May through July of 2019 will go down as one of the most turbulent periods in the history of the Vintage format. A succession of transformative sets – War of the Spark, Modern Horizons, and Magic 2020 – each introduced metagame contorting tactics into the Vintage card pool. There have been many transformative sets in Vintage history, from Urza’s Saga to Scourge to Mirrodin to Future Sight to Worldwake to Khans of Tarkir, but there has never been an instance when sets of such magnitude arrived in such close succession and temporal proximity. Imagine if any three of those sets arrived clustered in a three month period, and you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the most recent changes to the Vintage metagame.
By year’s end, there was a playful debate whether Karn, Scion of Urza or Assassin’s Trophy was the most significant contribution to the Vintage card pool in 2018. How quaint. There are at least two further sets that will introduce new cards into the Vintage card pool yet to be released this calendar year, and there are nearly a dozen candidates for that debate, including Lavinia, Mystic Forge, Narset, Parter of Veils, Karn, The Great Creator, Force of Vigor, Collector Ouphe, Hogaak, and Force of Negation, among others.
While many of these cards are much needed additions to the card pool, such as Collector Ouphe and Force of Vigor, some are new tentpoles for the metagame, and engines for potentially dominant strategies. Little wonder that a community of players as enfranchised as Vintage players, by both the value of their investments and passionate dedication to their hobby, are agitated to an unusual degree.
The Banned and Restricted List is always grist for the debate mill, but sometimes the discussion becomes inflamed in tone and louder in buzz. We are in such a period of energized discussion about how to best manage a variety of formats. At the center of it is unhappiness over the Modern format, but this unhappiness extends to the domain of older formats as well.
I offer a few suggestions that I believe will ameliorate some of the problems that are emerging in the Vintage metagame, and will salve some of the irritation as well. Last year I promised to offer my recommendations on an annual basis in late spring/early summer, but this year I prudently decided to wait to evaluate the changes wrought by new sets to draw conclusions that would support firm recommendations about Banned and Restricted List policy. Although matters could and will likely shift in the near future, my recommendations are not subject to ordinary oscillations in metagame conditions.
But before I present my recommendations, let’s briefly review my criteria for restriction.
Banned and Restricted Criteria
My article on this subject last year laid out the main criteria that I believe should guide Banned and Restricted List policy. Although the core principles are the same, I have slightly reformulated the criteria for restriction this year, based upon new language from official sources.
To begin, let me quote from Wizards of the Coast’s official Banned and Restricted List web page, which explains the main purpose of these lists:
“One key to the continued health of Magic is diversity. It is vitally important to ensure that there are multiple competitive decks for the tournament player to choose from. Why? If there were only a single viable deck to play, tournaments would quickly stagnate as players were forced to either play that deck or a deck built specifically to beat it. In addition, different players enjoy playing different types of decks. If there are plenty of viable options to play, there will be more players at more tournaments.
To help maintain the diversity and health of the Magic tournament environment, a system of banned and restricted lists has been developed.”
This brief explanation contains within it several key principles that serve as criteria for managing the Banned and Restricted List, which I will draw out.
1) Metagame Diversity (Quantity of Competitive Decks)
The first criteria is metagame diversity. This element is explicitly mentioned in the first sentence of excerpt above, and is based on the simple and self-evident truth that enjoyable and healthy formats offer players multiple competitive deck options. As a corollary, formats that lack multiple competitive deck options deny players a meaningful choice of decks, and coerce players in to one or two choices. While these deck options may be fun to some players who prefer those strategies, it alienates and disaffects players who do not enjoy those options. A larger range of competitive options not only gives players more options to select a strategy that draws on their skill set, experience and cards they enjoy, but also greater maneuvering room to find a successful niche or lane in the metagame.
2) Competitive Balance (Match Win Percentage)
Very closely related to the first criteria, competitive balance is a byproduct of metagame diversity, and vice-versa. Metagames that are dominated by a single deck (monopolistic metagames) or a pair of decks (an oligopolistic metagame), are not diverse at the highest levels of competition. Thus, decks that dominate the metagame, either by themselves or in tandem with another deck, are the most obvious targets for restriction, and that is most frequently the case. The most recent restrictions in Vintage, Thorn of Amethyst and Monastery Mentor at the end of August 2017, occurred because those two strategies combined to make up 70% of Top 8 decklists, as Ian Duke explained on behalf of the DCI.
