@john-cox said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

@nedleeds
Thanks, I never had any idea any of that had ever happened.
Do you think that when Channel was reprinted in SoK it had anything to do with Type 2 becoming Standard around then? -I do realize that there was very little broken stuff you could do with Channel in that era's Standard.

Maybe, October 1995 Type II is 4th, IA, Chronicles, FE. So Tinder Wall go, untap channel, Fireball/Disintegrate/Lava Burst for 20 leaving you at 1. Orcish Lumberjack also could do the same. 1 Channel is still legal then for 2 months maybe, it gets banned when Zuran Orb gets restricted.

I definitely played Type II that year, Vise / Mine decks were pretty popular especially post Ice Age. Necro wasn't recognized right away as busted because so many decks played 4 Vise (Tower was restricted). When Vise got hit that Winter all I remember for the next 2 years was getting Hymned, Strip Mined and Necro'ed.

July '97 4th and all its mistakes are gone replaced with 5th (and Necro again!).

@john-cox said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

@nedleeds
Do you mean to say Channel was banned because of T2 or T1.5? I can see a lot of early restrictions happening because of 1.5, I have never heard of one in T1 because of T2.
If this is the case, could you explain why? I've never played T2 and I don't understand how this would interact.

Oh yeah, in the dark past Type II had a restricted list bound to Type I. There were actually restricted cards in Type II. Like Channel, Mind Twist, etc.. Mind Twist was absolutely banned because of Type I, Channel may have been a confluence of both formats wanting to be rid of the 'Oops!'. Keep in mind we are pre-Force of Will.

I specifically recall the Mind Twist debates raging on usenet. The Channel debate I don't remember quite as well other than I think it happened first, I could dig around and refresh my memory.

I was mostly posting to point out that @thecravenone was wrong even though I still love him like a brother.

@fsecco said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

@nedleeds said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

My preference is selection bias I guess.

I'm glad we're finally understanding each other.

Sure but to say players have preferences and get salty about it and call it selection bias is almost as big a waste of text as my reply here. No shit.

@thecravenone said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

@stormanimagus said in Why do you think we have a restricted list?:

I want to pose the simple question: Why do you think that Vintage has a restricted list?

WotC wanted a format where everything that could be legal would be legal. No true bans, so a restriction is the only way to reign in power-level.

But this wasn't always true (gets up out of rocking chair). For example Mind Twist and later Channel were outright banned in 1996. It still isn't true for Shahrazad and formerly Divine Intervention both of which are banned. Actually I think Shahrazad was already banned in the first event I played at that had a print out of the restricted list. I side more with @Smmenen here (ouch!) even back then the overwhelming purpose, even in the old days, was to ensure a reasonable spectrum of decks in a competitive setting. When Mind Twist was legal, even as a 1 of, the DCI felt that deck construction and in game tactics were largely centered around this 1 card. Channel being banned may have had to do more with the mixing of the newly created Type II format but it had detractors in Type I circles as well. They don't always get it right in some peoples views (mine included).

These hatebear and hatebear-like discussions are really just becoming tedious displays of selection bias.

What is a hatebear like discussion?

We have Leovold, Kambhal now Lavinia. While I recognize they pale in comparison to eternal powerhouse Tacotli Honor Guard they are examples of cards I'd rather have seen symmetric. Since around Thalia 1.0 it's been trending this way with some exceptions like SotL, Containment Priest and Red Eidolon.

I would prefer cards that make the deck builder create the shell of the deck around a taxing / punishing constraint rather than just shuffle them into the same tired 4xforce, 4xskillstep, 4xPreordain, Nx Blue Restricted 45 card stack. My preference is selection bias I guess.

Echoing the sentiment on Lavinia is WotC just done with symmetric hate effects? Not that it's likely with this card but the Blue Stew (tm) just co-opts the cards into their sideboards. Like Kambahl which would be a great core creature in a "new" deck it just becomes a boring hoser in a PO mirror.

RIP Gaddock Teeg and Thalia

Hypergenesis after frying your Containment Priest seems entertaining. But in a 1 Brainstorm world probably is just worse than oath.

@juice-mane said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

It's sad to see the manufacturer of this card game continue to explore the effects that amount to: 'you can't do this' plastered on creatures. Cards that reduce possible interactions between cards tend to contribute to boring games.

If they absolutely needed to print yet another prohibitive card like this, why make it a creature? It's comical to imagine a scenario where this creature with such powerful magical abilities is hitting/stabbing you for 2 life points a turn while simultaneously retaining enough focus to exercise her immense magical powers. At least add a clause where the abilities are turned off when the creature is tapped. Even comic book superheroes need to focus when channeling their powers.

I think I'm fine when they are symmetrical. These one way Leovold effects are stupid and lazy.

If you want synergy with her you want alot of 2s that benefit from a flicker. SCM is really a 3 drop. And you absolutely want Terminus, and probably Predict and some bullets to use with your Misstep Bait tutors like Entreat. I think going creature less makes more sense with her. There are quite a few 2 mana artifacts and enchantments that ETB do stuff.

@chubbyrain said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

And legacy has basically been portrayed as Brainstorm vs Chalice of the Void.

Restricting Mental Misstep is not going to make Blue decks less counterspells dependent or other decks less "lock based" (though ravager shops is pretty damn fast for a lock-based deck).

It will allow combo decks to more effectively combo and provide for less interactive games of magic.

And I'm sorry, if your deck folds to Mental Misstep, it's probably not a very good deck to begin with.

Yeah, besides you can just cram 4 Misstep in your deck that folds to Misstep. Problem solved.

The 1 mana cards you list aren't "good" cards only in comparison to Misstep because they cost mana. If Welder was Gutshot and Duress was 2 life they'd be playable.