@thewhitedragon69 said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

@desolutionist I know this was mainly in jest, but...

We don't vote for 1 person who makes rules. We vote for hundreds of people in multiple balancing bodies. Laws, and the constitution specifically, are under the control of Congress. Also, this would be worldwide, so you'd need a UN type setup for this.

whoa whoa whoa...

I don't like the US government. I'm not advocating for that system at all. I'm advocating for electing one person to represent his constituents in order to make decisions in a non-biased, efficient way.

What do you want to read Steve and Matt argue over sentence structure for two weeks? When you could just have someone super reasonable just set the list and thats the end of it.

last edited by Guest

@desolutionist lol. Agreed on the Steve/Matt debate. PMs are a thing though...

I'd not be opposed to a UN-style body. I don't think a single leader would work.

I still think rules are better than an arbitrary list of exclusions made by an uninvested body, though. WotC makes no money off Vintage, thus only superficially cares. "Unfun" is such a subjective term, that you could fit any card you dislike on it (Wasteland, FoW, etc.)

I'm going to start by saying that i don't think rule-based b/r is likely to be effective, as simple checks for 'is this broken' by such metrics are easy to backfit to reach a certain goal but hard to make to catch future problem cards. if you made this thread 6 months ago there likely wouldn't have been a rule that hit lurrus. any attempt to make rules within a given cardpool is defacto an attempt to b/r a known set of cards, and as matt points out this means people wanting tailor-made rules. i will be responding with criticism of the rules in question in terms of what are likely unintended consequences:
@thewhitedragon69 said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

RESTRICT: Cards that are non-permanents that causes you to draw and net 2 or more cards than mana spent to cast, through any method of casting via the card itself, in the same turn.
doesn't hit things like harmonize, bazaar, necropotence, etc. - probably hits PO and ad nauseum

this hits stuff like cruel bargain which is far from format breaking. making netting more than one card more than mana spent be the line certainly seems wrong; while thoughtcast(for example) only nets one card, i think most people would say that unconditional U: draw 2 cards would deserve restriction. do we restrict shared discovery for netting 3 requiring non-mana hoops? I also don't see the point of the non-permanent distinction, unless it's you specifically wanting to let necropotence and memory jar be free.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

RESTRICT: The card is a non-land card that costs 1 or less, taps to add mana to your pool the turn it enters the battlefield, and is castable on turn 1.

i do not believe we need to restrict springleaf drum. i do believe that LED being restricted is probably for the best, but LED does not tap to activate so is not included here. (interestingly, if you remove the tap clause we end up restricting wild cantor.) I'm also going to be charitable here and act like this was worded such that adding mana doesn't include filtering mana, as that would mean restricting chromatic star, astrolabe, etc. this also hits Mox Amber, which i find unnecessary.

a rule that is needed for completion's sake: ban all cards with the Conspiracy type, because this isn't limited.

Yeah, there are several more rules needed - I just listed a few. Admittedly, they aren't perfect, but that was kind of the point of this thread - to see if we could get them perfect. It is very hard to predict the future, but I think we could see some things that are potentially catchable based on precedent. This is by no means a simple, 1-minute exercise.

As we talk through the individual cards impacted, it could just be that rules-based WON'T work. But then we just have to accept that an arbitrary list of "unfun" cards, run by a minorly-if-at-all-invested entity is the best we can get...and that seems pathetic.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

I’m sure if Wizards actually knew a good list for this, they would just implement it at the design phase and not have to auto restrict cards.

@vaughnbros said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

I’m sure if Wizards actually knew a good list for this, they would just implement it at the design phase and not have to auto restrict cards.

I'm not sure if that is true at all. WOTC design, on their good days, still has to contend with multiple formats where power level does not escalate on a linear scale. There are cards in Legacy and Modern that are good in only those formats because of the rest of the card pool. Lodestone golem is not restrictable in any format without workshops and a perfectly good addition to the meta in those formats. Seeing as WOTC cares about Commander, any card that ends the game with a "you win" clause is also suspect where it would likely be perfectly ok in every other format.

@protoaddict

What rule would we need for Lodestone golem? Any 4 mana artifact that doesn't completely suck?

He wasn't playable in other format because they don't have Mishra's Workshop, which they certainly have rules against creating another Mishra's Workshop, although they came very close with the Eldrazi Lands.

Lodestone Golem saw play in standard Boros during Zendikar era as well as modern landfall as the top end threat that would prevent wraths or Jace. I grant you that is not a huge breadth of play but it was enough to say that card was not dead everywhere.

The reality of vintage and all magic formats in general is that one mans trash is another treasure, so while there are cards that would be broken in every format that design would see fit not to print, it is way harder to prevent the printing of a card that is not broken in ANY format.

Plus, as pointed out before, as long WOTC tried to venture into uncharted territory with things like new game zones, new wincons, etc, you are never going to have a rule in place to stop these designs in the first place.

@vaughnbros

I think there's enough evidence to support unrestricting Lodestone Golem.

You certainly cannot defend Lodestone's current placement using language, since as you said, it's a 4-cmc card. It's a Vintage playable Juggernaut. Part of the reason Shops ended up with a restricted Thorn of Amethyst and restricted Chalice is because they can use their superior mana generating lands to play multiple threats/lock pieces in a single turn. With Lodestone, that's all they're playing for their turn. So anyone has a fair opportunity to answer it by also playing just a single card.

