JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE



  • @smmenen “Demarcus Cousins is the glue holding the Warriors & NBA together. Stop him going & the league goes back to the hot mess it was for the preceding 5 years. Breaking that team up is a terrible idea. Especially since they are so beatable and not remotely dominant.”
    😂😂😂



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

    @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.

    There's often talk about attracting new players to Vintage and in that regard Outcome could be good to the format. It's powerful, relatively easy to play and a lot of fun. I don't see how your opponent not playing Ancestral in upkeep is a testament that Outcome should be restricted.



  • I'm amazed by some of the comments in this thread. There's no results that say Outcome is dominating Vintage by any means, and yet I can't help but feel that going by this thread it's going to be restricted anyway. I'm not sure I really want to play a format where public opinion on the internet is the deciding factor of what cards do and do not get restricted.

    If Outcome's results are oppressive, by all means restrict it. Until then I don't see any cause for restrictions. We seem to be restricting multiple new cards every year. Are we trying to get the restricted list to stretch for a mile long? Is Vintage not the format where you get to play all cards ever printed or does it come with the qualifier "you get to play everything but every powerful card ever printed will get restricted until we are playing highlander"?



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

    I'm amazed and disappointed by this thread. There's no results that say Outcome is dominating Vintage by any means, and yet I can't help but feel that going by this thread it's going to be restricted anyway. I'm not sure I really want to play a format where public opinion on the internet is the deciding factor of what cards do and do not get restricted.

    If Outcome's results are oppressive, by all means restrict it. Until then I don't see any cause for restrictions. We seem to be restricting multiple new cards every year. Are we trying to get the restricted list to stretch for a mile long? Is Vintage not the format where you get to play all cards ever printed or does it come with the qualifier "you get to play everything but every powerful card ever printed will get restricted until we are playing highlander"?

    This!



  • @hrishi I'd say there's always an element of popular opinion. And it cuts both ways in keeping Shops unrestricted and Brainstorm legal in Legacy.

    @Griselbrother It might be fun to play Paradoxical Outcome, but it's not particularly fun to sit there for 5 minutes or longer while the opponent executes a kill. In that regard, the card is poorly designed.



  • @Griselbrother My issue with Outcome was stated so much better by Matt above (@ChubbyRain).

    Again, my issue is that the card itself GROWS.

    You have a Mana Crypt, a Mox Opal, and a Sensei's Top in play. The first outcome says "Draw 4 for 1 colorless mana".

    If you draw a 2nd Outcome, even without any additional artifacts, the card now says "Draw 4 for 2 Colorless and 1 Blue".

    Now compound that because usually the 1st outcome draws an artifact. In this case, the second outcome says, "draw 5 for 1 colorless and 1 blue".

    And then every outcome after that basically says "draw 7 for 0 mana, and add 1URW to your mana pool" (Assuming Sapphire/Ruby/Pearl in this scenario.)



  • @hrishi

    Its always been about the court of public opinion. If we went purely on results, so many Vintage staples should be restricted, but they are given special status. That is the point that Matt is making. Cards like Force of Will, Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, ect. are all given special treatment that prevent them from getting restricted.

    Vintage should really just turn into highlander, and we don't have to ever have any of these discussions ever again. No subjectivity is introduced into these restrictions as everything would be restricted.


  • TMD Supporter

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

    @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).

    4 Gush decks are capable of dominating Vintage, and have multiple times.

    PO isnt. Gush is leagues ahead of & better than paradoxical outcome.

    Gush is one of the deepest, most unique and singular dry engines ever created. PO Is simply the best unrestricted blue draw engine in the format, for which there will always be one.



  • @smmenen In my experience you’re way underselling Outcome. As I’ve already admitted, Gush is more flexible and fits in more decks, but P.O. isn’t “simply the best unrestricted” drawing engine. What other blue draw engines have we seen that improve with each one you cast, incentivize uninteractive gameplay, and produce combo kills just because they resolved once or twice? Aren’t all of those restricted? Are you really arguing P.O. doesn’t do that? Or is it that P.O. fits what you think is a required space in the field? Seems like you believe the latter while espousing the former, because it is genarically “good against Shops” and “bad against fair blue” it somehow isn’t troublesome. Or is it simply a numbers game? It isn’t the most played/most successful deck so it doesn’t deserve to be restricted? Or are you thinking it is worse than Bargain?

    I really am not sure what your view is?



  • PO is a card that requires you to build your deck in a specific way which narrows your deck and in turn opens you up to hate. If players want to beat PO they can do that easily because PO narrows your deck down hard.

    Gush is a card that is closer to treasure cruise and DTT than a card like PO. It's almost never dead. It doesn't open you up to anything, and it incentivizes a playstyle (low land count, cheap spells) which doesn't have any particular weakness, but tons of benefits.

    Gush is a much more dangerous card and is much more likely to be on the restricted list because it's so much harder to fight. There is no null rod or stony silence for gush so if a gush deck becomes too strong, Wizards probably need to step in which they already have - just like they did with cruise and DTT.
    This is exactly what just happened with DRS in legacy. DRS deck were winning too much and players couldn't find a way to attack DRS because it didn't have any apparent weakness so Wizards had to step in.

    With PO Wizards don't need to do anything, the players can fix the deck by themselves all they have to do is play less shops, more fair blue, and include some stonys/null rods.

