@mediumsteve

I think before undertaking that task getting input from the community as a whole would be helpful. Its different creating a format from scratch because your playgroup is basically the entire community. If the community is completely resistant to the idea then the major undertaking of the testing would be done in folly.

As someone who has taken part in creating a format (Middle School), decisions about card legality and rules were made with a lot of research and testing. I expect the same from my peers.

Did you do this systematically and if so do you have a write up on the methods that you used to develop this list?
(E.g. Was someone responsible for breaking a particular card? Were there specific set time periods / number of matches before you would add/subtract another card?) Any and all information would be helpful.

@chubbyrain

If you want to have a discussion then we discuss, not a debate where we all draw lines in the sand and only say Yay! or Nay! if that were the case, Brian could've just put a poll in the initial post. This discussion about derailment is itself a bigger derailment than any of the other comments.

You also somehow have taken my comment out of context, I wrote one post responding to the initial comment about it leading with it sounds implausible in practice. I've now written 5 posts in this thread (3 to you) about actually having a discussion instead of just trying to silence those that disagree (something that was brought up in the initial post).

My initial response was agreeing with Brian's original post, and suggesting to go even further on the restriction. Brian have often seen eye-to-eye in high level B&R talks. If we want to get into specifics, ummm, there is nothing to discuss other than I'd restrict more... as I initially. I agree with all the particular cards he noted.

@chubbyrain

You are creating a reductionism of his initial post by saying it is only about his recommendations as most of Brian's post is about how to think about the B&R list differently than his specific recommendations. If people have a differing view on how to think about the list they are not allowed to say so?

@chubbyrain

Brian's suggestion, Vintage PURGE edition, Vintage Highlander, and others I think all fall under the title of the thread: "An Alternate Take on B&R"

Most takes seem to revolve around restriction or unrestricting 1 or 2 cards. Wizards has gone this route basically since the split from Legacy, but the reality is that the format probably needs much more dramatic restrictions or unrestrictions to have any real effect on most of the "pillars" of the format that have been leading the way for the last decade +.

I do like the idea of the "reset" in theory, but how do you practically complete the list in a timely enough manner to not upset the entire format with a restriction every few months?

I'd also even take more cards off of your list @evouga
Mind's Desire is not clearly better than other storm spells in a world of 4-Trini, 4-Lodestone Shops.
Tinker. I think this card is actually worse than Mentor.
Yawgmoth's Will. This is mostly a mid to late game spell in a format that would be dictated by turn 1 plays.
Demonic Tutor. Almost everything is unrestricted so there isn't much to fetch.
Strip Mine. This is Wasteland in like 90% of times, and wasteland is no where near the list.

Just leave the list at Balance, draw 7s, time walk, ancestral, fast artifact mana. I.e. Stick to is the question of: Is this card too broken if someone wins the die roll?

@mediumsteve

Instead we should brush off all criticism of the format with a generic:

"If you don't like it, go play another format."

@mediumsteve

In my opinion, this is a terrible mentality that holds Vintage back from growing as a format. We are all well aware that some of these cards are absolutely broken, yet there is always a huge backlash from conservatives about restricting cards.

Take for example, Walking Ballista, this card was a clear and clearly big upgrade over a card that was already seeing 4-of play in a major archetype, Triskelion. There is really no reason we should have had to sit around for years waiting for this card to get hit with a restriction (and its still unrestricted).

Or another example, Mental Misstep, this card was banned in every other format over 5 years ago now and has been a consistent 4-of in half of the decklists for that time period now.

Why is this format so slow to respond?

@evouga

Turn 0 or 1 Force is a broken play, and Force has been shown to support broken strategies like Dredge and Outcome Storm.

I'd be fine with most of these changes, but I think it would be far better as a community to move to a Highlander format for Vintage. This removes any needs to constantly discuss and re-evaluate the B&R list.

We have 4 fetch lands in each color and multiple versions of City of Brass that are good now so mana fixing is very well possible in a highlander format.

A lot of blue decks and storm decks are already highlander so they are relatively not affected as much and serve as the core decks that would instantly carry out.

We've already reached a fairly critical mass of spells, where I think I have ~150 cards that I want to play in Dredge and Shops. So I am 100% confident I can build a functional Dredge list without 4 Bazaar and that is likely the most difficult deck to build, and 110% confident I can build a Shops deck without Shops.

We also have ~50 versions of high caliber graveyard hate, ~12 playable free counterspells, ~1000 ways to deal with Storm that aren't counterspells. The tailored hate, and necessity of Force of Will are overstated. We can survive without these cards being 4-ofs.

"Interactive" has a pretty clear meaning. Interactive means does the deck function inherently differently against a goldfish than against an actual opponent. There are decks that range from being no different at all to dramatically different. Most Vintage decks seem to fall somewhere towards the left side of this spectrum as in they have some interactivity, but also have no problem beating up a goldfish.

"Fair" is more vague, but seems to align itself with how many turns the deck takes to win the game. Decks that take roughly 4+ turns are considered "fair". Decks that take less are not. The DCI uses this to decide on bannings so its a very real thing. If you want to argue semantics about their definition of "fair", I guess that's fine though.