None of that, IMO, is more “broken” than Bargain. And it was unrestricted without incident.
Unrestricted Fastbond decks would be weak to lots of strategies, but good against tokens. It would be weak to combo, PO decks etc but good against Xerox, Workshops and some control decks. Seems like a perfect addition to the format IMO.
Fastbond would actually create more interactive games, not less IMO. Unless you don't think that the Lands deck is interactive.
The chance that storm decks use Fastbond when Mox Opal, Grim Monolith, Chrome Mox, etc. are all unrestricted is vanishingly small.
Windfall, on the other hand, would be used by combo decks.
My issue is less with what Aaron said (although that's still concerning) than the breach of decorum/protocol by posting such a sensitive comment on twitter. I think that was really inappropriate. Given his position, it is easily read as an official statement by the DCI, which I think was a gaffe.
The result is that it engenders the worst impulses of the player base, and the tendency towards factionalism by different player cohorts. It's too bad.
We recorded the Dominaria review the week before last, and but did that B&R segment this past monday.
This set is pretty good. Some cards have very high ceilings. Others are merely playable. But this set is intriguing on multiple levels, and continues the long run trend of giving Workshop players more nuanced options. But the counterpoint, and fascinating item, is how Damping Sphere deals with some of the format's most annoying menaces, from Workshop itself to Mental Misstep.
This is a big set review, but it's justified - if not warranted - by the source material. Let us know your thoughts.
Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian discuss the recent Banned and Restricted List announcement, and review Dominaria for Vintage.
Podcast (somanyinsaneplays): Download (Duration: 2:56:13 — 94.3MB)
0:01:00: Team Vintage Super League
0:04:15: Banned and Restricted List Update
0:34:30: Rivals of Ixalan
0:40:00: Dominaria: Nostalgia and Mechanics
0:55:45: Damping Sphere
1:36:00: Squee, the Immortal
1:37:45: Broken Bond
1:41:15: Yargle, Glutton of Urborg
1:42:45: Weatherlight
1:55:00: Karn, Scion of Urza
2:14:45: Mox Amber
2:25:15: Jhoira’s Familiar
2:39:00: Traxos, Scourge of Kroog
2:49:00: Zhalfirin Void
2:50:45: Voltaic Servant
2:53:15: Lich’s Mastery
Total Runtime: 2:56:13
Show Notes
– Dominaria Card Gallery
Contact us at @ManyInsanePlays on Twitter or e-mail us at SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com.
That's not the issue. It would be too cumbersome to track when we haven't figured out any details of the book whatsoever. We don't know how long it's going to be in print, let alone how much the book would be. There are so many details that have to be ironed out that we haven't even begun to discuss.
Stuart sent me some great feedback. If you do get the chapter, be sure to post your thoughts!
This was a humdinger, as they say.
Waiting for the book is understandable, but before everything is compiled, it helps to have had as many eyes on it as possible. I value feedback on each chapter, in addition to bits of minutia or corrections, that will make the compilation stronger. Each chapter is pocket change, but well worth it!
This is a monster. This is double the size of most of the other years in the last decade. But the page length is justified by the content. 2016 was a monster year. And not a happy one. This is not a fun, light-hearted read. 2016 was as turbulent and tumultuous for Vintage players as it was for western nations.
2016 saw the printing of a new raft of Eldrazi, which went largely unnoticed and under the radar in Vintage for months. It saw the restriction of Lodestone Golem, which triggered a fusillade of protest and disagreement. It saw a Vintage Championship rocked with controversy. But also two seasons of Vintage Super League, and big tournaments everywhere, including the European and Asian Vintage Championships.
There was much sturm und drang, and must angst and unhappiness. It's not a pretty story, but it's the unvarnished truth.
Enjoy!
http://www.eternalcentral.com/schools-of-magic-history-of-vintage-2016/
Blurb:
In 2016 an entire class of cards was printed, largely ignored and overlooked, and swept through and utterly infiltrated Vintage, in a testament to the challenges in the science of prediction and forecasting any format. The Eldrazi entered the Vintage plane and took over in 2016, and helping creature new taxing strategies, including one of the most unprecedented ever conceived, an optimally unpowered upper tier competitive strategy – the holy grail of Vintage budget play. Read about the Eldrazi Empire, the restriction of Lodestone Golem, and the heated debates about Gush in the 2016 chapter of the History of Vintage.
P.S.
ONE MORE CHAPTER TO GO! I think you will all be pleased with the final chapter and conclusion, which will be published together.
