JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL



  • Oh and people will use the argument, restrict Misstep and combo gets too good...no we still have 4 Mindbreak 4 Flusterstorm and permanent based combo hate



  • @tattoocek I offer an alternative read: the problem is that Mentor avoids combat, so that's a rich method of interaction that is just gone. Not everyone is willing to race (that's fine) and Vintage players love their 3-of narrow SB answers that don't fit into an overall plan... so that's what most decks do, jam StP and expect victory.

    But Mentor decks are good at defending against that... so now you have this not-so-interesting situation in which Misstep is not even remotely the first or second offender (that's a two-horse race between Mentor and Vintage player attitudes)



  • @tattoocek To you're previous argument about the current cards creating less skill-testing, making it take a relatively long time to see an advantage in win % over an average player... I don't think there is a better example of such a card than Misstep. I don't really find it to be that playtesting, that often. It is the most widely played card in the format, (Force is close and the two swap for the top spot) meaning that the card that almost certainly gets missteped the most is... Misstep.

    For those reasons, I would like to see Misstep restricted, just because I think it tends to blunt the effects of skill. It's like the packing peanuts of Vintage. It takes up space, and doesn't really do a whole lot. In my opinion.



  • @ribby said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @tattoocek I offer an alternative read: the problem is that Mentor avoids combat, so that's a rich method of interaction that is just gone. Not everyone is willing to race (that's fine) and Vintage players love their 3-of narrow SB answers that don't fit into an overall plan... so that's what most decks do, jam StP and expect victory.

    But Mentor decks are good at defending against that... so now you have this not-so-interesting situation in which Misstep is not even remotely the first or second offender (that's a two-horse race between Mentor and Vintage player attitudes)

    Simply rotating to Dismember gives you tons of mileage in the aforementioned scenario.

    This reminds me of the incorrect assumption that Lightning Bolt has been dead in the water for the past year because TKS has a four butt.



  • @socialite Bolt being viable in the face of TKS is a strong indication that life is now a resource that needs to be managed in some matchups.

    Dismember and its brother Snuff Out are long-standing options. It's not the absolute most interesting choice though, would you agree?

    I alluded to this earlier... but what would happen if Vintage gets to a space where something like Searing Blaze is viable?

    • Mentor is, surprisingly, a tempo loss when paired with Gush (whether you play it on turn 3 with the Gush land drop or wait until later turns so you can chain spells afterwards)
    • The burn-stapled-onto-removal cards (e.g. this, or Smash to Smithereens) have demonstrated they are tempo positives that also fit into a strategy (in Modern and Legacy, mostly burn but I thought I saw a Delver list or two as well).
    • Mentor already dies to removal like Bolt that actually belongs in the decks that run it.
    • I would LOVE it if there was a deck for whom it made sense to run a Searing-Blaze-like effect at this point in the curve.

    That's just the example on the forefront of my mind, I'm sure there are others. I'm currently making a list of 2-for-1s that are acceptable in modern Vintage mana curves, that I want to scrub when brewing to see if any fit into my strategies.



  • @ribby said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @socialite Bolt being viable in the face of TKS is a strong indication that life is now a resource that needs to be managed in some matchups.

    Dismember and its brother Snuff Out are long-standing options. It's not the absolute most interesting choice though, would you agree?

    I alluded to this earlier... but what would happen if Vintage gets to a space where something like Searing Blaze is viable?

    • Mentor is, surprisingly, a tempo loss when paired with Gush (whether you play it on turn 3 with the Gush land drop or wait until later turns so you can chain spells afterwards)
    • The burn-stapled-onto-removal cards (e.g. this, or Smash to Smithereens) have demonstrated they are tempo positives that also fit into a strategy (in Modern and Legacy, mostly burn but I thought I saw a Delver list or two as well).
    • Mentor already dies to removal like Bolt that actually belongs in the decks that run it.
    • I would LOVE it if there was a deck for whom it made sense to run a Searing-Blaze-like effect at this point in the curve.

    That's just the example on the forefront of my mind, I'm sure there are others. I'm currently making a list of 2-for-1s that are acceptable in modern Vintage mana curves, that I want to scrub when brewing to see if any fit into my strategies.

    I do and this sort of dynamic is why I prefer the current state of affairs to prior generations of this format. Ultimately I can't help but feel as though a lot of these doors are closed due to the intrinsic power level of the format as a whole. It's hard to find merit when most of what you can realistically do in this format is dictated by Bazaar of Baghdad and Mishra's Workshop.



  • @socialite

    Really what you want is zero restricted cards in Workshops/Eldrazi, additionally every blue instant/sorcery that is a card advantage or quality spell needs to be restricted. Except for the aforementioned that rely on fast mana to be competitive, because having games devolve into who drew the most fast mana is oh so much more healthy and enjoyable than having to actually play Magic with the person sitting across from you.

