@Smmenen ...Remind me never to use absolutes in a conversation with a lawyer...
Steve, I've been on the re-restrict Gush line for years, since the Delve spells were printed. It wasn't a position I adopted haphazardly: while trying to beat Gush and Shops (later Eldrazi), I realized that the measures I would take to address one - running more expansive manabases, flexible counterspells, etc. - were directly opposed to those the measures I would take to address the other - in essence, the format was polarized between Gush and Thorn decks with no common ground for other decks to exploit. I've had numerous conversations with people at events and on Facebook on this point. The effect of this polarization is that it limits diversity to the point where other Blue draw engines are not viable - they have fundamental flaws against a third of the field that cannot be overcome through deckbuilding choices. It's why I've been arguing that a Mentor restriction won't undo the dynamics of the Vintage Metagame.
As for using the word "always", the meaning I was going for was that "My argument has always been based on the premise that Shops and Gush fundamentally push the format in two contradictory directions". It wasn't what I typed, but it was what I meant and I regret that I didn't reread my sentence and interpret it literally. It's a learning impediment - an expressive language disorder - that I've been dealing with since kindergarten. It still comes up in Magic events - I've lost several games because I said the exact opposite of what I meant, including losing out on a Mox Jet at Calvin's Invitational by saying I was using colorless instead of Blue mana.
Here's what I dont understand about your argument Chubby and where I think you are simply making a leap in logic that doesn't exist. I'm going to lay this out to make sure I am understanding your position correctly.
You believe gush and shops are the 2 main decks to beat in the meta game right now (agree, btw)
You believe they work on different axis and making a deck that deals with 1 generally precludes dealing with the other (agree)
You believe that restricting gush will open up options in U to give more deck choices to builders (not so sure I agree here)
Do I have those 3 points right? Assuming so here's what I dont get:
You've laid out that there are 2 pillars that have a good tension between each other and your idea to 'fix the problem' (which many disagree if there even is a problem) is to knock out 1 pillar and leave the other standing.
What do you think will happen to Shop decks after gush is restricted? What do you think U will do to replace gush (at this point probably go to PO)? What other decks do you see emerging? I'm here with an open mind to your idea. But this is the leap in the logic I'm having hard time crossing. So convince me. Here's your chance to get somebody on your side.