Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever

@vaughnbros said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, Ancestral Recall, Black Lotus

No, nobody would seriously classify these cards as "brake" cards. They all (massively!!!) accelerate your own strategy, while doing nothing to stop your opponent, other than by allowing you to win more quickly.

Other Vintage-playable brake cards include:

  • hand disruption like Thoughtseize
  • removal like Force of Vigor and Swords to Plowshares
  • cards the limit graveyard abuse, including Grafdigger's Cage and Soul-guide Lantern
last edited by evouga

@evouga Narset is primarily a "brake" card, and it got restricted. The limited-impulse-over-two turns was not nearly close to the reason the card got restricted. It was for being a mono-colored, one-sided leovold.

Force of Will "massively accelerates" the strategy of card draw as you can freely tap out every turn without the threat of your opponent landing an easy kill on you. Creating endless classifications, like "support", "brake", ect., to justify clearly degenerate cards just obfuscates reality and puts ones mind at ease. 20+ years of data says that Force of Will is broken. Another 10+ years of data says that Workshop and potentially Bazaar are broken. We let these cards live, and by letting them live we have to live with the consequence of that.

Its not dissimilar to how many government and economic systems ignore the problem of succession, and being born into degrees of wealth and power, while blaming countless other issues to protect the idea that you should be able to pass on your wealth and power.

@vaughnbros I'm not sure if you're arguing seriously, or trolling me.

It might be fun to try an event like the "super league" where Force of Will and Force of Negation are restricted. It would be interesting to see what decks come out on top, and whether the average win turn is 0 or 1.

I can't take seriously any suggestion for a Vintage-like format where combo decks are allowed to go completely unchecked. Whatever complaints you may have about the current metagame, I struggle to understand why an environment where even Dredge is too slow to compete would be better.

Narset was not a brake card. It was a broken aspect of PO decks and enabled a secondary combo of Narset + Timetwister/Wheel.

Did people ever stop and consider why PO got worse in the format once Narset was restricted? I highly recommend challenging preconceptions about the format and relying on data to form your opinions of the format. It will make you a better player.

last edited by chubbyrain1

Restricting Force of Will will kill the format! Socialism will kill the economy! Fear is a powerful tool to control the minds of the masses.

There are about 1000 great, highly efficient cards that stop broken strategies that are not Force of Will. I have won countless numbers of Vintage games by Force of Willing my opponents answer to my broken strategy.

last edited by vaughnbros

@chubbyrain1

Don't just stop at challenging the preconceptions of the format, challenge the preconceptions of everything when you form your opinions. It will make you a better person.

@chubbyrain1 It was for sure abusable, but it wasn't because of its interaction with draw-7s that it was axed. It was because every blue cantrip deck ran 4 to stop every other blue deck from cantripping. You had 75% of the meta being blue (as usual) with "whomever lands narset and sticks it wins."

@evouga said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

It might be fun to try an event like the "super league" where Force of Will and Force of Negation are restricted. It would be interesting to see what decks come out on top, and whether the average win turn is 0 or 1.

Is someone calling for the restriction of FoN? The point made earlier was that FOW played all 4 quadrants well. It was both protection from broken plays as well as insurance for and the ability to push though your broken plays. Negation is not because it is not free on both turns. I would argue that FOW was a necessary evil in the past but the printing of FoN and to a lesser extent Misstep has made it's necessity much less obvious.

I think the idea of a super league is a good one to be honest, I think if WOTC actually paid attention to it, it could go a long way to help inform what the format could/should look like with some drastic steps. That being said I think if you restrict FOW you very seriously do need to look at restrictions for Bazaar and Workshops.

@protoaddict Is this the same guy that is against rule changes that don't let you use every card?

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

@protoaddict Is this the same guy that is against rule changes that don't let you use every card?

I never said I wasn't for restrictions, as a matter of fact I would like to see many, many more of them. Banning remove a piece from the game, restrictions make you think and force players to make deck building and in-game decisions on a level we have not seen in some time. I would honestly not be opposed to vintage being a singleton format.

But there are truly a few sacred cows in this format that people just seem to accept as the norm that I would love to see challenged.

I would love to see what a format with a restricted force of will looked like
I would love to see a format with restricted Bazaar and Workshops
I would love to see a format with restricted Fetches and Dual lands

That last one is particularly close to my heart. I think the access to basically perfect mana for any build has spoiled the player base, and being forced to diversify and actually pay a cost to cast some cards would slow down the format and all these dreaded combo decks enough to the point where only having 1 force and 4 FoN would be perfectly fine.

@protoaddict Why not just play EDH then? A singleton format already exists. Why play vintage and want the same changes?

Because you can't play Power in EDH, duh.

@protoaddict

Restricting Fetches and Duals would certainly make the topic at hand, Lurrus, worse as he costs 2 non-blue.

To focus on Lurrus again, mirror match formats are often high skill level. I suppose part of the reason I am trying to figure out how to "fix" vintage is because leaving it as the lurrus format is a pretty radical change. The other major concern for me is if Lurrus congegates on a single deck. This seems likely to me based on past experience with constructed metas. If multiple Lurrus shells exist then I'm less sure the card needs to be addressed. Adding a cheap legend to the list of cards you need for vintage isn't the end of the world.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

@protoaddict Why not just play EDH then? A singleton format already exists. Why play vintage and want the same changes?

Edh isn't a singleton format.

It is a singleton multiplayer format, with 100 card decks, and no sideboard, and the commander rule, and color identity restrictions, and missing a large chunk of the cards that make vintage what it is, played as a best of 1 format. It is not even close to vintage.

It's like telling a pro football player who wants some reform in the rules in order to prevent concussions from killing players and destroying the sport to go play ultimate frisbee in the park instead.

@BillCopes obviously they are unrestricting channel duh

@billcopes Unrestricting Trinisphere. Enjoy your cheap 3 mana permanents. We then make a gentleman's agreement to play neither Lurrus or Trinisphere as more than a 1 of maindeck.

I mean, I don't even want to jump to conclusions for vintage considering every single day there are different conversations about what can be on and off that list. We also have no idea if this is a ban, restriction, rules change, etc.

I'm actually suspect about this since legacy has no issues banning a card like Lurrus, but for Modern and Pioneer not to be mentioned is strange since companion is very prominent in those formats as well.

  • 107
    Posts
  • 10205
    Views