You've got to realize that all of these restrictions are just tit-for-tat reactions to fluctuations in metagame prevalence.

"Oh blue is taking up so much metagame share, let's restrict Brainstorm and Ponder."

"Oh look, now Shops is at 30.000002% prevalence, better restrict Chalice!"

"Oh Blue is too good again with 35%, lets restrict Gush"

The trend here is a clear cut slippery slope reactionary policy that makes huge metagame changes based on small fluctuations in metagame percentages. It's bad policy because the restrictions just cancel each other out and we end up back where we started except with less powerful, less exciting, more inconsistent decks.

Also why does Workshop deserve to be a pillar of the format but Gush does not? I think it’s the most interesting matchup in all of magic. It’s the pinnacle of the game. The DCI nerfs both to a large extent, and it hasn’t really had any meaningful effect. There’s still a deck that just wants to be the Gush deck. Then there is the shop deck. Even with all these restrictions, it’s not like Naya aggro is ever going to step up to the plate. We should enjoy the premium version of this game. Not some weird highlander thing.

last edited by Guest

@desolutionist FWIW, restrict workshop, and you can unrestrict chalice, thorn, golem, and probably other things (probably not trini though).

@desolutionist

Force of Will and Mishra’s Workshop.

@vaughnbros Before, I'd have said no to FoW...but with FoN as basically a "fixed" FoW (defense, not an enabler), I'm okay with axing it.

I'd add bazaar to the list, too. Troll and other cards could come off if the busted lands just got hit.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

@desolutionist said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

You certainly cannot defend Lodestone's current placement using language, since as you said, it's a 4-cmc card. It's a Vintage playable Juggernaut. Part of the reason Shops ended up with a restricted Thorn of Amethyst and restricted Chalice is because they can use their superior mana generating lands to play multiple threats/lock pieces in a single turn. With Lodestone, that's all they're playing for their turn. So anyone has a fair opportunity to answer it by also playing just a single card.

A lot of the reason that Lodestone is restricted is because of the redundancy of sphere effects, which is part of the issue with the rule set as well. Even with shops I do not believe lodestone would ever have been banned if we didn't have Sphere, Thorn (now restricted), Cotv (also now restricted), and all the strip mine effects. How many blue cantrips exist vs the ones that are restricted and how do you make the determination of which ones need restriction and how many. Brainstorm might have been fine as a 4 of if there were no other blue cantrips.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

@vaughnbros Before, I'd have said no to FoW...but with FoN as basically a "fixed" FoW (defense, not an enabler), I'm okay with axing it.
I'd add bazaar to the list, too. Troll and other cards could come off if the busted lands just got hit.

I agree with all of this. I think the pillars are a crutch and by restricting FOW, Bazaar, and shops you actually open the format up so much that you may see a large number of new deck types. I would even take it one step further and say that you should restrict fetches and true duals, as they are as much a pillar as any other enabling lands.

@protoaddict

Brainstorm and Ponder are broken in part because of Fetch lands.

I've always seen it at an extreme either way. Either restrict all non-basic lands, or unrestrict them all. If you get Bazaar and Workshop and 8 strips, let me have my 4 Academy and 4 LoA.

@vaughnbros said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

Brainstorm and Ponder are broken in part because of Fetch lands.

And fetchlands fall into that restriction resistant zone because there is so much overlap between them and the duals and the need to run some basics that eve a restriction might see the swap of one fetch to another. At least having to run shocks over more duals provides some sort of penalty for when you naturally draw them.

For what its worth most top end 4 and 5 color edh lists do not have issue in 100 cards getting the mana they need when they need it and that is already singleton.

@protoaddict

I wonder if you could make a 4 color deck with singleton fetches?

last edited by John Cox

@john-cox said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

I wonder if you could make a 4 color deck with singleton fetches?

Depends how distributed your color costs are. Players almost don't even pay attention to it anymore because it has been such a given for so long.

If we assume all fetches and true duals are restricted, in a 4 color deck with fairly evenly distributed color costs you can still run 6 fetches and 6 dual lands that have a relevant colors. I think the step after that is Shocks and basics, but likely what you would have is a deck that may forego an awkward colored dual or 2 in favor of more favorable shocks or basics. Thats before we even get into all the 5 color lands that exist, or another mana strategies like Snow Astrolab stuff.

Like I said, I think it would force more creativity and diversity, and would tone down a handful of problematic decks that really have abused the ease they can generate mana with. Use of off color moxen may even fall off, basics may increase as decks with fewer fetches can be punished by wastelands more, and as a side effect of needing fewer moxen and duals, easy the cost of entry for new players needing that many less reserve list cards to join in.

Like Steve was saying in the other thread, It pretty much boils down to some people wanting to play highlander and some people wanting everything (or a lot) unrestricted. We've become as polarized as the U.S. political system. Maybe there should just be two separate formats. Highlander type 1 saturday and unrestricted type 1 sunday. I would probably enjoy both formats honestly.

@john-cox said in Rules for Vintage B&R list:

@protoaddict

I wonder if you could make a 4 color deck with singleton fetches?

Why couldn't you? We already saw a spreading out of fetches when sorcerous spyglass was printed.

  • 60
    Posts
  • 5224
    Views