The DCI explained recently that most important data points it examines are “raw win rate and […] high Top 8 conversion rates.” Historically, decks that breach a threshold of more than 40% of Top 8s (such as Thirst for Knowledge-laden Tezzeret decks in 2009) have almost always been targeted for restriction, as I showed in an article earlier this year canvassing every restriction in the history of the Vintage format.
Under the leadership of Ian Duke, however, the DCI has paid much closer attention to win rate (or match win percentage) as a direct measure of balance than other, more indirect measures such as Top 8 representations (which is a function of metagame presence and win rate). For example, in a remarkable Banned and Restricted List explanation published in January 2018, Ian presented a series of tables illustrating sub-archetype game and match win rates. He concluded that the match win percentage imbalanced the metagame, and undertook a series of bannings in Standard with the primary goal of “[r]educ[ing] the overall win percentage” of the target archetype.
3) Dominance (Sustained Win Rate)
In a subsequent article Ian explained that win rates alone are not sufficient to suggest metagame imbalance: “When a new deck posts a high win rate in the early period of its emergence, we monitor the environment to see if the metagame can adapt. Often, as opponents come to better understand how the new deck works and adapt their own decks and sideboards to beat it, we see the overall win rate of the new deck come down to normal levels.” Therefore, it’s not enough for a deck to have a high win rate, the deck must dominate for a sufficient period of time for the metagame to try to adjust. This is what I call “dominance”: an unreasonably high win rate sustained over a long enough period of time (at least 3-6 months). In short, dominant decks are usually targeted for restriction. Thus, dominance is a corollary of competitive balance, but over a longer time horizon.
4) Counterplay
As important as metagame diversity and balance are, the quality of in-game play also matters. A more precise term for what most people conceive of as “interactivity,” this concept is, of course, much harder to measure, and objective quantitative data is less availing when evaluating or measuring it. Nonetheless, Ian Duke has invoked this concept on several occasions as a consideration in Banned and Restricted List management.
This concept seeks to ensure that there are enough opportunities for players to make meaningful choices during the course of a game. The reason is simple enough: the core essence of “fun” is meaningful choice. Meaningful choice is exercised over several levels in Magic: deck selection (which encompasses metagame diversity and competitive balance) as well as in-game play (counterplay). If players do not have an opportunity to make meaningful decisions, because a deck is winning on the first turn too frequently or because a strategy is effective at preventing an opponent from taking steps that would allow it to interact, then counterplay is frustrated or limited.
Perhaps the most glaringly obvious and egregious example of such a strategy would be any of the Trinisphere-based Workshop decks from 2004 and 2005, which not only locked the opponent out of the game immediately, but then preventing opponents from interacting thereafter. Even if an archetype or strategy is not dominant or imbalancing, it may nonetheless be oppressive in this regard, and merit action on that ground.
There is a fine line here, as some Vintage decks are capable of winning on the first turn, like Dark Petition Storm or other speedy combo decks, but do not nonetheless merit restriction. First, although decks like this can win before an opponent has meaningful in-game decision, that doesn’t mean that this is the norm. The frequency and consistency by which a deck frustrates or delimits counterplay matters. Moreover, even if a deck is consistent in its speed, if it does not have an average or above average win rate, then that suggests that there is sufficient counterplay. Thus, a deck that diminishes counterplay sufficient to warrant restriction should also be a competitive option, and not merely a “glass cannon.”
5) Polarization
The forgoing considerations: diversity, metagame balance/dominance, and counterplay are well worn principles that have been applied in a variety of contexts to manage Banned and Restricted Lists for formats, but they do not necessarily exhaust the range of possible considerations that may be invoked in format management.
One particularly interesting concept arose in a sophisticated article analyzing the metagame of a different card game, but which is readily applicable to Magic: Metagame Polarity. Because decks are able to incorporate counter-tactics available in the card pool, over time, deck win percentages should converge towards 50%, even if some strategies have natural predatory advantages over others. Metagame polarization refers to a metagame where matchup win rates are skewed more than usual.
