2. Bring Back the Ban
This change of course would affect only Vintage Magic, because all other formats have exclusively used bannings to curtail overly powerful cards.
Here is what Mr. Forsythe said about the issue:
"When Channel and Mind Twist were moved from the Banned List to the Restricted List in 2000, for the first time in the Lists' history, no cards were banned for either time concerns or power reasons. In fact, the only cards currently banned in Type 1 are either ante cards (Contract From Below, Tempest Efreet, etc.) or cards requiring manual dexterity (Chaos Orb and Falling Star).
R&D and the DCI are very proud of this fact, as they fully understand that banning a card from Type 1 is essentially 'banning it from Magic,' a fate they are loathe to exact on any of their precious 'children.'"
Guess what? If your kid is a murdering axe fiend, it is time to send him or her to jail. There are certain Magic cards in Vintage that are the equivalent of derelict children. These cards are problematic for two reasons:
First, on their own they are far more detrimental to winning games based on skill than other powerful cards in the format. Second, given the nature of the card pool, sometimes restricting extremely powerful cards is not enough. Specifically, I believe that Tolarian Academy, Yawgmoth's Bargain, and Yawgmoth's Will are too powerful, even when restricted, to remain in the Vintage card pool. Banning them would effectively ban them from Magic, but doing so would dramatically improve the health of the game.
The first problem with these cards that necessitates banning them is that even in Vintage, they are too powerful. Here is comment made in the The Mana Drain forums by Kaervek:
"And however much fun it might be to be losing a game, topdeck a Yawgmoth's Will and go 'oops...I win', this is not something Wizards wants in any format (however much you might want it). Ever notice how almost every opponent sighs and sits back when you resolve a Will, as if to say 'yeah, whatever, you lucky bastard. Take your five-minute turn and finish it off'."
Will is so powerful that it essential negates any advantage an opponent built up over many turns of careful planning. In the final Invitational that used the Vintage format (which is sorely missed, given the shameless propaganda we now have with all Magic Online formats) Jon Finkel resolved a Will that resulted in the following, as reported by the Sideboard:
"[Jon] Finkel managed, on one turn late in a control-on-control battle with [Mike] Long, to cast Obliterate followed by Yawgmoth's Will, followed by Mind Twist and Stroke of Genius for five each."
Is that healthy? Is winning the game after such a play even tangentially related to skill? Now imagine if the Pros had the card pool Vintage does now. Imagine if they spent as much time on the format as Team Mean Deck does. The problem with Will, Bargain, and Tolarian Academy is not that they are always the most powerful card in the game - that honor would have to go to the consistently great and easily splashable Ancestral Recall. The problem with the power level of these cards is that, at a certain point in the game, it is almost impossible to not win once one of these three cards is in play.
In other words, while Tolarian Academy is not consistently great, when it is great it is game-winning, spine-snapping, opponent-slaughtering great. One only need to watch a Long.dec slaughter an opponent to see just how game-distorting Will is.
Yawgmoth's Bargain is similarly broken. It is quite simply the best combo engine in the game. The ability to instantly convert life into cards is remarkably powerful. Resolving a Bargain in almost every instance is a game winning play for the combo deck. Tolarian Academy, while not as broken as Will or Bargain in the current metagame, is still an offensive card. Despite the fact that it is restricted, the possibility of single Academy in a given deck requires many incidental cards to be restricted. With such unwieldy power, these three cards place enormous pressure on the format. With each new set that is released these three cards become increasingly powerful.
Spoils of the Vault, Chrome Mox, Sylvan Scrying and other Mirrodin cards are truly powerful cards in Vintage simply because of the presence of these three cards. The raw power of these cards is so high that they should be banned. Straight jacketing the format for what amounts to pride is silly. Wizards has made certain cards that are too powerful even for Vintage.
If these cards were isolated and other cards did not exist perhaps they would not warrant a repeal of the no banning policy. However, with each new set, cards are released that essentially unrestrict restricted cards, either by tutoring for them or duplicating their effect. For example, while Will and Bargain are powerful on their own, in conjunction with cards like Burning Wish and Academy Rector respectively, these cards are no longer restricted. In the case of Bargain, it doesn't even cost mana to play it!
