JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL



  • @Tom-Bombadil It seems strange to me to restrict a bunch of cards that have historically been used by a wide variety of decks in order to limit the use of completely different cards. None of those cards were on anyone's radar as problematic until mentor was printed.

    On the other hand, if Brainstorm were unrestricted that would allow Miracles to be played in Vintage and there would be a natural predator of going wide as there is in Legacy.

    Edit: I see I have been ninjad by about one second 😜



  • @Aaron-Patten If Brainstorm were unrestricted the LEAST they could do is unrestrict Chalice of the Void with it. Or else the format will be a blue-based fest. Even then, CotV at zero can be mostly undone by a single Brainstorm.

    Also, people should just get over their problem with creatures getting restricted. You can't talk about how there has been a power creep in creatures over the last years and then say creatures shouldn't ever be restricted.

    EDIT: HAHAH YES i posted and your post came right after mine. Good we were saying the same stuff though 😉



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

    @Aaron-Patten If Brainstorm were unrestricted the LEAST they could do is unrestrict Chalice of the Void with it. Or else the format will be a blue-based fest.

    100% agree.



  • @desolutionist Mentor isnt good in other formats because there arent so many cheap/free non-creature spells. Vintage is the only format where cards like Moxen, Gush, Misstep are legal.

    Board sweepers being ineffective in a majority of other MUs certainly plays a part too, but its not the main reason. Board sweepers arent even that good of an answer to Mentor as they are at best a responsive 1 for 1 that costs more mana/resources.



  • I found myself thinking the other day about how I would feel if a card existed along the lines of...

    Abrupt Plague: instant, 2b: as you cast Abrupt Plague name a creature type. Destroy all creatures of the named type with converted mana cost 3 or less.

    Ultimately mashing together Abrupt Decay and Engineered Plague. A powerful tribal oriented sweeper. Unfortunately, it would be the nail in the coffin for goblin, elf, merfolk, and human -based tribal decks.



  • @rbartlet since "Create" now seems to be something they are willing to use on card text, I don't see why they couldn't just do a card that said: Destroy target creature and all creatures created by that creature. You could call it Bloodline Obliteration or something...



  • @themonadnomad Or destroy target creature and all tokens that share a color/creature type woth it.



  • Sorry guys, I really feel discussing possible printings to solve a problem is... well, an useless discussion. If you all recognize there aren't good cards that deal with Mentor in the format, then why are you so concerned if it gets restricted?

    And don't fool yourselves: Mentor is quite strong in Legacy too - just not broken.



  • I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary). It isn't necessarily the power of Mentor which often kills you, it's how far ahead you get thanks to Gush. Even Oath decks are now playing Gush to keep up. They certainly don't need Mentor to finish the game.


  • TMD Supporter

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    It isn't necessarily the power of Mentor which often kills you, it's how far ahead you get thanks to Gush. Even Oath decks are now playing Gush to keep up. They certainly don't need Mentor to finish the game.

    But here's the question: If Gush is restricted, does anyone really think Mentor will be any less good?

    Because I don't. In fact, it might even get better or more abusive, as people shift to more Moxen heavy decks with more spell celerity and faster Mentors.

    Just look at what happened when Dig was restricted. It did nothing to slow Mentor, and I don't think restricting Gush will either. The post-Gush Mentor deck will just run 1 Dig, 1 Cruise, 1 Gush, 2-4 JVP, 1 Mystical/Scroll, and the rest of the stuff and go nuts. Or it will be a big mana deck with all of those cards except Gush.



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

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    I guess I should have clarified my stance (and worded it better). I believe restricting Mentor isn't going to do much to cut down on Gush's dominance. Clearly restricting Mentor will change the metagame, I'm sorry if I made it seem like it wouldn't.

    I believe if Mentor is restricted, Gush decks simply change win conditions, but keep their engine. That doesn't change enough, in my opinion, to bring it's power down.


  • TMD Supporter

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

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

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

    I don't feel like restricting Mentor will do much (even if it might ultimately become necessary).

    I honestly don't know how you can think this. Mentor's power is totally unique. Even if restricting Mentor does little to diminish the presence of Gush in the metagame, the idea that restricting Mentor wouldn't do much to change the metagame is, in my opinion, clearly false. It would clearly change things.

    I guess I should have clarified my stance (and worded it better). I believe restricting Mentor isn't going to do much to cut down on Gush's dominance. Clearly restricting Mentor will change the metagame, I'm sorry if I made it seem like it wouldn't.

    But what about the flip side? What effect would restricting Gush have on the prevalence of Mentor decks?

    Because I don't.

    As I said: In fact, it might even get better or more abusive, as people shift to more Moxen heavy decks with more spell celerity and faster Mentors. Just look at what happened when Dig was restricted. It did nothing to slow Mentor, and I don't think restricting Gush will either. The post-Gush Mentor deck will just run 1 Dig, 1 Cruise, 1 Gush, 2-4 JVP, 1 Mystical/Scroll, and the rest of the stuff and go nuts. Or it will be a big mana deck with all of those cards except Gush.

    There is a case that Mentor is actually held back by Gush decks that don't run full artifact acceleration.

    I predict that if Gush is restricted it's more likely that Mentor decks become a larger part of Vintage metagame than the probability that it becomes a smaller part.

    In other words, 3-4 Mentor, anchored by 1 Dig and 1 Cruise is not going anywhere, and may actually get stronger, not held back by Gush shells, and can now go all in on big mana, and then things like Top.



