Balancing Vintage: the Banned/Restricted List

[Yare]

This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Balancing Vintage: the Banned/Restricted List. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.

[ak1200]

A very well thought out article! I think you did a great job commenting on the state of the vintage banned and restricted list (and touching on the state of vintage itself), and the timming of the article (a few days before the Sept 1st B/R update) was perfect.

I would have enjoyed seeing you comment on what cards you thought should go on or come off the B/R list and have you support your choices with your five values you had listed. But then again, if you had named ANY cards I'm sure you would have had hundreds of people arguing that restricting/unrestristing "card X" would be the worst idea ever...

Overall great job and hopefully we'll get more great type one articles from you in the (near) future...

[Yare]

Originally Posted by ak1200

I would have enjoyed seeing you comment on what cards you thought should go on or come off the B/R list and have you support your choices with your five values you had listed. But then again, if you had named ANY cards I'm sure you would have had hundreds of people arguing that restricting/unrestristing "card X" would be the worst idea ever...

Overall great job and hopefully we'll get more great type one articles from you in the (near) future...

Thanks for bringing this up. I want to go ahead and get this out there:

I chose to exclude a discussion of current potential changes for two reasons:
1. To try to make the article more "timeless" rather than specific to the current metagame.
2. To avoid the focus of the article being "I agree/disagree with your recommendation with respect to Brainstorm/Flash/Gush/Rabid Wombat", which would inevitably occur if I made substantive policy recommendations.

Regarding writing more vintage articles in the near future...well this whole law school thing is taking up most of my time, so articles will unfortunately be on a very sporadic basis with me. I'm glad you liked the article though. Thanks.

[Frenger]

I really enjoyed the article. It was some nice insight on how the b/r lists work and why they are there.

I'm glad you didn't include your opinions on what cards should or shouldn't be banned/restricted. It was nice to read a neutral article and get nothing but information.

I'm looking foreward to your next one!

[FoxBat]

I thought that the reason wiz absolutely avoids banning if they can is to differentiate from legacy. Vintage is in theory "the format you can use all your cards in" because such a format "needs" to exist. Legacy is the eternal format that bans cards for the sake of some semblance of balance.

[Chris The Avatar]

I enjoyed reading your article, as a vintage player I agree with some of the topic however, I think in short vintage is what it is, there has to be one format that is completely open. No deck is unbeatable, a lot of vintage boils down to drawing period. Interesting timing for this article though, my friends and I have been playing magic since about 1995 and we recently began playing a "new (old)" format to remedy some of the issues you speak of. I call the format "Classic" which includes:

Unlimited, Arabians, Antiquities, Legends, Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, Homelands Alliances.

Fun to play, good simple games where creatures see more play and decks see less combos.

What changed what vintage would become forever was Urza's block obviously. It wasnt all bad though, while playing 'classic', I dont think the format could be played for a long period of time because it is some what of a dry format. Urzas block really lit vintage up with new ideas and brought new combos into the game.

I happen to think restricting cards are good for the game, it makes it more dynamic and interesting something I would like to see in the newer formats (Granted in T1/Vintage, you have such a large core of great cards that are restricted that they are all must plays thus making decks less diverse).

Restrictions allow them to make powerful cards and control their power level some other way than watering a card down, you just have to control how many power houses you put into one format for each color, otherwise you end up with vintage again (Something that makes classic interesting as a format).

[KingOfGlenBurnie]

While it wasn't actually banned, I would point to the errataing of Time Vault as being a perfect example of this sort of thing, as prices plummeted upon the announcement. Mishra's Workshop, without a doubt, is the poster child for the static B/R. Once it became unrestricted, the DCI basically gave up all power to restrict it again because of the secondary market. Yes, they'll tell you this isn't a concern, but it is, for better or for worse. If for no other reason, Wizards has a vested interest in keeping their players happy, and ruining the value of Mishra's Workshop is not a part of that strategy.

I feel that this paragraph contradicts itself. If the secondary market is so important to WoTC, then why did they issue the Time Vault errata? Plus, when it comes down to it, banning Mishra's Workshop would irritate only a tiny portion of the entire Magic community - a portion that generally only spend money in the secondary market anyway. Sure, they want to keep as many people happy as they can, but the health of the game is much more important in the long term.

KoGB

[Yare]

Originally Posted by KingOfGlenBurnie

I feel that this paragraph contradicts itself. If the secondary market is so important to WoTC, then why did they issue the Time Vault errata? Plus, when it comes down to it, banning Mishra's Workshop would irritate only a tiny portion of the entire Magic community - a portion that generally only spend money in the secondary market anyway. Sure, they want to keep as many people happy as they can, but the health of the game is much more important in the long term.

KoGB

The community WAS outraged. While the reasons Wizards did it will vary, in my opinion it really hinges on two things:

1. Wizards didn't want Time Vault to have time counters in order to prevent it from interacting with Time Spiral block cards.
2. Mark Gottlieb's purported belief in what Time Vault should read.

Without a doubt, this event was the worst interaction that Wizards has had with the Vintage community in a very long time. So, in short, had Wizards foreseen the outrage, they wouldn't have done it. It was just a mistake. The reason it hasn't been changed back, other than the idea that the current wording is in fact correct, has mostly to do with Mark Gottlieb.

