JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE



  • @13nova said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    Unfortunate that Outcome didn't go, but I think that's probably an okay thing. I think these are the right decisions. I might actually want to play Legacy, now.

    Why do you think that's unfortunate?


  • TMD Supporter

    @13nova Go play Dredge! 😛



  • This probably puts the nail in the coffin for Gitaxian Probe being unrestricted (and rightfully so). It's just hard to argue that the rationale for banning in Legacy (information at too low a cost, a free spell) doesn't apply to Vintage.

    Paradoxical Outcome is likely a card with a fixed lifespan. It's not a balance issue from our metagame data. It's not a diversity issue, either. However, it does have a pretty high "brokenness" factor, leading to a lot of blowout turn 1 to turn 2 wins. I think the more Vintage players run up against it and the more these wins accumulate, eventually public sentiment will turn against it. I know many players don't believe that should be factored into the equation, but it's pretty clear Wizards disagrees.



  • @chubbyrain I find it hard to believe, power level wise, that Outcome is worse than Gush. Gush is more flexible and doesn’t require quite the deck building constraint (although I could argue almost all the cards Outcome requires are cards you’re playing anyways) but you could still beat 2 Gush, it’s basically impossible to beat 2 Outcome (resolved of course, if you always have FOW and they don’t you’re winning in either case).
    Basically- Outcome feels like Gush with Fastbond stapled to it (and then some)



  • @wfain Paradoxical has far more fail points than Gush, but yes, I agree, once it starts going, the game is literally over. I think from a high point, Outcome is better, but from a median perspective, Gush is better (and it's not by a small amount).



  • @wfain Restrictions aren't really based on power level but on an interplay of balance, diversity, and interactivity (counterplay). Gush was in that 30% range where you start to worry about its effects on diversity. PO hasn't really been above 20%, so any potential restriction would need to consider balance and interactivity implications. Your post argues for those interactivity concerns.

    To be honest, the real culprit in Vintage for some time has been the delve spells. They "break" free spells while being pretty immune to negative interaction. Combine that with cheap interactive spells so you don't die on turns 1-2 and you have an incredibly powerful and resilient control engine. Sad that in Vintage, cards like these never really get removed from the format.



  • @chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @wfain Restrictions aren't really based on power level but on an interplay of balance, diversity, and interactivity (counterplay). Gush was in that 30% range where you start to worry about its effects on diversity. PO hasn't really been above 20%, so any potential restriction would need to consider balance and interactivity implications. Your post argues for those interactivity concerns.

    To be honest, the real culprit in Vintage for some time has been the delve spells. They "break" free spells while being pretty immune to negative interaction. Combine that with cheap interactive spells so you don't die on turns 1-2 and you have an incredibly powerful and resilient control engine. Sad that in Vintage, cards like these never really get removed from the format.

    Agreed 100%. The delve spells combined are a 2-of in almost all blue decks. By the time either of them is "turned on" one will generally have been found. This basically means that, unless you wallop your blue opponent early with some devastating plays, you are going to have to play through a delve spell by like turn 3-5. It's really frustratingly consistent. There are ways to beat it for sure, but it's miserable to know that it is pretty much ALWAYS coming if the game gets to that phase.



  • @griselbrother said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @13nova said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    Unfortunate that Outcome didn't go, but I think that's probably an okay thing. I think these are the right decisions. I might actually want to play Legacy, now.

    Why do you think that's unfortunate?

    My Problem with Outcome is the first Outcome just makes every other one that much better. You chain cards together in ways 4 Gush never did without Merchant Scroll. If the first outcome resolves for 3 or more, you probably just lose the game. I don't like cards that make additional copies THAT much better. The first one is essentially 0-1CC, draw 3+. The first is usually 0: Draw 5, add X blue, black, and or colorless to your mana pool.



  • @stormanimagus @ChubbyRain
    But there’s only two of them, and neither chains you into drawing 10 cards next time, chaining you into 20 cards (or whatever) while generating mana. The delve spells should absolutely be restricted because they play in every deck with TAP: Add U to your mana pool.

    Outcome, on the other hand, while not as pervasive among blue decks as Gush and Delve spells would be if unrestricted, is far more difficult to counterplay and far more likely to result in winning the game “on the spot” when resolved. Even if I get Stony Silence in play the Outcome still draws five or whatever cards (helping find a way to beat Stony Silence) where RiP makes it almost impossible to cast the Delve spells and still allows you time to find other ways to counterplay if they blow it up! To effectively stop Outcome from working you have to have Leo or Notion Thief resolve. To me it just seems way more degenerate than several of the restricted big draw spells.


  • TMD Supporter

    Paradoxical Outcome feels like a Mind's Desire without having to worry about holding mana acceleration in hand for your storm count.



  • @wfain Or you just run a deck with Stony Silence, Spirit of the Labyrinth, Thalia 1.0, AND Kambal and you watch your outcome opponent squirm to get rid of it all :). Then if they somehow find balance you just drop that 2nd Thalia you've been sandbagging the whole game. I have a deck that does exactly this to much success most games.


  • TMD Supporter

    @stormanimagus Any deck can be tailored to beat one deck consistently. Success is found only by optimizing your deck towards an entire metagame.



  • @stormanimagus that’s what I’m saying, you can play 10 pieces and land 2 of them, you’ll win. But you’re not going to be good against anything else because the cards that are good against Outcome don’t really help against anyone else (Stony excepted since it is decent against Shops if you have some other relevant cards).



  • @wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    @stormanimagus that’s what I’m saying, you can play 10 pieces and land 2 of them, you’ll win. But you’re not going to be good against anything else because the cards that are good against Outcome don’t really help against anyone else (Stony excepted since it is decent against Shops if you have some other relevant cards).

    Ummm. . . I respectfully disagree. Spirit of the Lab is a fine card vs. Xerox, and anything else that seeks to draw a bunch of cards. Thalia is great vs. any deck running 4 preordain (of which there are quite a few). Kambal is great vs. decks running removal because he is a meat shield to your other threats. These cards are absolutely FINE vs. other blue lists. And I'd run Kataki in the main for shops + Outcome just for the coup de gras.



  • @stormanimagus yes, they’re fine against other decks that do less degenerate versions of what Outcome does (Xerox). But they don’t hamstring them. This is all beside the point anyways, my original point is that Outcome is way better than the restricted big draw spells (Gush and delve spells specifically).



  • I think Outcome is fine and I don't think it should be restricted. Sure, it's very powerful but it's also very fragile. Both in the sense that there are a lot of tools to stop the card itself and in the sense that most builds have a high degree of variance.



  • @griselbrother doesn’t feel like it when I play against them, but maybe you’re right.



  • @griselbrother said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

    I think Outcome is fine and I don't think it should be restricted. Sure, it's very powerful but it's also very fragile. Both in the sense that there are a lot of tools to stop the card itself and in the sense that most builds have a high degree of variance.

    You should have seen some of the people who were doing well with it at SCG. My opponent didn't even fucking know to upkeep his Ancestral Recall.

    Outcome is absurd - it's fucking Mind's Desire and shouldn't be a 4x.


  • TMD Supporter

    Outcome is the glue holding the Vintage format & metagame together.

    Restrict it & the format goes back to the hot mess it was for the preceding 5 years. Restricting it is a terrible idea. Especially since it is do beatable and not remotely dominant.



  • @smmenen for once, I agree with you Steve (first time for everything haha!). It is a deck that is eminently beatable and preys on the Shops decks that were bordering on too dominant about a year ago. Shops is still a great choice, but it does tend to struggle with PO decks because they now run 4 Hurkly's Recall.


 

WAF/WHF