Standard:
Aetherworks Marvel is banned.
All other formats:
No changes
Effective Date: June 19, 2017
Magic Online Effective Date: June 14, 2017
Next B&R Announcement: August 28, 2017
TL;DR: Standard was discussed at length due to possible consumer confidence issues after having back-to-back-to-back bannings, and left no room for discussing any other formats. The only relevant Vintage information is that the pre-HOU announcement will not happen.
Actually the behind the scenes discussions seemed very relevant to me. They spent a solid amount of time discussing the fact that the DCI is considering options other than strict bannings/restrictions. Pair bannings - not being able to play copies of 2 different cards in the same deck - could have serious trickle down affects on Vintage. Imagine if they go this route (which I see the benefit of for Standard) and somebody in the DCI decides that vault/key really should be pair banned. Or ravager/ballista.
The DCI's discussions of methods other than straight bannings is fascinating but scary at the same time. Simply put I don't trust their judgment and I haven't for some time now.
It was a very interesting announcement, but take with a grain of salt for Vintage. There are different imperatives in Standard, and different standards are applied for Vintage (the last place to play many cards). I did, however, appreciate the detailed explanation and the use of performance data.
I ask this out of curiosity, but has Wizards ever stated why they don't do restrictions in other formats? I've always thought of restriction as a rather elegant solution to these types of problems.
Granted, it introduces a lot more variance than an outright ban, but seems a lot less clunky than "pair bannings."
@Smmenen said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
It was a very interesting announcement, but take with a grain of salt for Vintage. There are different imperatives in Standard, and different standards are applied for Vintage (the last place to play many cards). I did, however, appreciate the detailed explanation and the use of performance
Agreed. This is one of the only announcements I can remember where they reference using MTGO data, pro player and grinder feedback, as well as pro tour results data (which is the most visible of all the data, hence the data the public pays attention to). They also mentioned "magic is more fun when there is a lot of play and counterplay" and that they don't like games with unbeatable draws.
I know this is a lot of VERY basic information, but for those that like to decode these types of annoucments, this is a treasure trove of information from behind the curtain. I'm digging the increased transparency.
Have fun!!!
Emrakul was also ran in BG delirium, where they could often cast it quite early, and there was simply no answer to it.
@Khahan said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Pair bannings - not being able to play copies of 2 different cards in the same deck - could have serious trickle down affects on Vintage. Imagine if they go this route (which I see the benefit of for Standard) and somebody in the DCI decides that vault/key really should be pair banned. Or ravager/ballista.
I think the posterchild for such a banning would be Counterbalance / Top in Legacy.
@Fisken said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I'm still unsure how they ban marvel and don't unban emrakul
I can't imagine them banning and unbanning something in Standard purely out of fear of the need to re-ban a Standard card.
It's interesting that they considered reintroducing functional errata (a terrible idea, IMO).
Wow, Standard really has been a full-on train wreck lately ...
Rather than @-replying everyone that mentioned unique banning practices, especially as uncharted territory, I'd just like to remind everyone that a specialty ban has already happened in the past. Stoneforge Mystic was banned in Standard unless you played the exact decklist from the War of Attrition Event Deck.
@evouga said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
It's interesting that they considered reintroducing functional errata (a terrible idea, IMO).
Perhaps there's something in between no change and the previous instances of functional errata?
@thecravenone That would create insane confusion to a player who enjoyed a standard only errata'd deck and wanted to play the same type in Modern after rotation. This is extra true for younger players. Definitely outside the box though, which I always appreciate!
@evouga said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
It's interesting that they considered reintroducing functional errata (a terrible idea, IMO).
Interesting?
I think you mean terrifying.
Functional errata happens all the time. What they were batting around clearly seems to be the old school Power Level Errata. Like, the sort of solution they came up with to "save" standard in Urza block.
When I said Kaladesh was the second coming of Urza, I didn't realize the analogy would go so deep.