What metagame polarization measures is the average spread of win percentages in a metagame. The reason this is a potentially interesting consideration and metric is that it could suggest a metagame problem even if all of the other criteria seem within normal bounds. So, for example, you could have a metagame that is diverse, has no dominant deck/ metagame balance, but nonetheless has a higher than usual level of metagame polarization.
The reason this could be a problem is that it makes the metagame feel imbalanced, not in the sense that one deck has an unreasonable win rate overall, but that matches feel ‘coin flippy’ and feel largely predetermined before they begin. To illustrate this, Rock-Paper-Scissors is the perfectly polarized metagame, yet it is also completely balanced, in the sense that no strategy has a higher win rate than any other. Yet, the polarity measure is 100% in that game.
Although it’s unclear how this criteria might apply to Vintage or Old School formats, since calculating meta polarity is a computationally complex and data intensive, Ian Duke did invoke this consideration in a decision to ban a card in Modern earlier this year, and thus it could well be invoked in the Vintage context, if the data bore that concern out.
Principles for Selecting a Card for Banning or Restriction
The above principles are useful to determine whether a banning or restriction may be necessary, but further principles may be needed to determine which card to actually target. Knowing that something should be done does not necessarily suggest what action should be taken. For any given target, there is likely to be multiple possible options. Consensus that a policy problem exists does not entail consensus on the best course of action.
Recent Banned and Restricted List explanations, under the stewardship of Ian Duke, supply a number of useful criteria to consider when deciding what to restrict or ban.
1) Tame, But Don’t Kill
As noted above, in a series of bannings for Standard in January 2018, Ian explained that the primary goal was to “Reduce the overall win percentage of [the target strategy and other related] variants, while still preserving the competitive capability of the core of the deck.”
More recently, in deciding to ban Bridge From Below in Modern, Ian explained that they wanted to preserve graveyard strategies in the format, but weaken them: “Our goal is not to eliminate graveyard strategies from the Modern metagame, but rather to weaken this version of the graveyard combo archetype that has proven too powerful for other decks to reasonably adapt to.”
In both instances, the DCI’s goal was to preserve a broad class of strategies or a specific archetype, but weaken it in the sense of reducing its win rate or metagame presence. The principle of ‘tame, but don’t kill’ makes sense in the context of the overall objective of promoting metagame diversity. It preserves the presence of a strategy as a metagame option, but diminishes its power to an acceptable level.
2) Minimize Splash Damage
When evaluating candidates for restriction in a target deck, one consideration should be the degree to which other decks or strategies rely on those cards. This is a context-sensitive inquiry, since broad usage could signal a card that merits restriction, like Dig Through Time. On the other hand, if such a card is an important component to the viability of a non-targeted archetype, then a different card might be a better initial target to minimize splash damage. A card that is only used or nearly only used by the target deck is usually a better target.
3) Preserve “Build Around” Cards
In one of the aforementioned explanations, Ian Duke explained why the DCI chose to ban Krark-Clan Ironworks instead of other cards in the archetype. Specifically, he cited the “build-around” quality of both Ancient Stirrings and Mox Opal, explaining that both cards supported decks of types that would otherwise either not exist or that looked quite different from other competitive strategies. Thus, to preserve their ‘build-around’ capacity and structural support in other archetypes, they banned a different card instead.
These last two criteria fall under the header of “narrow tailoring,” which is an implementation decision that achieves the intended goal, but with minimal splash damage. The danger of a narrowly tailored approach, of course, is that it will fail to achieve its objective, and will therefore necessitate further, and more dramatic or bolder action. The best historical example of this was the reaction to the succession of printings in Urza’s Saga, Urza’s Legacy, and Urza’s Destiny. The DCI took a chisel instead of a sledgehammer to the Academy, but it proved inadequate after several attempts. Finally, they seemingly gave up, and implemented a tsunami of 18 restrictions to clean up the environment.
With these criteria laid down, I will now turn to my suggested Banned and Restricted Lists for Vintage, Old School 94, Old School 95, Old School 96, and Old School 97, the formats I currently and actively play.
My Suggested Vintage Banned and Restricted List
The following cards are banned in Vintage:
25 cards with the Card Type “Conspiracy.” Click here for list.
9 cards that reference “playing for ante.” Click here for list.