Tutors are a tradition of the game. Players like them, tournament decks thrive with them, and apparently R&D likes to try to make them. Riding this edge of design, which has crappy cards on one side and broken cards on the other, is fine in formats with shallow card pools. However, in a format like Vintage, where every mistakenly designed card can be played, riding the edge is a losing proposition. Eliminating certain egregious errors would free up design space and prevent Vintage from spiraling into degeneracy.
Tutors, however, are only one of the problems presented by new cards. R&D has a tradition of trying to fix not just tutors (thus creating too many tutor effects) but other broken cards. The result is that while cards like Timetwister are restricted, there are enough"variants" on the effect in the card pool that restrictions are not enough. Even when the DCI restricts these variants, over time enough similarly-functioning cards are printed that restrictions are meaningless. While Timetwister, Wheel of Fortune, Windfall, Time Spiral, and Memory Jar are restricted, there are enough of these Draw 7s that the effect itself is not a rarity. Draws 7s make combo decks far more effective and these decks usually use all three of the problem cards. Thus, a combination of new tutors and similar card effects means that sometimes restricting a card is not enough.
Now that it is clear that restrictions don't address all the problems, when should a card be banned? I believe that if the DCI adopts the test above and implement data collection methods that they can carry the process over to the Vintage format and figure out when restriction is not enough. If a card, even when restricted, still meets all of the relevant elements of the test, then the DCI it should ban it.
I am not sure if there are any other cards that need banning now, but this is largely because we have so little data from the Vintage scene to determine when a deck is dominating the format and when it is not. From the data we do have, which consists of most of the large European tournaments, it seems clear that Will, Bargain, and Academy are at highly suspect. I hope that Mark Rosewater's mistake article was a premonition.
3. Separate the Lists
Now I will address why I believe the DCI should not use factor four in Steve's test above. In Formula One racing the average fan, in order to follow the sport, has to be quite intelligent. Baseball fans, mavens of statistics that they are, have formulas as complex as anything the Federal Reserve uses to determine the single best player of all time. Even a sport as seemingly mind numbing as NASCAR (Turn Left, Foot on Gas, Don't Hit Wall or Other Car) has a surprisingly complex set of rules.
Magic is no different. But in each of the following sports there are niches.
There are organizations that run off-shoot forms of Formula One, NASCAR, and baseball. There are minor league teams, amateur races, and semi-pro events. In other words, there are variants of the sport that appeal to all different kinds of fans. Most of these variant or niche offshoots follow the same rules, but many of them have small tweaks. Minor league baseball, for example, is premised on the fact that if you are enough of a fan to care about a Single A team, then you probably like the game enough to tolerate a few different rules.
In Magic, Vintage Restricted (or Type 1.5), is the format with the smallest following. Most people either go all the way old school and play Vintage, or they don't pick up cards before Tempest. From this perspective, 1.5 is neither foul nor fair. It lacks most of the brokenness of Vintage and has too many swingy cards to match the skill testing of the more recent formats. This view of 1.5 is incorrect. 1.5 is not Vintage without power. It is its own format, with unique challenges, spectacular decks, a fantastic forum board (see The Source at: http://grexin.shonic.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi) and a devoted following.
Given that it receives virtually no official support, the fact that people play 1.5 competitively at all is a sign of how devoted these people are. Without guidance from the Pros, organization from the DCI, or the allure of power tournaments, groups like Team Evolution and others have created a diverse and interesting metagame. 1.5 has less swing than Vintage and less combo than Extended. It has an enormous card pool and few cards that cost triple digits. Dual lands allow for color diversity. The lack of rotation means that players can play nearly any card they want. However, until now, 1.5's Banned List was simple - any card banned or restricted in Vintage is banned in 1.5.
The time has come, however, for this to change.
