This article started on the muddy banks of the Pere Marquette river in northern Michigan. No, I didn't actually pull out the laptop and begin composing this on the trail... But every year, I partake in a ritual known as Salmon Fishing. For those of you who have never tried, please do; it's akin to tying a Labrador Retriever to your arm.

As we headed down the steep embankment, the leaves created a palette of colors on the forest floor only an artist could appreciate, we came upon the black waters of the rushing Marquette. We strapped on waders and plunged through swirling eddies searching for a monster King Salmon. Hours later, are arms were sore and our stringers were full. Somewhere in between the excitement, I had pondered a few things.

I am constantly skimming through Vintage articles everyday. I've stopped writing myself (I teach classes and am working on my Masters degree), but I do like to try to remain up-to-date on topics that Vintage players are concerned with. It was right after my first King - a small guy, twenty pounds, but a great fighter. I was sitting on the banks tying a fly on the end of my line and watching the fish cresting out of the water above their beds when I thought back to the article I read that morning. I sat my pole on my lap, lit a cigarette, and for about the first time since GenCon, began to think about Magic.

I came to a solid conclusion: There are always people who have to conquer the format. I'm not talking about building the best deck, these people believe that they have to define the metagame of the format.

The Vintage metagame. Doesn't that sound weird?

There are a plethora of great writers out there - talented individuals who devote time towards creating a growing environment conducive to the needs of players who like to"taste test" new formats.

The problem arises when the critics themselves fall into a mass hysteria mentality and propagate these accepted myths. This bandwagon approach spurs a mob mentality in the community, and eventually accomplishes nothing aside from generating loads of hate mail for Wizards employees.

Why is there a belief in the community that a player can change the game? Why does your average Joe believe that he can have an influence, that he can alter in some way, a game run by a successful company - a company that hires experts for the explicit purpose of defining such boundaries?

Because that's the way Wizards wants it.

Who are you going to hire when you want to have a tire changed? You hire the expert. Wizards works the same way. To flourish as a company, you consistently hire people from the field who know how Magic works and the game gravitates to a higher level because of it. The problem with this ideology is that it has created confusion.

There seem to be too many Magic players who believe they know what's right for the company. This is where my argument begins: Discord doesn't just come about. There are underlying factors that weigh on the minds of Magic players when a new set is released.

Please keep in mind that everything I refer to is pointed firmly at the Vintage format.

Tournament Magic created the term Restriction. Restriction is the nature of the game and the game is immense. There was no reason, in the early stages of design, to account for thousands of rules interactions that would affect the state of play, beyond the age-old mantra of"first in, last out."

The game was a game, not a sport - but to my viewpoint, that's what Magic has become. A sport; a thousand-dollar conduit molded for professionals to seek a living, and many have. Due to this transformation, Wizards has had to go back on a few things - most specifically on cards. They had to rethink old concepts and alter the perception of the game. This led to restrictions.

I'm convinced it's because of this reason, coupled with the fact that Wizards has always implemented a"player's needs" policy, that the public believes that their word makes a difference, and they may be right...

...To a degree.

Trouble arises when the players believe they have conquered the format, and deem their word to be gospel. This arrogance generally leads to the hysteria I spoke of earlier, which then points to frustration.

There are three criteria I would use to decide if a card just has to be restricted.

1. How can a player possibly know what to restrict if they don't know what the future holds?
2. How can a player define a metagame before it really exists?
3. How can players possibly know what's good for the format if the format is unexplored?

The first criteria questions fabricated decisions based on limited information of the future. A card is not environment-distorting if it (or its counterparts) are already on the block for restriction. This holds true for future expansions. While it is common knowledge that R&D does no playtesting is done for the Vintage format, it does some testing for Extended, and the formats lean on each other greatly.

An example of this is best illustrated by GenCon this year and the call for Academy Rector's restriction - this argument easily falls into all three criteria. Calling for the card's restriction was premature, as the format paused for a heartbeat on the future of this deck, it quickly dusted itself off and moved on.

The second criteria is one of the most common misconceptions in Type I. Two weeks before a set is released, or before the expansion is legal, there are cries for restriction on cards.

Most of this bickering is done without actual testing.

Case in point: Berserk. Before being taken off the restricted list, there were cries of despair from every corner of the Type I community - after a month or two of testing, only murmurs.

If there are any guarantees in life, this is one of them: There will always be speculation. You have to decide how much of what you hear is true. I think a recent example of this would be a call for the restriction of Chalice of the Void. Some people are asking for an immediate restriction. I, on the other hand, think it might do the format some good. I know that I would certainly like to see the card in action before I decide whether it needs restriction.

The third, and probably the most important, is the criteria that the format is largely unexplored. Mishra's Workshop was unrestricted for three years before it found its way into a competitive deck. Three years? How many formats rotated in three years? And most of the tools were there already when it was unrestricted, lying in wait to become MUD; Smokestack, Sphere of Resistance, Tangle Wire....

I'm not saying that Vintage hasn't come a long way baby, but it has been a long, arduous journey. The point is, until help from overseas came, the format was certainly stagnant. Now the players believe that certain cards destroy the format.

This is mistaking the apple for the orange.

Generally, I think there are some unwarranted myths when it comes to restriction. I don't believe that Wizards measures secondary monetary value when making a decision about restrictions. What I mean by"secondary monetary value" is that the card, now out of print, holds no value to Wizards, but holds a secondary value to collectors and players. These types of distinctions cannot be allowed to dictate the environment: Look at dual lands and Extended.

This is one of the reasons - and not the best one, mind you - why I believe it would be safe to restrict Workshop. I don't think players should comfort themselves by holding onto cards while believing that the prices will keep them unrestricted. If a card distorts the environment, that card needs to go.

I, like most everyone else, have my list of cards I'd like to see restricted, and I have very valid points on why they should be restricted... But this article probably isn't the place to address those.

And yet I will say this; wait a while before you decide the card needs to go. Look at previous trends of Wizards (the restriction of Gush, Fact or Fiction, and Mind's Desire; the unrestriction of Berserk, Hurkyll's Recall) and use these standards to determine if a card is even worthy of restriction. I for one believe there are cards from Mirrodin that could be up for restriction, as I believe there are also older cards that deserve restriction as the format continues to blossom.

The cigarette burned to the butt, and I secured the fly and removed a sinker from my line. It was obvious that two sinkers were too many for this stretch of river, and they had to be at least a foot and a half above the fly, otherwise they would get caught on the soft gravel beds on the river floor. It was funny - because last week I had visited this same spot along the river, when the waters had risen because of a late fall rain, and two sinkers was the ticket. I knew two sinkers were good for last week's water, but I was forced to adapt to this river if I wanted to catch fish.

My, how the fishing metagame can change so suddenly.

I feel like I still have more to address, namely the metagame triangle and how the old"rock, paper, scissors" vision has been changed (mainly due to control and aggro decks leaving the metagame). Hopefully the fish are still in the rivers this week, as I have a short break and I'd definitely like to address the triangle soon.

Viva,
Matthew Smith