Why do you think we have a restricted list?



  • @fsecco said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    @moorebrother1 Actually I believe most players dislike high variance formats, which is one of the reasons Vintage is not that popular (in MTGO for example, where it's cheap)

    I've certainly heard that sentiment from pros, good players, and from the guys who think of themselves as good players. I'm the opposite, FWIW; I'm pretty burnt out on Legacy because the low variance means most games give me deja vu. The high variance of the restricted list has made Vintage a really nice change of pace for me.



  • @stuart I play Vintage and loved playing Duel Commander (and thinking about Brawl) so I guess we know where I stand on this one 😛



  • The simple answer: Wizards is a business. Their job is to sell cards, and the game as a whole. So just like new sets, different formats, and other things produced by Wizards, the restricted list functions towards these goals. More specifically, Vintage has a restricted list because there was demand for a format in which all cards could be played that was also somewhat enjoy-able to actually play (instead of just allowing all cards to be unrestricted).



  • Vintage is the format where, within reason, you get to play any card. That's the official WotC reason [citation needed].


  • TMD Supporter

    I don't know when this happened exactly, but some time last year after this thread was created, I believe, the DCI answered the questions in the OP.

    The official Banned and Restricted List page now contains a statement of purpose:

    "One key to the continued health of Magic is diversity. It is vitally important to ensure that there are multiple competitive decks for the tournament player to choose from. Why? If there were only a single viable deck to play, tournaments would quickly stagnate as players were forced to either play that deck or a deck built specifically to beat it. In addition, different players enjoy playing different types of decks. If there are plenty of viable options to play, there will be more players at more tournaments. To help maintain the diversity and health of the Magic tournament environment, a system of banned and restricted lists has been developed."

    Source: https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/banned-restricted?fbclid=IwAR3VMibJBJtOKka8jKF_2zyGx6OLRk9rJsb8Y32WzLBj6JFDIEx7fmEDWho

    Not incidentally, that is essentially what I said in this thread:

    @smmenen said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    I answered that question, from my perspective, here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-suggested-banned-and-restricted-list-updates-2018/

    The main purpose of the restricted list, in my view, exists to maintain and promote competitive balance. The DCI is basically analogous to the FTC or the Justice Department vis-a-vis the market. The Restricted List is the regulatory mechanism, and the DCI is the regulatory body that manages that mechanism.

    The restricted list also exists to ensure that the format is sufficiently interactive (or even better, that there is sufficient "counter play."

    It accomplishes both goals by 1) regulating dominant strategies, both monopolies and oligopolies, and 2) ensuring there is enough counterplay by regulating decks that win too quickly or shut out an opponent from doing anything, like Trinisphere or Flash.

    The reason that Vintage has a restricted list instead of just a banned list is so that there is an official, sanctioned format where Magic players can play all of their cards (to the maximum extent possible).

    Also, a corollary to that is: What do you think are the criteria R & D uses to decide what is on the restricted list?

    The DCI manages the Vintage restricted list, not R&D. R&D is the team of staff that designs and develops new cards.

    But assuming you mean the DCI, they provide public explanations, so you can parse their explanations for Vintage. I have done so as part of my History of Vintage Series, and found that the DCI's bases for restriction have evolved over the decades of Type I and Vintage player, and is not entirely consistent or internally coherent. They have evolved just as the game has.

    But, by and large, the grounds they offer in their explanations for restriction and unrestriction generally match those I articulated above.

    Also, that statement of purpose bolsters the argument I have long made, that any restriction that is taken for reasons other than promoting format diversity, such as "play pattern concerns," would quite obviously have the potential to undermine the 'diversity' of the format, and therefore undermine the main purpose of Banned and Restricted Lists.

    So, for example, restricting Paradoxical Outcome would quite obviously remove that deck from the format. Unless you could show that restricting PO would open more deck options into the format than restricting it would take away, such a restriction would harm the central purpose for which the DCI states it has created B&R lists in the first place.



  • @thecravenone said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    @stormanimagus said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    I want to pose the simple question: Why do you think that Vintage has a restricted list?

    WotC wanted a format where everything that could be legal would be legal. No true bans, so a restriction is the only way to reign in power-level.

    alt text

    But this wasn't always true (gets up out of rocking chair). For example Mind Twist and later Channel were outright banned in 1996. It still isn't true for Shahrazad and formerly Divine Intervention both of which are banned. Actually I think Shahrazad was already banned in the first event I played at that had a print out of the restricted list. I side more with @Smmenen here (ouch!) even back then the overwhelming purpose, even in the old days, was to ensure a reasonable spectrum of decks in a competitive setting. When Mind Twist was legal, even as a 1 of, the DCI felt that deck construction and in game tactics were largely centered around this 1 card. Channel being banned may have had to do more with the mixing of the newly created Type II format but it had detractors in Type I circles as well. They don't always get it right in some peoples views (mine included).



  • @nedleeds
    Do you mean to say Channel was banned because of T2 or T1.5? I can see a lot of early restrictions happening because of 1.5, I have never heard of one in T1 because of T2.
    If this is the case, could you explain why? I've never played T2 and I don't understand how this would interact.



  • @john-cox said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    @nedleeds
    Do you mean to say Channel was banned because of T2 or T1.5? I can see a lot of early restrictions happening because of 1.5, I have never heard of one in T1 because of T2.
    If this is the case, could you explain why? I've never played T2 and I don't understand how this would interact.

    Oh yeah, in the dark past Type II had a restricted list bound to Type I. There were actually restricted cards in Type II. Like Channel, Mind Twist, etc.. Mind Twist was absolutely banned because of Type I, Channel may have been a confluence of both formats wanting to be rid of the 'Oops!'. Keep in mind we are pre-Force of Will.

    I specifically recall the Mind Twist debates raging on usenet. The Channel debate I don't remember quite as well other than I think it happened first, I could dig around and refresh my memory.

    I was mostly posting to point out that @thecravenone was wrong even though I still love him like a brother.



  • @nedleeds
    Thanks, I never had any idea any of that had ever happened.
    Do you think that when Channel was reprinted in SoK it had anything to do with Type 2 becoming Standard around then? -I do realize that there was very little broken stuff you could do with Channel in that era's Standard.



  • @john-cox said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

    @nedleeds
    Thanks, I never had any idea any of that had ever happened.
    Do you think that when Channel was reprinted in SoK it had anything to do with Type 2 becoming Standard around then? -I do realize that there was very little broken stuff you could do with Channel in that era's Standard.

    Maybe, October 1995 Type II is 4th, IA, Chronicles, FE. So Tinder Wall go, untap channel, Fireball/Disintegrate/Lava Burst for 20 leaving you at 1. Orcish Lumberjack also could do the same. 1 Channel is still legal then for 2 months maybe, it gets banned when Zuran Orb gets restricted.

    I definitely played Type II that year, Vise / Mine decks were pretty popular especially post Ice Age. Necro wasn't recognized right away as busted because so many decks played 4 Vise (Tower was restricted). When Vise got hit that Winter all I remember for the next 2 years was getting Hymned, Strip Mined and Necro'ed.

    July '97 4th and all its mistakes are gone replaced with 5th (and Necro again!).



  • @nedleeds I remember those days for type II. What I did not understand was type I. This is when I started playing and I decided to buy into power and Mana Crypt and Mana Vault were both unrestricted for a long time. People did not figure out the Hurkly's Recall trick right away so the amount of broken fast mana was just crazy.

    They really overreacted to the Hurkly's Prosperity deck and restricted all of the parts and left us with a dumb control heavy meta. Just to have Urza Block almost kill the format entirely. Good times.


 

WAF/WHF