Chaos Orb
Falling Star
The following cards are restricted in Vintage:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Brainstorm
Chalice of the Void
Channel
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Dig Through Time
Flash
Gush
Imperial Seal
Library of Alexandria
Lion’s Eye Diamond
Lodestone Golem
Lotus Petal
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Mental Misstep
Merchant Scroll
Mind’s Desire
Monastery Mentor
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystic Forge
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Ponder
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Thorn of Amethyst
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Treasure Cruise
Trinisphere
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Yawgmoth’s Will
Differences between my suggested list and the official DCI Vintage Banned and Restricted List:
1) Mental Misstep
Yes, the time has come. As the consensus #1 card that should be restricted in Vintage, the majority of Vintage players surveyed are correct in their judgment. The negatives now outweigh the benefits, and the explanation for why Misstep should be restricted deserves an extended discussion.
To begin, we must canvass the positives. Mental Misstep does a number of good things for the format.
First and foremost, it provides immediate Turn 1 (on the draw) interaction in the format. This is significant because the presence of Mental Misstep will inherently slow down the format. It means that fewer first turn Dark Rituals, Sol Rings, and Mana Vaults resolve, meaning that players will be less able to just combo out on the first turn. This is no small part of the reason that Dark Ritual combo decks have been marginalized in the format in the period that Mental Misstep has been in the card pool.
Even where it doesn’t just prevent fast kills, it is more than speed bump against metagame menaces, like Paradoxical Outcome strategies. By being able to hit Sensei’s Divining Top, as well as Sol Ring and Mana Vault, it provides yet another way to interact, and PO strategies rarely can afford to include Misstep in their own decks, since they are so permanent-heavy. In general, Mental Misstep is a safety valve for a format that could at any moment have a nasty combo deck emerge.
But perhaps the most important – and underappreciated – effect of Mental Misstep on the format is what it has done to topdeck tutors and Ancestral Recall. Before Misstep was printed, Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, and even Imperial Seal were widely played cards. The first card that was usually found was Ancestral Recall. But with Misstep ubiquitous in the format, the play of Mystical or Vamp for Ancestral became too risky – the probability of it being countered too high. This has had two effects: 1) it has decentered Ancestral Recall from the format, and 2) helped cause topdeck tutors to fade from play.
Against these benefits, the reasons to restrict Mental Misstep are greater. First and foremost, restricting Misstep will hamper Dredge, the best deck that currently uses Misstep the most. I don’t have access to Dredge’s actual win rate, but in Magic Online Vintage Challenges this year, Dredge has risen from a Q1 (January, February, March) average of 11% per Top 8 to 20% per top 8 in Q2 (April, May, June), to an astonishing (and not-yet proven sustainable) 34% of Top 8s for July (with a significant projected decline for August). Even if the Q3 average for Dredge were in the mid-20s, that is something of a historical record for the archetype.
Dredge uses Misstep for several purposes: overall tempo, denying a player a turn’s worth of spells while Dredge ramps up its game plan. But more importantly it uses Misstep to stop critical anti-Dredge tactics, such as Grafdigger’s Cage, Deathrite Shaman, and to a lesser extent cards like Relic of Progenitus and Surgical Extraction.
Misstep used to be just as good against Dredge as it was in Dredge. But now that Force of Vigor has replaced Chain of Vapor and Nature’s Claim type spells, non-Dredge decks can no longer use Misstep to shield a Leyline of the Void or Tormod’s Crypt from Dredge’s countertactics.
Second, restricting Misstep weakens Narset, Parter of Veils. Narset is an immensely powerful new planeswalker that dominates blue mirror matches. The problem with Narset, however, is that it is so difficult to address once it has hit the table, because both of its abilities help shield itself. The most likely or typical answers are cards like Pyroblast or Lightning Bolt. If an opponent plays a turn two Narset, and your only answer is Bolt or Pyroblast, if the Narset player has a Misstep, that Misstep has a good chance of ending the game. Restricting Misstep weakens Narset by making it easier to remove or address. Some have even suggested that Narset is so obnoxious it warrants restriction. Let’s restrict Misstep first, and see if that makes Narset less domineering.
