"One key to the continued health of Magic is diversity. It is vitally important to ensure that there are multiple competitive decks for the tournament player to choose from."
War Priest of Thrune, Reclamation Sage, Lavinia and then a removal spell. This card is very fair and answerable. Not even that good outside of hatebears since casting noncreatures opens you to removal. Seriously, a SB card for certain decks but TMD loses their mind over hate cards. I still remember the complaining about Cindervines being asymmetrical. It should have been attached to a planeswalker that drew 3 cards and shut off artifacts while also being blue...
Wizards rarely designs cards for Vintage play and when they do, it never demonstrates a significant knowledge of the format. Recently, Shenanigans was spoiled as a card for Vintage and it was almost a complete flop. Designers thought Symetrical schemings or whatever would be a splash in the format. Expecting answers from Wizards vastly overestimates the importance of Vintage in their eyes. Restrictions ARE the answer to broken printings as far as R&D is concerned. They have said as much.
And for the rest, do you really expect Narset to see less play if you unrestrict a bunch of draw spells? Do you expect aggro you see much play with combo rampant? Gifts as an answer to Gush? Gush decks typically dominate big blue. There is a book about this.
Jace saw a huge decline BEFORE Narset was printed because the format became more creature centric and pryoblasts and bolts became more common. It wasn’t worth playing only to die to elementals, monks, constructs, insects, or whatever.
Thank you for taking the time to write up your vision for the for format. I think there are a lot of issues with it though.
Edit: Also, I think I needs to be asked about your central premise. How fast do you think the KarnForge deck was? Because realistically it goldfished consistently on turn 1 and turn 2. “Speeding up” Vintage means literally making a turn 1 format.
“Jace is more powerful than Karn, unrestrict Bargain” is a good way of saying “I haven’t played this format recently but here are my opinions.”
Just so you know, Jace is pretty weak in Vintage due to Narset and creatures. Bargain is already unrestricted and inferior to Bolas’s Citadel.
@khahan I agree and am glad you took the time to elaborate.
Look at Grim Monolith. Would you restrict something that has 2 copies in an entire 68-person event? No, because even if players find such decks unfun they are unlikely to encounter them very frequently. And a restriction will have almost no effect. Similarly, LSV had a post about Narset, which set off Twitter, but if you look at the data, things become more concerning: Narset was in 50% of the top 32 decks last week, 56% of decks this week. It's the fourth most popular card in Vintage according to Goldfish (which has it's flaws, but such prevalence seems insane for a Planeswalker). And fundamentally there are issues with the card - one of the best ways to draw cards without drawing cards is Narset, which leads to the Misstep problem of playing Narset as an "answer" to Narset. Now, I must stress this, the format is still young and two events is a small sample size, but these two situations aren't really comparable because of the data involved. If you dislike playing against Narset, you are very likely to play against her, and that might ultimately drive players away from the format. I knew several players that wanted nothing to do with Vintage while Karn Forge was a thing.
As for the quality of arguments, I know. I've tried really hard to provide data to the community and I really want that data to be used. But I also think that players are entitled to their subjective opinions. I routinely try to run polls on twitter, as limited as that is, to gauge such opinions (like should mistep be restricted, do you like the recent restrictions, etc.). It's pretty clear though that arguments are more persuasive when they are supported by data and facts. If LSV had mentioned that he faced Narset in over half of his matches, rather than he simply disliked the card, would it have made more of an impact?
I was tongue-in-cheek referencing Aaron Forsythe's tweet...
The actual point of my tweets from context have been that Wizards has been using qualitative measures for B&R policy likely forever. And for game design. And for other things. Arguing that there shouldn't be a subjective element in B&R or that this new approach is different is wrong. You would have a much better case to the DCI if you argued in favor of your own preferences than why they should take actions against their best interests as a for-profit game company.
@fsecco I don't think you are providing as compelling of an argument as you think you are by comparing Mishra's Workshop to a bunch of restricted cards then saying it shouldn't be unrestricted.
@Smmenen ...This was a riff on "Every saturation metric we could ever invent would point to it being banned".
@thecravenone Man, that would certainly create a lot of bad feelings. Which again, is not wrong. That is my whole point...
I would love to hear a justification for Workshops and Bazaar remaining legal that doesn’t involve “feelings” because every objective measure seems rather clear...
I would also encourage you to look at qualitative research as you and many others don’t seem so understand that feelings and experiences have value in many professions and can be the basis for decisions.
This isn’t exactly new. The DCI has asked Vintage players for input before, or so I’ve heard from several players. They don’t actively follow or test for the format to my knowledge and some of the statements have been odd as a result. The “change” should be viewed as a positive as it extends the invitation more broadly. If you are worried that your preferences are being overshadowed, then you have the ability to state your case and should do so. I’ve certainly tried to provide data from the challenges to aid in that.
And if it matters, I’m not one of the players who has been consulted in the past.
@full-rod They activate it in their upkeep with the Flux trigger on the stack and then you get it back only to be sad when they don’t pay 2 mana.
Better to get Null Rod. Not only does it shut off the card we are supposed to be discussing after you activate it, but it also shuts off all the off-topic fast mana people are complaining about in this thread. It’s a win-win.
This card seems better in Legacy where tutors are at more of a premium and even if your opponent stops you and gets to activate witch-thingy, you don’t lose the game because they don’t go and grab vintage cards.