I very much enjoyed this report! I wish we had more of these. Let's be honest, talk about strategy can be enlightening, but it's usually dry to read. This piece on the other hand was a lot of fun and gave me a better insight of what kind of person you are and how Vintage is played in the New World.
I'm surprised the t8 consisted of only 2 archetypes. Are Workshop decks really that much more consistent than any blue decks? With the deck being down to 8 lock pieces there should be enough hands with none or just one, but apparently the all in affinity approach is also enough to win consistently?
Also, what happened to Paradoxical and the Baral deck? Or decks with 4 hurkyls in general?
Regarding Serendib Djinn: I tried to delve into its past to find out why they made the change from destroy to sacrifice. Apparently the wording in Arabian Nights was just so random that they tried to homogenize them. Dandan says just destroy, while Junun Efreet states destroy without regeneration. To make it worse, cards like City in a Bottle and Bottle of Suleiman state the term discarded. So creatures are destroyed, everything else is discarded? But wait, Flying Carpet is not discarded but destroyed. And Diamond Valley explicitely states that a creature is sacrificed, despite that not being official language before Revised (thanks for the article, Aaron!)
All I could find was that the "Official Encyclopedia Volume 1" from 1996 already states that the Djinn sacrifices land, because apparently they can't be buried. I would be nice to get the original wording back on this one, but since the card works the way it does for more than 20 years now, I doubt this will ever happen. I'm giving up on this one and I agree that whichever Oldschool community wants to play it either has to use house rules or just play it as intended since 1996 (or 1994 even, when Revised came out - I wasn't able to find a date when the change actually happened).
I don't understand what some people expect - the rise of completely new archetypes? People abandoning Shops or the "Dack-Delve-Engine"? The restrictions happened last week and all we have is a few League 5-0s and a rather small premier, aka no relevant sample size. Also, I think that if you interpret the results things look really healthy: old archetypes can still be played with success but they dropped in overall win percentage. Delver, an archetype that was pushed to tier 3 territory suddenly was able to rack up 9-0 again.
Let's wait before becoming too vocal about nonsense restrictions - they weren't meant to invalidate archetypes but to end the previous power struggle.
@brass-man said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:
"on TMD, on Facebook, amongst my friends, the most common chorus is that vintage is terrible and vintage is dying."
When I started playing Magic at the end of the 90s "Vintage" or whatever is was called back then was already out of reach for most players. When I came back to the game 10 years ago, not much changed. Except for that the format had the reputation of turn 1 kills among non Vintage players. Nowadays? If I ask people about Vintage the stock responses still are "costs as much as a car" and "people dying on turn 1".
Most people don't know anything about the format. I'm sure there is a name for the psychological phenomenon where people just dismiss and badmouth something because they will never be able to afford it.