@naixin said in Workshop is a pillar of vintage -Aaron Forsythe:
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/985674571188588544
I guess shops is here for good. Interesting how he admits it now.
"Factoring community preferences in B&R list management is understandable. But categorical exemptions for 'pillar' status is slippery business. It's hard to see how Gush was less of a pillar than Shop in statistical, 'format uniqueness' or community terms."
Evan Erwin pointed out that the difference between Gush and Shops is $$. I responded:
That's even more dangerous business than determining what is a pillar. Factoring in the secondary market value of cards has an obvious entrenched-card effect, and using it as a factor or tiebreaker has a predictable bias towards status quo.
But even on it's face, restricting Workshop - which I am not convinced needs to happen to rebalance the format - wouldn't cause their value to fall to 0. Dealers I talked to last year projected a 20%ish drop in short run. It's still played in Old School & coveted by collectors.
In short, I largely agree with what Brassman said.
Think about this rationale. Something becomes a pillar through being a prominent part of the format. The idea of exempting "pillars" can too easily become a post hoc justification for dominance, if 'pillar status' is determined by prevalence and tradition. That's very problematic.
If this card sees any decent amount of play, it will certainly undermine the case for restricting Mental Misstep :p
It can't be Misstepped, and makes Misstep wars much more difficult to sustain.
Kevin and I spent a good amount of time on this card in our podcast recording. It's clear that this card has lots of Vintage potential, given that it directly affects the three most prevalent strategic approaches in the format, Shops, PO, and Xerox decks, which are spell dense.
But, I'm also not particularly thrilled with cards designed in this manner. Like Grafdigger's Cage, I feel that cards of this type or class may inadvertently have too much influence on the format, and tend to bend the format away from powerful strategies and tactics that make Vintage appealing and fun. Making Vintage "fair" does not necessarily make it better.
Damping Sphere may well live up to it's name, and be a big party pooper.
Thank you, and thank you to the people who helped crowd source this!
Not along ago, I organized a local Old School event that permittted Magic cards up through Mirage, which came out in the Fall of 1996. Therefore, this was one of the first and rare '96 Old School events held anywhere. In this article, I describe my design of the B&R list and deck design and refinement process, as well as a tournament report.
Definitely some Type 1/ Vintage lore in here. But mostly geared for old school players.
Let me know what you think!
This project was started in 2011, and I finished writing the last chapter this week. There is still a good deal of editing to be done on the final two chapters, but it feels gratifying to have most of the hard work (the research and initial drafting) behind me.
Anyway, Chapter 23 of 25 was published today.
Link: http://www.eternalcentral.com/schools-of-magic-history-of-vintage-2015/
Blurb: 2015 was a year packed with changes in of the History of Vintage. Large tournaments around the globe and the significant rise in Vintage players on the Magic Online platform provided ample proving grounds for an increasingly fast changing format. Read all about the restrictions, unrestrictions, and format-defining new printings in Khans block and Magic Origins that set the format on a collision course.
Excerpt is in the link.
@protoaddct said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I am not totally against using it, I am suggesting guardrails on it's usage in discourse that was not intended to be a hard analytical look at a topic.
Well, that's not what you said. You said that data analysis should not be permitted in B&R discussion threads. You said "I think data driven discussions are healthy and have a place, but I don't think you can have them in the same thread."
That's a pretty extreme position given the centrality of the role of data in DCI B&R decision making, which you seemed to be pretty ill-informed of until now.
In any case, no one ever said that the DCI ONLY uses data to make it's decisions - but it is absolutely the case that a good deal of what you said wasn't true. Data plays a significant role in the DCI's decision matrix.
To take an extreme case, if there was a deck that was consistently 60% of Top 8s for more than 6 months, and also had a 60% win percentage, is there any doubt that that deck would have a restriction, regardless of any of the other factors you mentioned? There is no doubt in my mind.
It's like coming into a post about which classical artist was more relevant to a person, Da Vinci or Michelangelo, and having someone walk into that post and say that Da Vinci had more popularly known pieces and is thus the definitive correct answer.
Magic is a game with performance metrics. Artwork is not. We can measure market share of Magic decks just like we can measure corporation's market performance and market share or like we can measure sports teams performance and dominance. It's not the same thing as saying that a poem or sculpture is objectively superior to another.
