can "survive" anything, but there is a lot more competition for that audience. Whether it's families, careers, or middle age, these decisions can't be taken lightly. In fact, if Champs doesn't move back to the east coast soon, I'd argue that the Old School tournament might begin to become almost as big of a draw. A lot of the qualities of Old School, are what used to be prime motivators for Vintage players. But I know you hate Old School, so I won't belabor the point. I, like you, would prefer Vintage to thrive. It's a format that's been on fumes many times in the past and yet somehow has survived this long. I dream of being able to play in Champs with my daughters someday, or at least the option, so we both want the same thing. I'd just hate to see Vintage get blended into the MTGO world and look the same as every other format, except for a handful of cards. I've always enjoyed the uniqeness and rogueish qualities of being a Vintage player.

I don't know what the right answer is (and neither does anybody else). There are too many factors to account for. The DCI has to try things, and either they are embraced or rejected, but nobody knows what that magic formula for popularity is. I merely started a thread asking that people consider preserving what I consider a key card for Vintage, at the cost of lesser, substitutive cards (assuming something has to happen that is).

I would argue, however, that Shops players are among the most open minded Vintage players to change. Even two years ago they weren't all playing 8 spheres. Some would love to go back to Terra Nova, or Martello, or Stax. But I am guessing they just want to do it with Workshops.

I think the biggest issue is that restricting Mishra's Workshop, is in many eyes, the same as banning Mishra's Workshop.

@13nova said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

So your ENTIRE argument isnt even play based?

Are you finding there to be a shortage of play-based arguments regarding Workshops on the internet?