We have been talking a lot in other threads about trying to keep restricted list discussion to a single thread. Since no one has started one, I figure I would.
I do not have all the data that some people on this site have (which I am sure that they will add to this soon enough).
I will say that I think the probe restriction was great, as it is a very un-fun card to play with and against. Takes all the strategy and deduction out of the game.
As for Gush, it does not seem to have changed too much, other than some decks that were fringe or un-playable before are doing better. The meta is still mostly mentor, shops, and paradoxical, but there seems to be more room for other decks to have a chance.
I would love to see mentor restricted, and gush unrestricted. If that did not play out well, then re-restricted again. It has happened so many times already, what's one more.

I would also like to see Ancestral Recall un-restricted because that card is super sweet.....j/k

I am an advocate of the more the merrier. I think Lodestone Golem, Fastbond, Library of Alexandria, Balance, Channel, Flash, Lotus Petal, Gush and Mana Vault should all come off. I also believe Chaos Orb should become a colorless Vindicate that is fucked by null rod and should be allowed as a 4 of. I also think Mental Misstep should be restricted.

I believe these changes would create new archetypes and strengthen others that have been out of the loop for a while such as Ritual Storm, Belcher, GudhBond, Doomsday, and Control MUD.

Let that brew for a couple years, then see if any one archetype becomes too strong, but I highly doubt 1 would. I personally believe it would lead to a meta of about 8-16 different equally strong archetypes.

@Serracollector When I still had paper vintage, I played belcher. Would love to see that be viable again. But I would worry that even though we could have 8-16 strong viable decks, if they are all gold fishing each other on turn 1, that would not be a fun format either.
I agree on the orb just for fun factor alone. Why is manual dexterity not allowed? Who made that stupid rule... Its a game right?

Return Zodiac Dragon's ability back to what it says on the actual card.

@gkraigher Yes. Im even for original ruling on Abeyance, Lotus Vayle, Mox Diamond, and Scorched Ruins. Vayle and Ruins and prolly Abeyance would need restricted, but I love Vintage for the fact that we have broken mana that lets us do fun things earlier. Sorry to derail into a power level errata thing. Not my intention.

And I dont believe it would be a goldfish meta. With FoW, MBT, Spheres and Rods and Stony Silences still a plenty, and Flusterstorm, AND Git Probe STAYING restricted, almost all combo decks are glass cannons. Control and MUD would still have its place.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/23829_The_Long_And_Winding_Road_Play_Noble_Fish.html

The next interaction and one unique to Mike's version of Fish (as far as I know) is Gitaxian Probe with Meddling Mage. Probe helps thin the deck and gives you an idea of what you're up against but in this deck it also gives you extra value from your Meddling Mages. Against Shops this might help you decide whether to name Tangle Wire Smokestack or Lodestone Golem while against blue decks (where one often names Tinker) you can determine whether you go with Tinker for the long game or have a more pressing immediate need based on what Probe reveals.

️

How restriction decisions are made is much more important than what exact cards are on the list.

I would be interested to hear what Vintage players believe the foundational principles of the format to be, and they think how those principles should be expressed as restricted list criteria apart from specific cards.

@mourningpalace

I'd aslo like to add that White Eldrazi is probably one of the best decks in the format right now.

And if more people played the red blood moon list, that deck would also be tier 1.

@gkraigher said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

@mourningpalace

I'd aslo like to add that White Eldrazi is probably one of the best decks in the format right now.

As in "probably" one of five best decks?

1. Shops
2. Jeskai Mentor
3. Outcome
4. Eldrazi
5. Dredge

In that order is how I see it.

I don't want any part of a format where Gush is unrestricted. As a Doomsday Player, +R Mentor -R Gush would be extremely bad for everyone else.

I'm convined @Serracollector only two-fists on cockatrice and has never actually played versus anyone with a pulse. You're on that straight Cartel Opium if you believe fucking Channel, Flash, Lotus Petal, Mana Vault, Balance, and Library of Alexandria can be unrestricted. I'm even censoring myself as I really want to insult your lack of intelligence or knowledge of the format for suggesting this ridiculousness.

Its fine @MSolymossy I actually respect your opinions. I have not been to a real life event since Cruise and Dig got restricted, but I do play a shitton on cockatrice, thats true. But until we actually try the changes I propose its all just theory crafting. I would just love to see a huge change to give people more options to try out different ideas and archetypes that can compete with the 5 current decks. For the record Im not a fan of Gush either, but I do like Gushbond and its use in Doomsday. Not its use with Mentor tho, but its hard for me to be against Mentor because I dont believe any creature should be restricted, but maybe Mentor deserves it.

