@wfain

Maybe. Idk though.

Ok, but I'm pretty sure we should know by now. Its empirically been the best deck for the better part of the last decade, and continues to be the best deck since the last restricted list action as it maintains the highest % of the metagame according to mtgtop8.

This gets at the larger argument here that we either ignore empirical evidence entirely (and go with some arbitrary restriction system, which is what honestly seems to be in place), or we actually focus on what people don't like playing against and/or what is winning more than should be expected. I'm not entirely sure how anyone can continue to push for these arbitrary systems, yet after this whole huge argument you post actions that would be classified as such.

@wfain

Still a world where Workshops is the best deck...

@stuart

Force of Will, Dual lands, and fetches are restricted in highlander. If any deck would dominate, it would probably be a storm variant, but thats probably a stretch given the two dozen or so good answers to that strategy.

I think there could be fairly significant diversity and due to the restricted mana bases likely a pretty big uptick in 5C decks (blue control, workshop, hatebears).

@davidlemon

Highlander is not a sanctioned format, and I don't think it "fundamentally" changes Vintage. Vintage comes with one core concept:

Every card is legal to play.

Vintage Highlander doesn't betray that core concept (existing highlander does).

In practice, we end up playing decks that are about 50%+ highlander already, and the existing restricted list (and every argument lately pro-restrictions) are not even based on power level anymore.

"Lets restrict Workshop decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Workshop"
"Lets restrict Blue Control decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Force of Will"
"Lets restrict Dredge decks, but avoid the most powerful card: Bazaar of Baghdad"

@hrishi said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

we'll end up with Highlander, with a restricted list stretching miles long.

I am a strong advocate of just skipping the middle steps and just going straight to this. Restrict everything. Be done with all these "shakeup" restrictions that have been occurring as of late, and mitigate the effect of insanely broken new printings (like Delve, Ballista, Outcome, Hollow one).

@ten-ten

I have not streamed in quite some time (a lot of issues trying to stream where I lived the last couple years), but may start again in a couple weeks after I finish moving into my new apartment.

@wfain

Yes that does seem rather narrow. I've played Dredge variants that have fully transformed and did not use their graveyard at all post board. It was still a Dredge / GY deck. The same was true of Dragon Reanimator that transformed into Tezzeret.

@brianpk80

Brian, let me shift the debate a bit here and focus on the "6 sideboard cards" portion of the argument. If say tomorrow Wizards comes out and restricts: Stinkweed Imp, Golgari-Grave Troll and Serum Power (all fairly exclusive cards to dredge) would you stop playing 4 Tormod's Crypts + 2 Spyglass in your Oath sideboard altogether? Would you stop playing Containment Priest and/or Grafdigger's Cages in your non-Oath decks? If so, what would you replace these cards with and how would they help you to combat the growing problem of Ballista Shops and Outcome storm?

@wfain

Yes, what I meant by GY strategy is one that uses Bazaar and gains significant benefit from its GY. In Survival's case that is recurring a bunch of Vengevines on extremely value. If you want to view the point as irrelevant that is up to you, but I literally defined the decks I was talking about in my comment. I'm not sure how much more explicit I should be.

As often seems to be the case in a restricted list discussion, people start talking past each other and defining things ever so differently as to make their argument. I'll try to clarify since it seems what I'm saying is being lost.

My "justified reasoning for restricting dredge cards" was a separate point to yours, Brian. I am a numbers guy, and if the numbers aren't absurd for something I don't see the justification to restrict something. If you want to explain why the numbers are wrong that is another argument that I would listen to. Soly seemed to be responding to my comments in terms of the numbers, and I don't think that what he presented refutes anything that I was saying and certainly doesn't make my initially factual statements about the numbers false.

As to the elusive, mythical "6 sideboard slots", I specifically mentioned "exclusive" Dredge hate because that is what these cards would have to be for them to be "opened up" by Dredge being restricted. This does not cards include cards like Oath, Sorceress' spyglass, Wasteland, ect. that I'm fairly sure are being played for other matchups rather than just Dredge. I mean I'm almost 100% certain that restricting Dredge won't suddenly make you stop playing Oath of Druids in an Oath of Druids deck.

You playing 1 Dredge hate card in your main deck, and winning is great news! I have to admit that I was unaware of these results as I've been playing Dredge and I have not seen a blue player play a game 1 hate piece on me. It also means Dredge isn't that hard to combat. I'm not sure how this is any different from the anti-Workshops strategy 10 years ago of playing 1 main deck Hurkyl's to sure up a match up.

Is Survival even a GY strategy?

Perhaps not, but I tried to be clear in stating that I felt it was a GY strategy in my point.

@13nova

I'm not right about what? That 4/350 > 1%? That I don't think a deck winning ~20% of tournaments when it exists at a ~15% is something restriction worthy? Dredge has also gone through stretches in the past where it was still considered a pillar at only ~5% of the meta. I'd say also say that 3%, and trending upwards is certainly a deck in the meta. Just like Dredge has been trending upwards in play-ability/win % lately! These graveyard strategies are a natural counter to the artifact heavy meta that has been going on for a while now, and some people seem to be picking up on that. I'm sure if you give it time, people will adjust and switch some artifact hate into graveyard hate and the cycle will continue.

I'm also not sure what you want to place the cut point at for a deck that exists in the meta when a deck at 15% to you is problematic in the meta, while a deck at 3% doesn't exist. That seems like a fairly narrow range for a deck to exist, while simultaneously not being a problem. If someone is able to play their pet deck, and actually place occasionally that would be a great sign that the format is healthy.