Saying that a deck is dominant in Magic and needs DCI intervention is absolutely no different than the US government's argument in 1999 that Microsoft was a monopoly and needed antitrust intervention for the same reason. It's a policy choice based upon market dynamics. It's not about right/wrong or beauty and aesthetics. It's about consistent application of a policy based upon precedent, past policy decisions grounded in certain policy values, like promoting a diverse format and maintaining competitive balance.
I truly believe that workshops (and some other cards but most egregiously workshops) is the reason that the format has X amount of viable archetypes and not X+Y. Tournament win percentages and representation will not show you what decks are not viable to bring to an event, just how the things that were there did.
Actually, the main point of Chubbyrain's post was to show that Workshops are too good in this environment. I agree with him. It sounds like you do too.
@protoaddct said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
@smmenen said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Disagree completely.
No offense, but it sounds like you are not well informed on the role that data plays in this debate.
This debate has been going on for some time and has a much wider breadth than peoples implementation and interpretation of data alone
The issue, as you framed it, is whether data analysis has a role in Vintage Restricted list debates. Your position is that it should not. Mine is that it should.
Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of how data has been used in these debate, by the community and DCI.
The explanation is simple: when a deck become too large a part of the Top 8 metagame, it begins to dominate the format. Note: we don't care about metagame %. A deck could be 80% of the metagame, but 0% of Top 8s and sub 30% win percentage. What matters is win percentage and Top 8 penetration.
This is not true at all. If a rouge deck has 3 seats in 2 major events and just happens to luck its way into top 8s from favorable pairings, it would have disproportionate representation in said top brackets. I doubt that alone would be enough.
Again, you are displaying your ignorance.
A single Top 8 does not and has never prompted the DCI to restrict a card. When I say "% of Top 8s" we are talking about large samples with many Top 8s included. I simply do not know how this could have escaped you.
This debate was kick -started by Chubby Rain's post, which aggregated many Top 8s from Vintage Challenges. But the gold standard is work like this: http://themanadrain.com/topic/476/vintage-metagame-report-april-to-june
In that post, Matt aggregated THIRTY ONE different Top 8s.
So, No, a "rouge" deck (it's spelled "rogue" by the way) could not luck it's way into a disproportionate share of Top 8s. That's why we NEVER look at a single Top 8 result. We aggregate Top 8s into as many results as we can, and we look and track the result over time. In other words, we try to make sure that the deck is dominate over many months and multiple tournament regions before the DCI takes restriction.
And yes, the DCI based it's restrictions of Mentor and Thorn on Top 8 data, as I just showed. And it's done this before.
Likewise if a deck is completely over represented in a field, mathematically the percentage it would place in top 8 would be larger and its win rate would steer closer and closer to 50%, but once again I doubt that alone would be enough to merit action alone.
Think again: The DCI just took action in Standard because of Win Percentages.
Read carefully.
"Fun" is not entirely subjective. The core element to fun is meaningful choice: meaningful deck choice, meaningful game choices, etc. To have fun, players need meaningful choice among decks. This requires a diversity of decks. When a deck is monopolistic or dominant, there is no meaningful deck choice. Therefore, data is integral to B&R discussions. It's the main purpose of them.
Fun is the closet thing I can think of to a purely subjective thing.
I said NOT ENTIRELY. Which means, of course, there is a large subjective element.
But there is also a large consensus that certain formats are not fun. To wit: Format's dominated by a single deck are not fun. "Meaningful choice" is a necessary element to a fun Magic format, by broad consensus.
The analog is anti-trust law. To keep markets competitive, the government prosecutes harmful monopolies. In Magic, the DCI bans or restricts cards from dominant decks.
My grandmother would mindlessly pump nickels into a slot machine in Atlantic City week after week. No choice, No decision making, basically no agency at all except to decide to do it or not to do it, yet to her it was completely fun, while to me I cannot think of much anything I would want to do less.
Magic is not slots. There are different standards for fun in Magic than slots.
If the DCI uses Top 8 data to make restrictions, why the hell would the Vintage community separate data and B&R restriction discussion? That makes absolutely no sense.
Because some of us do not agree with this methodology.
It doesn't matter whether we agree or not. It's the methodology that the DCI uses, and IMO justifiably so. So, asking ourselves not to speak in the vernacular of the DCI is foolish, and a kind of epistemology of ignorance.