@desolutionist

Let me rephrase, I think white Eldrazi might be the best deck in the format right now.

@wappla
If I had to choose what I believed the foundational principles of Vintage were, I'd settle on two primary ones. Firstly, Vintage is format to sling the most powerful spells from Magic's history. Secondly, a card should be restricted if it is able to either make one player an extreme favorite to win and be deployable within the first few turns of the game, or make going first a major deciding factor in each game. Coming up with one or two premises from which a sufficiently fun restricted list can be derived is difficult, and likely each card should be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. I ultimately do not believe that there should be changes to to format made unless absolutely necessary.

I think that specifically format diversity, fun and "freshness" should be factors in deciding what cards to restrict. As a format that is home to the most powerful cards in magic, the best decks will naturally either be playing these cards or be playing a strategy to minimize their impact. When the power level of a format is so high, only a few decks will naturally rise to the top. What I remember from being a kid was that Vintage was the "five pillar" format. I think that's alright. Not every deck needs to be viable in every format. It's fine that some decks that used to be the best are now marginal. It's fine that some decks aren't good enough.

Fun, as it applies to magic, is very subjective. Although you may not find playing against Shops fun, the person playing Shops may love locking people out of games. A restricted list based on what is fun and what is not would be entirely subjective.

Keeping a format "fresh" seems to be the new buzzword that's running around, but I do not think that what is in a certain sense the "historical" format needs to be as shiny as Modern or whatever. I personally enjoy slow moving formats, and would be personally disappointed if my formats became "Flavor of the Month" dominated.

Mishra's Workshop, Library of Alexandria (or Island), Cavern of Souls, Tolarian Academy, Bazaar of Baghdad. All these lands are the actual or symbolic linchpin of the five main archetypes in Vintage, and they're practically exclusive to their respective decks. Having or hoping to have five viable archetypes is admittedly artificial, but it's at least not terrible, and unless we get more, sufficiently fun for my tastes.

As a spectator, it would be nice if their archetypes were equally fun and equally balanced. That will probably never happen, and I don't have a good answer for that imbalance. As a deckbuilder, it's hard to innovate in the face of so much raw power and/or flexibility in our top 2 archetypes. As a competitor, you want to emphasize skill, but also diversity (as mirrors are often crap shoots). I'm pretty darn sure restricting Mentor will help diversify the format since the most resilient deck will then have unsolved endgame problems. But after that, I don't know where I want to go.

I do want to release cards from the restricted list that are likely answered sufficiently well by a Force of Will deck. The more options the merrier.

@wappla said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

How restriction decisions are made is much more important than what exact cards are on the list.

I would be interested to hear what Vintage players believe the foundational principles of the format to be, and they think how those principles should be expressed as restricted list criteria apart from specific cards.

This is a tough question to answer. I've only been playing Vintage for around 5 years so a lot of the way I consider the format is shaped by the cards which already existed on the restricted list when I started playing. Having said that, I believe there are cards on the restricted list now which should not be restricted - both cards which should probably have been unrestricted before now and cards which I believe have been incorrectly restricted over the last 5 years.

Having said that, 'cards which are currently restricted but probably shouldn't be' is probably an inherent flaw in the way the restricted list works. Cards don't exist in a vacuum. Power level is not something which can be assessed purely based on a card's intrinsic attributes - a great deal of a card's power level comes from its interaction with other cards. As a result of this, metagame concerns will always form a part of why a card is or isn't restricted.

With that in mind, there are several things which we can say about the restricted list as well as the cards which ought to be on the list.

First, I think the restricted list ought to be as small as possible. Different formats exist for a reason and part of the reason Vintage exists is to allow people to play with as many different cards as possible. Of course, other formats already achieve this aim fairly well. So, I think a distinguishing feature of Vintage should be that it allows as many cards to be legal as 4-ofs as possible. This then means that Vintage as a format should allow for the maximum amount of power, too. As has been argued before, power peaks in a format always result in playability vacuums (I use the word playability not in its strict sense, but in terms of being competitive, or something of that nature). Thus with more powerful cards in the format, the number of cards which are competitively viable is considerably reduced, but I consider this to be a part of the function of Vintage as a format. I also take this to be a very positive aspect of the format.

As I said before, power level is something which fluctuates. As such, I don't think it is particularly useful to restrict cards based on how power level is perceived. Having said that, I believe that Magic is a game which ought to be some number of things: Magic should be interactive, Magic should be skill intensive, Magic should provide some level of complexity and Magic should be about decision making. I believe the restricted list should be used to shape the metagame so that Vintage tends towards these things. With that in mind, I think that restricting cards which cause the metagame to tend towards uninteractive decks, for example, is a valid and reasonable way to use the restricted list.

