I'm sure this topic is getting heated elsewhere on the internet, but I think banning from play was an overstep. Why not just say "we aren't printing these anymore." I feel like the cards have become martyred now for all the wrong reasons.

Not to mention, this is such a slippery slope for interpretation with an infinite gradient of offensiveness.

@smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

I have thoroughly enjoyed playing in the Lurrus metagame. I recognize that others haven't, and the numbers certainly warrant a discussion on possible banning, but I think this is premature to pull the trigger.

I think this printing will further magnify the schism between MTGO vs. paper and elite players vs. casual.

Lurrus games can be very deep and nuanced and engaging battles of attrition for elite players. They can also be mind-numbingly repetitive for casuals.

We're right back in the same conundrum that Mentor caused. Each individual game can be deep and awesome, but from an aerial view the format looks horrible. People quit during Mentor. They didn't come back. I know that's not a good reason to make decisions from, but it's definitely relevant.

But this is a card/ability that circumvents restriction.

By that argument, what if Wizards decided to design cards that were horribly unbalanced for modern, standard and draft, but the caveat to the cards were that "you may only play one copy of this card in your deck."

Do the rules of Vintage still bend to this?

This format was defined and built on a foundation of broken cards from 20+ yrs ago.

Why show that same reverence towards a card that is so new, it isn’t even available in paper yet?

I dunno, I don't have an issue with cards getting banned in Vintage. I mean it's pretty ridiculous on the surface for us to expect them to never make certain cards because it might upset the smallest subset of the community.

Restriction is a cool concept in itself, but obviously not a catchall when they explore more and more design space. Almost every single magic card ever printed is "more powerful" in Vintage. I think we need to realign our expectations as Magic gets pushed further and further. If they operate under the handicap of "not breaking Vintage," there isn't very far they can push. On the other hand, almost every problem card in Vintage is a problem card in other formats too, so there's that.

Is a card getting banned before it's officially released that big of a deal?

Great dialogue in here. I personally never understood the aversion to banning a card people have only had a few weeks to play with.

Are your emotional ties to that card so strong in such a short time? Is one card (that was not designed with vintage in mind) being banned really that devastating? I’m guessing it’s more of a fundamental/principals argument, which I really don’t agree with. Up until a few years ago we hadn’t had a creature restricted in vintage since the beginning of vintage. Now we have a few. B&R rules have to change to avoid critical mass.

Regardless, I’m enjoying the dialogue and theory-crafting on the potential for a format with tons of companions. This could harken back to the days of each deck having some personality. It could also be the first time Wizards actually is able to introduce metadeck design and hate, without it backfiring.

That said, 25yrs of light vintage experience tells me that no matter how many companions there are, Vintage will likely quickly settle on the top 2-3 quickly.

Hope we’re all wrong!

First card in awhile (to my knowledge), that people weren’t playing four copies of when it was restricted?

Most decks seemed to be 2-3 copies.

@nedleeds said in Eternal Weekend North America 2019 - Oct 31-Nov 3 - Pittsburgh, PA:

Most people dropped the swiss ones anyone because they were primarily interested in signing up for the next one and earning a bye.

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

What’s the deal with single elimination?

Is it just because they can turn and burn more tourneys, or do people enjoy the knockout format?