Third, restricting Misstep weakens Xerox strategies vis-à-vis other blue decks. Aside from Dredge, the other archetype that uses Misstep the most are Xerox strategies like Jeskai Mentor. Every blue restriction since 2014 has targeted a card utilized by Xerox strategies: Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, Monastery Mentor, Gitaxian Probe, and Gush. Restricting Misstep continues the trend of taming Xerox a bit more. In particular, Xerox’s exceptional density of cheap and free countermagic makes it so much harder for other blue decks to resolve spells. By restricting Misstep, you limit a powerful weapon in the arsenal of Xerox, and thereby weaken cards like Young Pyromancer, Dreadhorde Arcanist, and Monastery Mentor in the process. But more importantly you allow other blue decks to resolve spells like Deathrite Shaman more reliably, forcing Xerox to deal with it using creature removal instead of a hyper-efficient counterspell.
If those reasons aren’t persuasive enough, there is yet a fourth reason to restrict Misstep: it will make Spell Pierce and Duress effects stronger, and therefore planeswalkers weaker. Spell Pierce and Mental Misstep arrived in quick succession in Vintage, but Spell Pierce surged to ubiquity, and then faded to obscurity within a the space of a year. The intervening cause was Mental Misstep. Misstep’s ascent marginalized Spell Pierce, and Flusterstorm basically replaced Spell Pierce in most blue decks, despite its narrower range of targets, but more powerful effect. Restricting Misstep should help bring Spell Pierce, along with Duress and Thoughtseize effects, back to the center of the format. These spells are crucial for helping keep Karn and Narset at bay. With Spell Pierce seeing more play, more decks will have main deck answers to the growing number of menacing planeswalkers.
Restricting Misstep has multiple cascading effects, but all of which alleviate other problems in the format. In particular, the printing of Narset and Karn dramatically shift the balance of factors that weigh on whether Misstep should remain restricted or not. Although the good that Misstep performs is not trivial, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. I’m hopeful that restricting Misstep might even make Dark Ritual decks more competitive again.
Lest we think that it’s vital to have Misstep in the format to prevent fast kills, I would just remind you that in addition to Force of Will and Mindbreak Trap, the format has the new Force of Negation (and Force of Vigor) to also help keep things in check.
2) Mystic Forge
Mystic Forge and Mishra’s Workshop should not be allowed to exist unrestricted in the same format. Mishra’s Workshop makes it too easy to play Mystic Forge on Turn 1 (with just a Mox), and with a Foundry Inspector and Sensei’s Divining Top, the Workshop player can draw their entire deck for basically no cost. Even without a Foundry Inspector, it is exceptionally easy for Mystic Forge to provide a Workshop player with extraordinary card advantage.
Unfortunately, Mystic Forge does not permit much counterplay either. Aside from Grafdigger’s Cage or a Force of Will, there is little that can be done about it. At least Yawgmoth’s Bargain, by comparison, can be Pithing Needled or Phyrexian Revokered. These effects are marginal, at best, against Mystic Forge.
It is true that Mystic Forge is more vulnerable than, say, Karn, since it is an artifact and can be destroyed with a Force of Vigor. But the problem with Mystic Forge is twofold: it is too reliably cast on turn one, and it simply wins the game if it is not immediately answered. Thus, my concern with Forge sounds more in counterplay than dominance. The closest we’ve seen to a card that wins the game off of a Workshop like this is Trinisphere or Lodestone Golem, both cards that are already on the Restricted List.
Restricting Mishra’s Workshop would help slow Forge, but not necessarily solve the problem. With Ancient Tomb and artifact acceleration, Forge can be nearly as obnoxious. If I thought Mishra’s Workshop was the problem, despite the tailoring principles described above, I would recommend its restriction instead
3) Fastbond
I have nothing to add to what I said last year. Basically, I want to see Fastbond unrestricted so that the Lands deck – now armed with Wrenn and Six – can actually be a meaningful part of the Vintage metagame. I think there is zero chance that this deck would be dominant (and Manabond already provides a close approximation to Fastbond). Unrestricting it will increase the metagame diversity in the format.
Nor am I even remotely concerned that Fastbond might enable a “broken combo” deck like a Dark Ritual or an Academy deck. Even with Misstep restricted, there is no chance that this would occur. With so much artifact and other forms of mana acceleration, Fastbond is not very good in those strategies. And with Gush restricted, Fastbond is even more innocuous. This is the most obvious unrestriction for Vintage.
I realize that restricting Misstep makes this seem more dangerous, but the printing of Force of Vigor and Force of Negation makes this actually less dangerous than it was when I recommended it a year ago, assuming Misstep is restricted.