  • @Smmenen Gush and Mentor could both easily survive on their own. However, they both lose some power if the other is restricted. As the best way to play them is to play them together. If we are playing on the conservative side of restriction only one should go at a time.

    I'm not sure that Mentor decks would automatically get larger with a Gush restriction. The faster Mentor combo decks exist to beat you before Gush is relevant. I think there is a distinct possibility that these decks slow down to beat Shops and Eldrazi again. Maybe the slow blue list is something like Mentor Standstill type, but I don't think that's a guarantee.


  • TMD Supporter

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

    I'm not sure that Mentor decks would automatically get larger with a Gush restriction.

    Just to be clear, I didn't say that either. I said: "I predict that if Gush is restricted it's more likely that Mentor decks become a larger part of Vintage metagame than the probability that it becomes a smaller part."

    In other words, I think the probability that Mentor increases as a portion of the Vintage metagame is greater than the probability that restricting Gush will shrink it. I realize that's counterintuitive, but that's what I think.



  • Gush was restricted in grow-a-tog days. Now its been some years and maybe its time to restrict it back again. That or probe.



  • @Smmenen Steve, are you against restricting Mentor itself? What do you think about it? (I haven't heard your whole podcast about it, but since the notes don't mention Mentor...)


  • TMD Supporter

    Yeah, we forgot to get to that one 😛

    Because Mentor is so much better than the next best substitute (Pyromancer or whatever), restricting Mentor, I believe, would dent Gush's overall prevalence, but it's hard to know by how much. Could be as little as 5-10% or could be more on the order of 25-33, or even 40%. That's much harder for me to predict. But that's probably the range.

    If Gush is restricted, I think Mentor will end up being restricted when it's discovered that restricting Gush had no suppressing effect on Mentor's prevalence.



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

    Yeah, we forgot to get to that one 😛

    Because Mentor is so much better than the next best substitute (Pyromancer or whatever), restricting Mentor, I believe, would dent Gush's overall prevalence, but it's hard to know by how much. Could be as little as 5-10% or could be more on the order of 25-33, or even 40%. That's much harder for me to predict. But that's probably the range.

    If Gush is restricted, I think Mentor will end up being restricted when it's discovered that restricting Gush had no suppressing effect on Mentor's prevalence.

    When I built and tested Nahiri Control and Saheeli Oath (both decks built around the Gush draw engine), the worst matchup for me by far was Gush Mentor - they actually did very well against the rest of the metagame. You are right that if Gush is restricted Mentor will probably need to be restricted. The problem is that the converse is also true. If Mentor is restricted and not Gush, that doesn't make the other Blue draw spells better than a bunch of cantrips, Gushes, and Delve spells. That same section of the metagame moves to Walkers, Oath, Young Pyromancer, or even Managorger Hydra to close out games after drawing a million cards - win conditions that are arguably better against Shops and the rest of the field (certainly more diversified and harder to hate out with Walking Ballistas). They don't start playing other Blue decks because the gap between Gush and the other draw engines is as large or larger than the gap between Mentor and the other win conditions.

    Where did this false dichotomy come from that either Mentor or Gush is the problem? That either Mentor or Gush need the be restricted? They are both huge constraints on the Vintage metagame and it is reasonable to restrict both of them.


  • TMD Supporter

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

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

    Yeah, we forgot to get to that one 😛

    Because Mentor is so much better than the next best substitute (Pyromancer or whatever), restricting Mentor, I believe, would dent Gush's overall prevalence, but it's hard to know by how much. Could be as little as 5-10% or could be more on the order of 25-33, or even 40%. That's much harder for me to predict. But that's probably the range.

    If Gush is restricted, I think Mentor will end up being restricted when it's discovered that restricting Gush had no suppressing effect on Mentor's prevalence.

    You are right that if Gush is restricted Mentor will probably need to be restricted. The problem is that the converse is also true.

    You may be right, but that's much less clear than the converse. In other words, there is much more uncertainty about that.

    It depends upon what the acceptable threshold is for the % of Gush decks in the metagame. Restricting Mentor is almost certainly going to reduce the % of Gush decks in the metagame by some amount. The only question is by how much. It could be very little, or it could be alot.

    It's possible that restricting Mentor will bring Gush below that acceptable threshold. But, as you suggest and seem to believe, it might not. But, a little might actually be enough. It's hard to tell.

    Where did this false dichotomy come from that either Mentor or Gush is the problem? That either Mentor or Gush need the be restricted? They are both huge constraints on the Vintage metagame and it is reasonable to restrict both of them.

    First of all, I agree that's a false dichotomy. That's why I prefer the restriction of Preordain first, if the DCI believes action is needed.

    Second, it's not unreasonable to hold the view that restricting one will ultimately lead to the other being restricted, but there is an asymmetry there. It's more likely that restricting Mentor will reduce the prevalence of Gush (by at least some measurable %) than restricting Gush would reduce the prevalence of Mentor.

    Third, of course it's possible to restrict multiple cards. But restriction is a really dramatic and heavy-handed change to the format, and given that every restriction makes some players unhappy (as Golem did), there is a background imperative to try to minimize the damage by restricting as few cards as possible. Restricting two cards were only one is needed runs against the philosophy of the format, that we are permitted to play with all of our cards. It's better to restrict one card a time so that we can better understand the impact of each restriction to ensure that each is truly needed.



  • I wonder how the success rate of the Mentor decks would change if Gitaxian Probe were restricted. It seems there is so little for them to chance at the moment.


 

WAF/WHF