April 4, 2016 B&R Announcement

@joshuabrooks said:

"Significantly over represented" ????

Yeah I have no idea how they got the idea that this is the case. What do they think an appropriate level of representation is?

Maybe Wizards IS looking at online only, since that's the place they've actually decided to support Vintage. Eternal formats are not supported by Wizards anymore on paper, so...

So, this is the first creature restricted in what? 20 years? I guess the last one on the list was Ali from Cairo.

I think the only thing that is "significantly over represented" is the pros influence on the DCI.

This is disappointing . I would not have done anything, as we are still resolving the effects of the chalice restriction, but I have repeated ad nauseum that if they intended to restrict lodestone, then they should also restrict gush, and probably dark petition.

That WotC wanted to restrict lodestone is not unreasonable, but that they did not follow through against other cards betrays a misunderstanding of the metagame. Now it is quite possible (even likely) Gush and Storm are the new meta, and although it will be refreshing, it is not an improvement.

last edited by data

So now what becomes the most effective deterrent to ridiculous combo decks? Should everyone just be jamming Storm and Belcher and seeing who can go off the fastest?

@Leoj You're exaggerating a bit. The Gush decks are still quite good and capable of fending off Storm. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Thalia decks take up a lot of the slack.

I'm not going to cry over the loss of lodestone but no corresponding move, like restricting gush, and un-restricting chalice and ponder seems (for example, not saying this would have been best...) really shows how disconnected the folks at the DCI are from the pulse of the community.

Well, now that the damage is done, I think we have to pour out a little for Mr. Lodestone Golem.

First creature restricted in Vintage since Ali from Cairo.

So, why are people still in support of the VSL, again? They dont represent our vintage format and definitely aren't in support of our format.
People were worried the format would be even more split if somehow implemented a separate b&r list for VSL.
I still say there should be.

(as usual, and as expected) I'm far more concerned about the reasoning than the announcement itself.

If Wizards had just said "we don't like shops, so we're restricting Lodestone" I wouldn't have been thrilled but I would have understood. Instead we got an argument about "significant overrepresentation", despite the fact that Shops is neither the most played, nor the best performing deck right now.

If they're basing decisions on data they think is real but is easy to verify as false, where are they getting this information from? What could be restricted next time? Will someone tell them that a totally unplayed card is winning everything, and they won't bother to check?

I don't think missing Lodestone will kill the format, but I feel very powerless right now as a member of the Vintage community, and I'm not sure what, if anything, we can do in the future.

Captain Morgan, I need you now more than ever.

Fuck this shit.

This is like me bitching at the distance between wickets in cricket. Then having them change it. Because I played baseball in high school.

@Ten-Ten I'm dropping my Patreon support. Between the constant crying about losing to spheres, and wastelands with decks with no basic lands and the absolute derth of innovation by the 'best minds in Magic'. It's just lost its appeal. That being said as long as it occupies the Magic Twitch channel it will get viewers. You could probably put Nemesis 3x draft on Tuesday and it would garner viewership.

@Brass-Man said:

(as usual, and as expected) I'm far more concerned about the reasoning than the announcement itself.

The announcement seems to imply that Workshop itself was on the table as a consideration for restriction "this issue could be solved by restricting the namesake card". More disturbingly, the fact that that WotC is "hopeful that limiting Workshop decks to one copy of the card leaves the deck at an appropriate strength" shows a fundamental misunderstanding and/or ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of Shops' role in the health of the format.

@Brass-Man It is possible that they have data we don't @louChristopher pointed this out on twitter. They might be talking about overall representation in the meta on mtgo which we don't really know. Doesn't really matter for performance though.

What a scumbag move. NYSE is already unsanctioned, can we maybe just ignore this come June?

At the very least I'm glad I picked up storm stuff, seems like a good time to be playing storm.

Is it pretty much just universally accepted that this is basically a result of VSL bitching and meddling?

@rikter said:

What a scumbag move. NYSE is already unsanctioned, can we maybe just ignore this come June?

At the very least I'm glad I picked up storm stuff, seems like a good time to be playing storm.

Is it pretty much just universally accepted that this is basically a result of VSL bitching and meddling?

I think it's plausible that the on coverage tears about chalice during champs last year (while Oath won again) helped get Chalice restricted. However the overall conversion to top 32 from the field of shops was probably enough to get a card in the shops core restricted.

@garbageaggro Accroding to MTGGoldfish shops is 21.11% of the meta online at the moment.

I love how there was practically an essay about Eye of Ugin, which we all knew had to go, and about four sentences on LSG that were probably taken verbatim from the VSL.

@Dice_Box said:

@garbageaggro Accroding to MTGGoldfish shops is 21.11% of the meta online at the moment.

Will you share a link to said? I'm interested in recreating the environment when they made this decision (about 1 month ago).

  • 294
    Posts
  • 252908
    Views