Regarding Mishra's Workshop, it's only legal in Vintage, so that's really the only "integrity of the game" that this card is concerned with. And I'll agree that the health of the game is more important in the long term than the value of the card. My statement was about the rationale used by the sacred cow and static B/R camps; it was not what I necessarily believed should be done with Mishra's Workshop.

[Binary]

Originally Posted by KingOfGlenBurnie

Plus, when it comes down to it, banning Mishra's Workshop would irritate only a tiny portion of the entire Magic community - a portion that generally only spend money in the secondary market anyway. Sure, they want to keep as many people happy as they can, but the health of the game is much more important in the long term.

KoGB

You seem to be implying that banning Mishra's Workshop would somehow contribute to "the health of the game."

Seeing as how the decks using Mishra's Workshop have generally fallen out of the top tier in the last 9 months or so, I fail to see how banning (or even restricting) Workshop would do anything other than send a small but vocal number of players up in arms.

[Hyrrn]

Even if both players have access to a very good strategy, one player gets to use that strategy first in Magic. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of turn-based games is sometimes the fact that there are turns; one player gets to go, then the other. While in chess this advantage is relatively trifling, in Magic (and especially in Vintage), the advantage provided by going first cannot be underestimated.

I enjoyed the article, I just wanted to say that in high-level chess play, typically players play large sets of games (12ish) with alternating colors. The white player is trying to win, but the black player is playing for a draw. The 'going first' advantage is so great that a great amount of points are given for a black victory over white, whereas white victory has a similar point value to black draw.

~Hyrrn

[Yare]

Originally Posted by Hyrrn

I enjoyed the article, I just wanted to say that in high-level chess play, typically players play large sets of games (12ish) with alternating colors. The white player is trying to win, but the black player is playing for a draw. The 'going first' advantage is so great that a great amount of points are given for a black victory over white, whereas white victory has a similar point value to black draw.

~Hyrrn

Having played chess competitively, I'm gonna have to ask for a source, primarily about the scoring part. While I understand that being white or black does have a huge impact on one's play, I don't know that the disparity exists that you suggest.

[KingOfGlenBurnie]

Originally Posted by Binary

You seem to be implying that banning Mishra's Workshop would somehow contribute to "the health of the game."

No, not at all. I was only continuing to use it as an example, as that was the card that Yare had used in his.

Originally Posted by Yare

So, in short, had Wizards foreseen the outrage, they wouldn't have done it. It was just a mistake. The reason it hasn't been changed back, other than the idea that the current wording is in fact correct, has mostly to do with Mark Gottlieb.

I'm not so sure foreseeing the outrage would have stopped them, as I suspect the goal of matching "printed intent" was much more important.

-KoGB

[epeeguy]

Originally Posted by Yare

1. Wizards didn't want Time Vault to have time counters in order to prevent it from interacting with Time Spiral block cards.
2. Mark Gottlieb's purported belief in what Time Vault should read.

Originally Posted by Yare

The reason it hasn't been changed back, other than the idea that the current wording is in fact correct, has mostly to do with Mark Gottlieb.

Is there something you can quote that supports these claims? To my knowledge, this kind of decision is the result of the entire Rules Team, which is comprised of several individuals. While Mark may be the public face of this decision (amongst others), it seems to me that it wouldn't have been done if there hadn't been support from a number of individuals within Wizards to do it. And even if the Rules Team thought it was worthwhile, I don't know that they could just do it without the support of other elements of WotC.

I'm not defending the decision (except that I'm glad the entire "Skip a turn." as a cost was fixed), just that it seems to be putting a lot of "blame" on one person. Especially as it was unlikely that is was only one person's decision, and required support from several parties. Even the recent changes in errata can't just be Mark's responsibility either.

That being said, it is an interesting argument on the Banned/Restricted list in Vintage. And I think you did a good job of writing on the subject. I like the current approach, but it is interesting to see what could happen if they changed the criteria on what is banned. Especially if it opens up the format. Nicely done.

[Yare]

Originally Posted by KingOfGlenBurnie

I'm not so sure foreseeing the outrage would have stopped them, as I suspect the goal of matching "printed intent" was much more important.

I wrote an entire article on "printed intent" here: Errata Havoc.

Originally Posted by epeeguy

Is there something you can quote that supports these claims?

This is a reasonable request and I understand the gravity of your request. In particular, I would point to these places:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...skwizards/0406 (April 26 is the original explanation)
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=28119.130 (replies 128 and 130)
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=28104.0 (Randy Buehler talks here, and it suggests it's not Gottlieb alone, but Gottlieb is THE rules manager, so go figure).

So, perhaps, there is a question as to the validity of the quotes. However, based upon the information contained in the statements (primarily knowing the upcoming errata for Darkpact, something nobody could have known) I'm inclined to believe the statements are accurate. You'll just have to take me for my word that I verified this when the change occurred. If nothing else, Mark Gottlieb is the face of these issues and clearly is the one making the biggest calls.

That being said, it is an interesting argument on the Banned/Restricted list in Vintage. And I think you did a good job of writing on the subject. I like the current approach, but it is interesting to see what could happen if they changed the criteria on what is banned. Especially if it opens up the format. Nicely done.

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

[epeeguy]

Originally Posted by Yare

If nothing else, Mark Gottlieb is the face of these issues and clearly is the one making the biggest calls.

Fair enough, and I can see how you come to your conclusion (even if I don't agree with it). Thank you for providing those quotes.