    I think vintage is in a great spot right now. There is no deck or archetype that wins too much. Players can choose to play combo, aggro or control and no matter what they choose they will have a tier 1 available to them. I can play a bunch of different fair blue decks, shops, dredge, a ton of different combo decks and I don't feel like im gimping myself for any given tournament.

    That in my eyes is a great format


  • TMD Supporter

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

    @smmenen In my experience you’re way underselling Outcome. As I’ve already admitted, Gush is more flexible and fits in more decks, but P.O. isn’t “simply the best unrestricted” drawing engine. What other blue draw engines have we seen that improve with each one you cast, incentivize uninteractive gameplay, and produce combo kills just because they resolved once or twice? Aren’t all of those restricted? Are you really arguing P.O. doesn’t do that? Or is it that P.O. fits what you think is a required space in the field? Seems like you believe the latter while espousing the former, because it is genarically “good against Shops” and “bad against fair blue” it somehow isn’t troublesome. Or is it simply a numbers game? It isn’t the most played/most successful deck so it doesn’t deserve to be restricted? Or are you thinking it is worse than Bargain?

    I really am not sure what your view is?

    It’s really simple: cards that power decks that dominate the format need to be restricted. Cards that don’t do that don’t deserve restriction, with few exceptions. PO is not even close to dominant.

    The comprehensive, detailed explication of my views are presented here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-suggested-banned-and-restricted-list-updates-2018/



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

    @hrishi

    Its always been about the court of public opinion. If we went purely on results, so many Vintage staples should be restricted, but they are given special status. That is the point that Matt is making. Cards like Force of Will, Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, ect. are all given special treatment that prevent them from getting restricted.

    Of course, and while this is a whole other debate as to whether this is good or not, I think there's a world of difference between allowing certain staples to be free of dominance rules for restrictions, and the community going on a new witch hunt every 6 months.

    Frankly the calls for PO restriction remind me of the calls to restrict Dark Petition about a year or so ago (which was asinine). It seems to me that whenever combo takes up a portion of the metagame pie, there's calls for restriction using the "unfun" argument, no matter how beatable said strategy is.

    As I've said before, if people want the format to shake-up every few months, I prefer unrestrictions. There are many on the restricted list that will certainly not break the format and would even create new archetypes. For example, I'd love to see Fastbond unrestricted.



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

    It’s really simple: cards that power decks that dominate the format need to be restricted.

    Did you just totally advocate for Mishra's Workshop's restriction? Pretty sure you can't say shops decks haven't had a history of dominating. They keep restricting tool after tool for shops, yet the deck is still powerful and dominant...I wonder what card could be causing this...hrmmm. If only it was so simple: cards that power decks that dominate the format need to be restricted.



  • @thewhitedragon69 except that shops isn't dominating. Forming about 20-30% of top 8s with 20-30% representation is absolutely fine. Sure, at a big event it might take 4/8 slots in a top 8 sometimes, but it averages to a healthy amount. And that's a GOOD thing for Vintage. To have some sort of shops list still being viable is a vital thing for the health of the format.



  • @stormanimagus They've dominated before though. And they have been 30-40% at brief times. The sheer price of MWS probably keeps it less played than it would be if the cost was a nonfactor.
    I don't see how you could say gush is a dominant engine, but MWS is not. Gush is the turbo in a race car...MWS is a V10 Engine.
    I also disagree about shops being necessary for a healthy format. If you keep all the artifacts banned and hit MWS, sure...but unleash chalice, trinisphere (that may even be too coin-flippy with sol-lands and moxen), thorn, and golem, and you'll have the eldrazi and thalia and null rod decks totally filling that "keep storm in check" space.



  • I think they should have restricted Paradoxical Outcome because of how unbalanced the card is. People arguing that the deck is very beatable likely play one of the decks that are favored against it. The card seems to take some ground from Shops and Oath while making more room for Fish and other tempo strategies. Fish is an almost unwinnable match for Oath and Paradoxical isn't the best. Oath's formerly better matchups, (non-fish tempo) have changed strategies sometimes using containment priest in the main deck as a result of dredge trying to take advantage of the meta. I do play Oath quite a bit, so I can honestly say I am discouraged by this, but it does not matter all that much unless the goal is to preserve Oath's position in the meta. I am not opposed to decks shifting out of popularity because other strategies are available. However, I think that everything described above is a little too much impact for one card to make. As others have mentioned Paradoxical Outcome is more powerful than other restricted draw spells, and it does not sacrifice any synergy by playing more artifacts to fuel greater draws. I am convinced the restriction should have happened, and I only write about it because I do not like it when restrictions drag out. It just causes people to find better things to do until it finally happens.



  • Although it's been said already it feels increasingly important to state one's opinion on any B&R discussions. PO shouldn't be restricted. PO isn't dominant and there haven't been any good arguments for why it should be restricted (or banned).



  • I would argue that Paradoxical Outcome is dominant for the reasons stated in my previous post. Does a card have to dominate every deck to draw attention?



  • @stormanimagus It only appears so low as a result of the changes to how league results are reported by Wizards. That's why it jumps to 50% for larger events. They can't hide that data by selectively reporting results (like they do with the 5-0 league results).



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

    People arguing that the deck is very beatable likely play one of the decks that are favored against it. The card seems to take some ground from Shops and Oath while making more room for Fish and other tempo strategies.

    Seems to me like this is the perfect set of reasons NOT to restrict the card. It has some strong match ups, like any playable deck. It has some weak match ups. And its existence promotes diversity in the format.


 

WAF/WHF