Just like people that follow minor league baseball or semi pro racing, or any other niche interest, if a person is enough of a fan to like 1.5 then they certainly pay close enough attention to the game that a standalone Banned List would not confuse them. It would give the format legitimacy and its own unique feel. It would also do something very important for casual players - it would create a unique format where people could play with almost all of their cards, not have to worry about rotation, and yet not get smashed by exotic weapons like Long.dec and Keeper. It would be a format where casual players could tweak their existing decks with access to powerful, yet balanced old cards.
For example, recent control decks could easily be made good, if not competitive, with the addition of Force of Will, Fact or Fiction (which should not be banned in the format), and dual lands. By barring power cards from 1.5, the DCI could create a format where any player could have a top-flight deck with only minimal expense. Adding Goblin Lackey, Lightning Bolts, and Goblin Grenades to a Goblin deck from Onslaught Block makes it quite good - good enough to compete in 1.5 now. In short, 1.5 could be the meeting ground between casual players with old cards and new players willing to acquire a few classics.
However, so long as the Banned List is tied to Vintage, 1.5 players have to do without many staple cards that would add diversity to the format. Without cards like the Mirage Tutors, Tinker, and Grim Monolith, the format is largely a matter of control and aggro simply bludgeon each other with enormously powerful cards. Separating the List would enliven the format with a few archetypes that are too fast for Extended but not possible in Vintage. It would give the format a unique feel. Unlike Extended, 1.5 has the tools to prevent combo and lock decks from getting out of hand.
This leads to another benefit of the format: It contains a number of"emergency break" cards that, because there is no rotation, ensure that whatever changes are made to the list (okay, not every change, but all reasonable changes) and the card pool the format will always be somewhere near equilibrium. Force of Will balances out the blinding speed of Mishra's Workshop decks and guards against combo. Survival of the Fittest and Goblin Lackey keep creatures in the game. In short, 1.5 is a niche form of the game that deserves, at the very least, its own Banned List. As much as I like rotation, there is something to be said for having cards in the card pool that keep virulent decks in check. Looking at Pro Tour: New Orleans is a testament to this fact.
How should the DCI develop the 1.5 Banned List?
First, they should open up the process of card evaluations and accept tournament data from events around the world. This would provide them with clues as to which cards are good and which are too good.
Second, they should consult the 1.5 community. These people are dedicated players that have survived for years without so much as a mention from Wizards. They have good insights into how the format works and what needs to be done.
Third, the DCI should look to Vintage and see what leads to a diverse metagame and what is keeping things in check. Finally, they should look at Extended and figure out what causes cards like Tinker to float to the top of the format and dominate other decks. Taking a few exploratory steps could be tremendously helpful.
1.5 is the perfect meeting ground for semi-serious casual players, new players looking for a change of pace, and old school players that don't have access to the Power Nine. Cards do not rotate, so people can keep decks together for a long time, yet there is no worry about Moxen or Ancestral Recall. It would be a good place for people to learn about the history of the game and to learn how the colors have developed. In short, if the Lists are separated it would be a great format for a host of reasons.
However, there is one other reason the DCI should separate the lists, and it is the most important of all. There is customer demand to separate the lists and it is a move that costs virtual no capital. Creating and organizing a 1.5 format with its own list does nothing but generate good will for Wizards among its customers - and it does so with no cost and zero downside.
4. The Principle of Limited Collateral Damage
And then there was Donate. Donate, in my mind, is the worst card in Magic. It is not the most broken card - Yawgmoth's Will earns that distinction. It is not the weakest card - that is Sorrow's Path. It is not even the most confusing card, a distinction shared by a number of offenders.
Donate is the worst card in all of Magic because it has no other purpose in serious tournament play other than being part of a broken combo. It has no independent tournament quality use at all. Necro had decks built around it and Illusions of Grandeur was a weak rare sometimes seen as a last ditch effort in control decks. Then Donate was printed and Michelle Bush made a deck that ruined Extended and Vintage... All because of Donate.