    I don't necessarily agree with him, but I would point out that if you restrict all of the good blue cards, you still have a deck. The highlander core of the blue deck just goes from 30 cards to 50 cards.



  • @socialite said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    I do and this sort of dynamic is why I prefer the current state of affairs to prior generations of this format. Ultimately I can't help but feel as though a lot of these doors are closed due to the intrinsic power level of the format as a whole. It's hard to find merit when most of what you can realistically do in this format is dictated by Bazaar of Baghdad and Mishra's Workshop.

    Why not just play legacy then? No snark intended here.



  • @MaximumCDawg

    Highlander died as a format.



  • Probe has a downside in multiples in your opening hand as it makes mulligan decisions more difficult. I tend to play 2 or 3 except when playing combo. How much is the prevalence of a card in winning/top8 decklists a factor in whether a card should be restricted - clearly this was the case for cruise and dig. Does anyone have comparable stats for probe?

    I was for outcome being restricted at first but having read Rich's post and watched him on steam take down the P9 with a meta-gamed deck (though ironic not having to face PO) I think there are sufficient metagame answers.

    I blow hot and cold on mentor depending on whether my inner Timmy, Spike or Johnny is most prevalent.
    Timmy - oh look I can create lots of monks AND they grow bigger too.
    Spike - I only really need a few of these and that's my primary win con sorted
    Johnny- this card reduces space for deck design as it's very hard to fight against the mentor and the token it leaves behind. I then don't play it as I think it's boring and have gone as far as wondering whether the meta would be more interesting with it restricted

    I think over the period since mentor was printed I've gone Timmy - Johnny - Spike

    So I'm not in the restriction camp on mentor at present, but could easily see myself change my mind in future - Spoiler Alert- particularly after Week 1 of VSL S6

    I'm glad to have Misstep in the format for one reason and that is if my opponent draws ancestral and I don't. But clearly another card whose existence narrows deck building options.

    @Smmenen Restricting preordain I think would be interesting. It takes away the ability to cheat on mana base and makes blue decks slightly less consistent. This might open up some deck design space. It's probably showing up frequently enough in winning decks to justify consideration. On the other hand it's a card that rewards skillful play.

    But having said all that I voted for no change and having read this thread I would still vote for no change.


  • TMD Supporter

    I am going to say something on a bit of tangent from the argument that is taking place, but relevant to the main topic, namely: I would prefer no changes from wotc all the time even in a stale meta, because I think they make the wrong choices about what to ban most of the time, and I would rather the status quo than something worse. I think there are changes that would improve the meta (I think we all believe some change would improve it slightly), but overall I would rather wotc just leave things the way they are rather than make them worse.



  • I think people are failing to realize that the most success Noble Fish ever had started with Gitaxian Probe and ended with Young Pyromancer. Gitaxian Probe makes Meddling Mage a truly unfair card.



  • @garbageaggro

    What recent restrictions do you feel were incorrect?
    Treasure Cruise?
    Dig through Time?
    Chalice of the Void?
    Lodestone Golem?
    I feel all of these in hindsight improved the play experience and metagame diversity of format.



  • Throwing this out there, I think Mentor is the card I'd restrict. Would open up so much more diversity in blue based decks IMO. Its by far the best creature ever printed in vintage and its incredible hard to deal with. Would love to hold on to probe and gush for other types of decks.


  • TMD Supporter

    @ChubbyRain said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @garbageaggro

    What recent restrictions do you feel were incorrect?
    Treasure Cruise?
    Dig through Time?
    Chalice of the Void?
    Lodestone Golem?
    I feel all of these in hindsight improved the play experience and metagame diversity of format.

    I thought all but one of those was fine.



  • @Islandswamp agreed - no creatures on the restricted list!



  • I was always in the camp of only restricting Golem. It was in one archetype. COTV was played in Shops, yes, but was also played in Merfolk and Hatebears.dec. And before jaco.drazi emerged as a playable budget deck, having 4 COTVs was the budget players equivalent to playing moxen.

    And the ironic part about COTVs restriction is that decks are now playing less than 5 moxen which has never happened before in Vintage, imo. Meaning that COTV set to 0 is not as back breaking as it once was. But I do understand why it will be forever on the restricted list.



  • @darkquarterer said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    Throwing this out there, I think Mentor is the card I'd restrict. Would open up so much more diversity in blue based decks IMO. Its by far the best creature ever printed in vintage and its incredible hard to deal with.

    Agreed. While Mentor's power level is not obscene, it is very powerful. Also, as skill intensive as the card actually is to maximize its potential, more often the case is that it eliminates the importance of play skill, as its brute strength is good enough to win many board states. Like Brainstorm or Ponder, it wouldn't be restricted for degeneracy reasons but rather because of deckbuilding diversity.



  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.