I should acknowledge that the terms 'interactive', 'skill intensive' and 'complexity' could exist in various iterations. I also take this to be a good thing. Nevertheless, cards can exist which push the format towards or away from these properties, or some subset of these properties. Cards which push away from these ought to be considered for restriction.

For example, in order to make a decision, one must be presented with a decision point. More decision points will often result in a higher level of complexity and thus a more skill intensive format. As such, cards which reduce the length of the game by a drastic amount are unlikely to work towards these aims. By this reasoning, cards which help prolong games are preferable - especially if those cards also present several decision points of their own.

One of the most important factors in Vintage is the money players have invested in the game. Certain cards represent a tremendous investment in Magic and should be considered particularly important to keep in the format as far as possible. I'm avoiding speaking about any cards in specific, so I won't say anything further on this point.

Possibly the most powerful resource in Magic is mana. As such, I think that cards which provide an advantage in this regard whilst also being easily accessible for all players in the format are the cards which should be considered the most likely to be restricted. These cards are also the ones which I think should be the least likely to be unrestricted.

The restricted list is a very powerful tool available to the DCI. It has the capacity to be a very good thing, but it can also be a negative feature of the format. I think a negative aspect of having a restricted list which is too big is is that it would lead to more games being decided by one player drawing their restricted card. I believe this is something which should be avoided.

Finally, I would like to point out that the restricted list has a diminishing return as Magic ages. As more cards which provide a similar effect are printed, the restricted list's capacity to restrict that effect's presence in the format diminishes. This is something I think is a logical limitation of the format and of the restricted list. I don't think there is a way to fix this without changing one or more of the fundamental principles of Vintage.

I don't believe that the points I have made above are exhaustive. I would like to point out that I don't value all of the points above equally. Some are more important than others. I welcome any critical comments anyone has on what I have said above.

@Serracollector said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

@gkraigher Yes. Im even for original ruling on Abeyance, Lotus Vayle, Mox Diamond, and Scorched Ruins. Vayle and Ruins and prolly Abeyance would need restricted, but I love Vintage for the fact that we have broken mana that lets us do fun things earlier. Sorry to derail into a power level errata thing. Not my intention.

And I dont believe it would be a goldfish meta. With FoW, MBT, Spheres and Rods and Stony Silences still a plenty, and Flusterstorm, AND Git Probe STAYING restricted, almost all combo decks are glass cannons. Control and MUD would still have its place.

Um, what "original ruling" on Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins and Mox Diamond are you talking about? While you are right that Abeyance used to work differently, I can say with great confidence that the other three cards you've listed have never worked the way you seem to think they did.

If you want them to work closer to their so-called "printed" text, that's one thing. But don't say "original ruling," since their original functionality has been entirely preserved by the current Oracle text.

You could pop Mox Diamond like a lotus petal when it first came out, and Im 99% sure Lotus Vayle and Scorched Ruins were the same way. You could tap them as a mana effect, which was faster than any effect at the time, and then sac them and not sac the other lands, which would essentially add a Lotus and 4 colorless lotus to the card pool. I never did this with these cards, but I have done it in the past with Lake of the Dead and Kjeldoran Outpost.

In the olden days, there was a rule that said you could not use cards until you paid their costs. So Mox Dismond, Scorchrd Ruins, and Lotus Vale all work now exactly as they did when printed.

Thinking about what constitutes a restriction is a more interesting discussion to me than what cards need restriction.

1. I believe restriction needs to be about interactivity. If a card ruins the interactivity of the game, then regardless it's 'dominance', it probably needs to be restricted. Examples of this include Lodestone Golem, Chalice of the Void, Trinisphere, and Gitaxian Probe. None of those cards are fun to play against as all of them are designed to inhibit a player's ability to interact. Wizards and the DCI made a statement on exactly this when they said that Perfect Knowledge is not healthy.

2. Cards that significantly cut the cost/benefit ratio with very little downside. Gush is one of those cards. Mishra's Workshop would be another one, but that card for some reason has not been restricted.

3. Percentage of player base. Regardless of how well a deck does in a tournament, if 30% or more of the playerbase is playing that specific deck, then something should be done to it in order to increase the diversity of the format.

4. Performance. If a deck is performing well, so be it. But if the deck is performing so well that it's in 40% of top 8s, and 40% of tournament wins are that specific deck, it's proof the format has been solved.