Trix even ruined Extended for a number of seasons. The DCI, in an effort to hamper the deck, banned Dark Ritual and Mana Vault, thinking that stopping the fast mana would solve the problem. Then they got rid of Necropotence. Then Demonic Consultation. I think one could make a credible argument that the presence of Trix was one of the reasons they decided to rotate the format. In short, the DCI moved heaven and earth to beat back the tide of Trix combo decks. Instead, they should have just banned Donate - one card no one used in any other deck, one card that had no other purpose than to deliver an unwieldy Illusions to an opponent.
If they would have banned Donate they would have killed Trix but left intact Suicide Black, Black Control, and Pox, all of which were neutered with the loss of Dark Ritual. They would have preserved Necro, a card that without Hymn to Tourach, Hypnotic Specter, and Strip Mine, or combo pieces like Donate, is good but not broken. (Note: There was a time when Necro was reprinted in 5th edition that it was not dominant, but merely good because of the quality of support cards). In short, had they rid the format of Donate, they would have reduced the swath of collateral damage tremendously. The choice was simple: Kill a card that had no other use but combo or kill all the other pieces of the combo deck except Donate. In my mind, the decision is easy - in the right circumstances ban the card that would kill the problem deck with the least amount of collateral damage.
The principle of limited collateral damage isn't something the DCI should use often. It can only be applied in certain narrow circumstances. The principle is best applied with dealing with cards that are necessary for combo decks to work, but that have very limited usefulness elsewhere. Combo decks have cards that are especially ripe targets for the principle, because often times the combo itself has two or three equally necessary cards, one of which has a very small tournament value outside the combo. Donate is the archetypal card. Banning it would have done little to harm the diversity of the metagame and it would have absolutely and definitively ended Trix's reign of terror.
Looking at the current Extended environment shows us two decks that illustrate when the principle of limited collateral damage can work. The first deck is Tinker/Tinker-Stax. The power of these decks cannot be trimmed using the principle of limited collateral damage. The DCI could ban Mindslaver, Bosh, Iron Golem, and/or Myr Incubator because they are the cards that break Tinker, but they would not cure the problem entirely.
If these three go, another problem card would rise to take its place, be it Clockwork Dragon or Phyrexian Processor. In the case of the Tinker decks, Tinker itself needs to go. Eliminating any other card would simply shift around which card is the kill card. Tinker itself is obviously the problem. Furthermore, these three cards have uses outside of broken Tinker decks that make them interesting.
Another deck in Extended, however, is a perfect example of when to apply the principle of collateral damage. If the DCI banned Mana Severance, a card whose only tournament use is to make Goblin Charbelcher broken, they would end the problem deck and still let us use interesting cards like the Charbelcher itself. The harm of banning Mana Severance is far outweighed by the good it does. It rids the format of another Turn 2 kill, yet allows us to still use the powerful and interesting cards in the deck.
(Having been present at New Orleans, I think the banning of Tinker and Grim Monolith will slow the Mana Belcher decks to the point that they are more easily disruptable, thus limiting their success. Limiting the percentage that they go off on turn 3 to twenty instead of fifty would go a long way towards making the deck fair. Aside from that, preach on, Brother Sculimbrene. - Knut)
Finally, a look at Vintage provides us with another example of how the principle should be applied. In Vintage, there are two decks that use Lion's Eye Diamond (LED) in a powerful way: Virtual Madness and Long.dec. Restricting LED would neuter both decks. Virtual Madness, however, is not a degenerate as Long is. While both decks can crank out quick wins, Madness has a fundamental turn of 3, while Long's frequently dips down to 1. In other words, Madness is a safe deck in Vintage and Long is not, and banning LED seems to punish an"innocent" deck. There is another solution. If the DCI banned Yawgmoth's Will it would not only be good for the environment as a whole by weakening all the other decks that use Will equally, it would end Long's chances once and for all and it would save LED and Virtual Madness.
As you can see, applying the principle is a balancing test. Is it worth banning a weak card to save a slew of other decks? Answering this question is difficult, but a process the DCI should at least try. They must first determine if the combo deck as a whole is problematic. Then, they must determine which cards are absolutely necessary to the combo. If one of the necessary cards has a limited-but-unique effect, it would be the card targeted by the principle. This seems counterintuitive - banning weak cards - but doing this in the right circumstances can save a format.