Data tells us the results of what is, not the results of what could be, and for some of us that is more relevant. I am of the camp that would much rather see a large restricted list that provides more opportunity for viable brewing in the format. My ideal vintage is a format that has as many decks as modern, a price point for some lists with a low end similar to standard, and vintages depth of in game decision making. I think restricting shops would help get us closer to that paradigm, which is what I would like to subjectively see. The data bears out the fact that the format is not what I want it to be more so than anything else.
So, if the data tells you that, then why are you against using data in B&R list discussion? That seems ridiculous given what you just said. Your posts are incoherent and barely make sense. I'm surprised, because I haven't seen or don't recall this kind of behavior from you before.
@protoaddct said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
@smmenen said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
In summary, I think that 1) data matters, and 2) there are many people of good faith whose opinions are shaped by the story the data tells, for and against, restrictions, 3) and it's ok to use conventions or folk taxonomies as long as most people understand the meaning.
If the format was perfectly, mathmatically balanced ala rock paper scissors, and that was vetted out by the data, it would be bad for the game because people would get bored of it.
But even in that perfectly balanced format, there are better and worst scenarios. If there were 3 decks and each deck had a win ratio of 100% againt it's good matchup and a 0% against its bad matchup, this would be a worse set up than one where the fabored match was 75%/25%.
I only point this out because datas correlation to fun and feelings is loose at best. Some of the most broken formats are fun for some. No amount of data will convince me that workshops should not be on the restricted list, because my issue with it has nothing to do with win rate or representation.
I think data driven discussions are healthy and have a place, but I don't think you can have them in the same thread. I also think BR dicussions are healthy for the forum and important for the player base.
Disagree completely.
No offense, but it sounds like you are not well informed on the role that data plays in this debate.
There are well established benchmarks for Top 8 metagame penetration and win percentages that trigger restrictions.
Thirst for Knowledge was restricted when it was in 45% of Top 8 decklists. (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17460_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Most_Dominant_Engine_in_Vintage_History_The_MarchApril_Vintage_Metagame_Report.html)
Treasure Cruise was restricted when it was 35% of Top 8 decklists.
Dig was restricted when it was 44% of Top 8 decklists.
And so on.
The explanation is simple: when a deck become too large a part of the Top 8 metagame, it begins to dominate the format. Note: we don't care about metagame %. A deck could be 80% of the metagame, but 0% of Top 8s and sub 30% win percentage. What matters is win percentage and Top 8 penetration.
The reason this matters is follows:
"Fun" is not entirely subjective. The core element to fun is meaningful choice: meaningful deck choice, meaningful game choices, etc. To have fun, players need meaningful choice among decks. This requires a diversity of decks. When a deck is monopolistic or dominant, there is no meaningful deck choice. Therefore, data is integral to B&R discussions. It's the main purpose of them.
Wizards has said this explicitly on multiple occasions. Most recently, it said "Data from twelve recent Vintage Challenges reinforces this, with 40% of the Top 8 decks being Shops and 30% being Mentor." This, in it's explanation of restricting Thorn and Mentor (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/august-28-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-08-28)
If the DCI uses Top 8 data to make restrictions, why the hell would the Vintage community separate data and B&R restriction discussion? That makes absolutely no sense.
@brass-man said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I have literally never seen someone change their mind on this site after being presented with data. I have seen time and time again people publicly state their opinion about what should change, then react to data being posted with what a suprise! this confirms my opinion!
I don't think this is actually true. I think there have been many occasions in which data presentation has actually shifted people's minds.
To provide but one example, there was a period a few years ago, where players were calling for the restriction of Dark Petition (along with Gush and Lodestone Golem). When it was pointed out that Dark Petition was under 5% of Top 8s, genuinely some people who were of that opinion shifted their views.
Data actually matters. While there may be some obstinate people who don't care if a deck is 50% of Top 8s, for most people, if you make the case that a card/deck/engine is above a historical baseline, that is actually a rational argument for restriction.
Yes, there are many ways to slice up the data. You can organize data by card, deck, archetype, engine or pillar. You can organize data in many different ways. But to say that the organization of data is a post-hoc rationalization I think is unfair to people who collect data, starting with Phil Stanton, them myself, then Matt Elias, then Kevin and myself, and now, Kevin, myself, Matt and Ryan (who in particular, have been doing a tremendous amount of work for the last 2 years).
This is the kind of behind the scenes work Kevin and I do to prep for our podcast (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g0IdZTwI35NtlCU6kSAOBUKrKOLVclXZ2usESs9PaZI/edit#gid=0) I've never published that before, because we summarize it in our podcasts. But we don't do that work because we have a predetermined concept of what needs to change. Rather, we let the data guide our opinions.