Once they find the limited but necessary card in the combo they must make a judgment call: Does banning this very narrowly-tailored card, that is not broken outside of the combo, end the problem deck while doing as little collateral damage to the environment as possible?
Sometimes there is no way to avoid collateral damage. But in a few rare instances, like Donate, Mana Severance, and the Yawgmoth's Will scenario, banning the less broken card will accomplish the same effect with less overall damage. In the end, I think if the DCI adopted the principle of limited collateral damage when it acted, then the game, as a whole would benefit.
E. The New Format for Announcing Bans and Restrictions
The test I advocate for above is one articulation of how the DCI could work. In a recent article, Randy Buehler gave us a hint as to the reasoning they use when suggesting changes to the DCI. He said:
"We ban cards from Constructed formats when we believe they are so powerful that they make the format unhealthy. We look at a number of different things when judging whether or not a format is"unhealthy," but the two big things we try to ensure are that a format is fun and that it is sufficiently skill-testing. For example, if a card is so powerful that it goes into every deck and whoever plays it first always wins, the only skill that is being tested is the ability to draw and play that card. In addition, that format probably wouldn't be fun either. Similarly, when everyone is playing a deck that can kill by turn 3, there isn't much opportunity to outplay your opponent and play-skill won't matter as much as we think it should."
This statement is a good step forward. It could be the first step towards opening the process up to the public. It also demonstrates that the DCI can use reasons other than the ones I articulated above to take action. I believe the reasons Steve articulated and the one that I added are the most reasonable factors, but the DCI can use other factors in a reasonable way.
The important thing is that the whole process be done out in the open for the entire community to see. Even the standards Mr. Buehler put forth are still too vague. I would prefer more examples, more data, and more information. As such in this short section I am going to discuss what the ideal announcement from the DCI would look like.
First the DCI should include hard data from around the globe. For example, they should utilize the data already collected by various parties relating to a given cards use. StarCityGames did an excellent job of this during its coverage. They listed each card used in the tournament in New Orleans and how many copies were used. They should also list how many top finishes decks containing the card has put up. They should list the number of people that played in the events they are taking their data from to show that the problem card's performance was not a fluke. They should list the K value of the events they are taking data from for the same reason.
This sort of representative data must be in the announcement. Otherwise, the process seems to be based on arbitrary or subjective things, such as potential brokenness or a perceived color bias of a format.
Second, the DCI should provide anecdotal evidence. In the article Steve wrote on Long.dec, he walked the reader through a number of games demonstrating just how easy it was to win on Turn 1 with the deck. This sort of information shows the public clearly and practically why a given card is too powerful. They should give a number of examples, instead of listing vague combinations (see the justification for banning Goblin Lackey above). This would demonstrate, in explicit detail, how and when the card is broken, and what it means to be"too good."
Third, the DCI should cite, if possible, specific problems with the card. For example, when Tinker is banned, they should point out the problems with the card, problems we are aware of but deserve special attention. Tinker is too good because it is a tutor and it allows you to play the searched for card for free. The DCI should state this. Doing so would help new players see why a card is being taken away from them. It would also let the public know that the DCI knows the correct reasons for acting. It would give us some faith in the DCI. We would know that they were not banning cards in a blind attempt to neuter a deck (see the Trix debacle).
Finally, the DCI should tell us when cards are on the Watch List. They did this in the past and it was very helpful. Not in the sense that lesser players automatically included the Watch cards in their decks, but in the sense that it allows the community to be vigilant. It puts us on notice that we need to provide the DCI with data so they can better make their decisions. With everyone helping, problem cards can have as minimal an impact as possible and the game we love can keep going.
Below is a sample of an announcement based on the test above and containing the information I think it should:
Subject: DCI Official Announcement
RE: Tinker: BANNED: Extended
Date: December 5, 2003
Data
Gathered from Pro Tour: New Orleans, 318 players, K value 32
Players using Tinker: 104
Copies of Tinker played: 407
Tinker decks, overall: 20.8%, 66 players
Related Tinker-based decks:
Mana Belcher 7.9%, 25 players;
Tinker Stax 3.5%, 11 players
Top Finish: 1st Place
Top 8: 7 of 8 decks
# of copies of Tinker in Top 8: 28 of 32 slots
Anecdotal Evidence
Quarter Finals, Pro Tour: New Orleans,
Gabrial Nassif v., Tomohiro Yokosuka,
Mana Belcher Tinker v. Psychatog
Game 1:
Gabriel won the die roll and chose to go first... But was that the correct call? The pros are still considering this question. He led with a Polluted Delta, sacrificed it to get an Island and dropped a Voltaic Key. Tomohiro played Shivan Reef. Gabe cast Tinker with the help of Ancient Tomb to get Gilded Lotus. Then he followed up with Brainstorm and Mana Severance. So much action, and this is only the second turn. Yokosuka played Brainstorm at end of turn, and shuffled during his turn with Polluted Delta getting an island. During Gabriel's upkeep Tomohiro Iced the Lotus. He had access to the information about the lands in Gabriel's hand, due to Severance. Maybe Gabriel was out of lands? This proved not to be the case, as the Frenchman played Ancient Tomb, Talisman of Progress and Tinker for Goblin Charbelcher getting a concession from his opponent.
Nassif 1, Yokosuka 0
Game 2, Turn 7, Nassif's Main Phase:
Nassif shot at end of Tomohiro's turn but another Wish got the Stifle, and Shattering Pulse without buyback handled the shooter. Gabriel Tinkered for Mindslaver and started to have fun, but not before Tomohiro Wished for Tsabo's Decree. Gabriel then played the fine turn of Psychatog, Decree oneself, and in response discard hand and remove the graveyard from the game. On his turn the fourth Charbelcher ended the game.
Nassif 2, Yokosuka 0
[More Anecdotes]
Design Flaws
By allowing players to search their decks for a card and play it without paying its mana cost, Tinker allows for spectacular early game plays. Furthermore, it allows combo decks to search for pieces easily. Tinker requires very minimal color commitment, only one blue mana, and the cards it searches for, artifacts, have no color commitment at all. Also, artifacts generate a wide range of effects, some of which are closely associated with specific colors. Thus, one can build Tinker decks with little color commitment, yet experience no drawback for not running a specific color. Finally, and most crucially, Tinker's function as both a tutor and an accelerant at the same time is too good. It is restricted in Vintage and we now ban it in Extended because of these problems.
Summary Action
We now add Tinker to the Banned List For The Extended Format.
F. Conclusions
The fact is that this is only one version of the announcement based on only one possible test. They could include whatever information they want and use whatever test they choose so long as the process is open to the public.
They need to tell us what they are doing and why.
They need to work towards the overall improvement of the game instead of creating hard and fast rules that become unworkable. They need to be flexible enough to take action when needed and they need to use real world data to inform their decisions. No one wants cards to be restricted or banned, but sometimes it is necessary. All of the prior discussion should apply in rare circumstances. No one wants cards to be banned and restricted on a regular basis, but when a problem arises, action should be taken.
Wizards has come a long way in 10 years. The game has blossomed and a community has arisen. The game has a history and a culture, jargon and websites. If we want it to survive, then the DCI, the official tournament wing of the game, must come in line with customer demand and recent trends elsewhere in the company.
The DCI should follow the model set forth by Mark Rosewater, Randy Buehler, and the rest of the writers on www.magicthegathering.com They should utilize resources like Star City's tournament reports, The Mana Drain and The Source's forum boards, and www.Morphling.de decklists. It is time they act like any other officiating or adjudicatory body in a sport - with decisiveness, reason, and full disclosure.
We as a community must help. We need to write tournament reports more regularly. We need to provide the DCI with tournament data and we need to remain alert to the problems in the game. It is time for things to change. It is time for the DCI to disclose to us customers what they are doing. I want this game to go on for a long time - for at least ten more years. I want to teach my son how to play Magic some day.
| 