The kinds of short-hand heuristics that Matt and Ryan use are well-worn and widely accepted within the Vintage community. It's fine to suggest improvements or even alternatives to their classification approach. But from a hermeneutical perspective, what matters most is that everyone within the hermenuetic circle understands the meaning. And they do. Vintage players know what is meant by Xerox without having to scientifically define it.
In summary, I think that 1) data matters, and 2) there are many people of good faith whose opinions are shaped by the story the data tells, for and against, restrictions, 3) and it's ok to use conventions or folk taxonomies as long as most people understand the meaning.
@brass-man said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
@smmenen I feel like you're so close ... Surely different sets of classification are better for different purposes,
That's almost exactly what I already said a few posts up. I wrote:
"So the question is which classification scheme is best for which purposes."
And I've already stated what those purposes are: 1) understanding the format for B&R list management, and 2) understanding the metagame to identify niches to exploit or attack for deck design purposes, among other purposes.
I have no problem with people using different taxonomies. I was simply objecting to an approach which sweeps Xerox and Landstill strategies together because they are "blue" for any of these purposes.
@vaughnbros said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Yes, Matt and Ryan previously broke out the other archetypes into different categories that become too small of a sample to really useful from a statistical standpoint, but much more informative as to what was happening.
Now, we are seeing Matt present data that doesn't have any breakdowns (except for Blue decks) in a restricted list discussion seemingly as an effort to hit cards in Workshops and push blame away from cards like Misstep.
@vaughnbros said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Yes, Matt and Ryan previously broke out the other archetypes into different categories that become too small of a sample to really useful from a statistical standpoint, but much more informative as to what was happening.
Now, we are seeing Matt present data that doesn't have any breakdowns (except for Blue decks) in a restricted list discussion seemingly as an effort to hit cards in Workshops and push blame away from cards like Misstep.
They haven't been entirely consistent over time. But neither was I. Compare:
and
http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-2011-q2-vintage-metagame-report/
I take the layered approach of using multiple simultaneous categories. I organize by tactic, archetype, and engine, at various times.
Well, Ryan and Matt have been classifying Vintage decks since January of 2016 on this forum, and rather effectively to my mind.
In that time, they've covered every single Vintage Power Nine Challenge since January of 2016, and done the same analysis for NYSEs, Waterburys, Vintage Championships, and even Eternal Extravaganzas.
In that time, their classification system, which borrows from and expands on classification I conducted going back to the mid-2000s, has evolved. What was one called "Gush" decks is not simply called "Xerox," which is just a synonym in my view for Comer School decks.
So, your question isn't really a hypothetical in the sense that we have ample (and I mean AMPLE) examples of data organization to look at and see if you think they are effective.
I mean, take a look at judge for yourself:
http://themanadrain.com/topic/476/vintage-metagame-report-april-to-june/
http://themanadrain.com/topic/548/8-13-tmd-open-17-complete-metagame-report
http://themanadrain.com/topic/354/nyse-4-complete-metagame-report
I have spent countless hours debating and discussion taxonomies in this forum and its predecessor.
Over that time, I've always stressed that most taxonomies tend towards what are known as Folk Taxonomies. Even those that purport or pretend to be framed in terms of science, we all know how Linneaus Taxonomy preceded the discovery of DNA and the genome.
Human beings are natural classifiers. There is an entire branch of human psychology devoted to how this occurs. Most taxonomies are folk taxonomies that work roughly as intended (e.g. avoid snakes with triangular shaped heads or certain fungi or colored berries), but are not precise or scientific.
Therefore, Taxonomies are only useful to the degree to which they are practically applied. Chubby Rain made the point that we need taxonomies to organize decks and tactics in a way that can inform B&R list policy. I agree. But I also tried to explain that we need them as a way to gain strategic insight, both to guide our play and our design.
Consider the famous strategy article "Who's The Beatdown?" by Mike Flores. The central insight and entire value of that article is utterly dependent upon dividing the world into "Beatdown" and "Control." If you reject that premise, then the article is incoherent epistemologically.
Yes, I agree that all taxonomies provide insight and lose information. I already said this: As Gademer and others in the hermeneutical tradition say: That which reveals also conceals. This means that every way of organizing information also masks other insights. Every metaphor that reveals masks some other aspect of reality. That's a given. So the question is which classification scheme is best for which purposes.
IMO, classifying decks as "blue" is misleading more often than not, for any of these purposes.