4) Windfall
The next most obvious unrestriction is Windfall. With the London mulligan, there is a greater chance that a player could mulligan low into a hand with Windfall, but there are more answers than ever before to this, and even if they do, I say, so what? The deck with Windfall is never going to be a world beater in contemporary Vintage. In fact, it may not even be playable.
I suspect this would be like the unrestriction of Yawgmoth’s Bargain a few years ago: marginal impact, but ultimately proven safe.
5) Shahrazad
This card was legal in Vintage for years before it was banned again. Although the reasons it was banned are not ridiculous, Ian Duke recently said, in the context of Nexus of Fate, that “we prefer [work around alternatives] to making a ban based on logistical reasons rather than balance reasons.” The same reasoning applies to Shaharazad. If this card is actually a problem for space and logistical reasons, then restrict it. Competitive players won’t play with it anyway, but it should be allowed to exist in Vintage. I would unban it again, and then evaluate it for possible restriction if need be.
Additional Notes:
1) Grim Monolith
Grim Monolith is incredibly close to needing restriction. Not simply because it helps accelerate out Mystic Forge (which it does), but because of the changing context of Vintage. The problem is that the incentives are now too strong to run Manifold Key main deck in a variety of strategies. Part of the reason for this is Karn, the Great Creator of course, which can fetch Time Vault from the sideboard. And Grim Monolith can be used to cast Karn as well as Mystic Forge. And with the London Mulligan, Grim Monolith makes it too easy to reliably play these spells on turn 1 if they are drawn.
But even if both Mystic Forge and Karn were restricted, these artifact decks would still probably run multiple Grim Monolith. I’d start with the restriction of Mystic Forge, and the next restriction would be Grim Monolith, which has already been restricted before.
2) Karn, the Great Creator
A number of people have called for the restriction of this card. I think Karn gives more to the Vintage format than it takes away. First of all, the format could always use more Null Rod effects. Karn helps keep Paradoxical Outcome in check, and is the first thing that has actually seemed to push Workshop Aggro down in many years. This is no small thing. The Workshop Aggro deck is powerful, consistent, and resilient. It has sustained a niche at the top of the Vintage metagame for more than a decade, using Arcbound Ravager as a critical tactic. Karn has hammered this archetype in a major way.
On the other hand, Karn’s tutoring ability is quite broken. It can assemble the Time Vault combo in two turns, or lock out the opponent with Mycosynth Lattice if it can reach 6 mana. With Grim Monolith unrestricted, Mycosynth Lattice can be consistently cast the turn after Karn arrives. As broken as this is, I do not think this merits restriction for a few reasons.
First, although the London mulligan can find Karn consistently, it is not a consistent first turn play in the same way that Mystic Forge is. The difference, obviously, is that you can’t cast Karn off of a Mishra’s Workshop. Second, although the tutoring ability is broken, that ability is just a colorless Tezzeret at 4 mana. If Tezzeret the Seeker had a static, asymmetric Null Rod built into it, I wouldn’t consider it restriction worthy either. And Karn also gives its controller tactics for combating Dredge in a game 1 scenario.
With very few exceptions, Mystic Forge and Karn are sharing the same metagame space. Therefore, Players are conflating his effect on the metagame with Mystic Forge, which is actually a problem.
Karn merits close watch, but I would begin with a restriction of Mystic Forge, and then, if necessary, Grim Monolith.
3) Paradoxical Outcome
For some reason, a number of players still want Paradoxical Outcome restricted. This card – and strategy – fell off a cliff in recent months, plummeting to 13% of Top 8s in Q1 of 2019, and 14% in Q2, after a stunning 26% of Vintage Challenge Top 8s in Q4, 2018. Outcome is kept nicely in check by the current metagame saturated with Narset, Karn, Collector Ouphe, and Force of Vigor.
4) Gush
We are inching very close to being able to unrestrict Gush. With Misstep restricted, the Xerox decks lose a punch. And with the London mulligan Xerox decks lose a step relative to other powerful decks in the format, which gain more by finding a specific key spell or land more reliably. I’ve always believed that Mentor should have been restricted before Gush, but we may be fast approaching a point where Gush can be safely unrestricted again.
Differences between my suggested list and my suggestions last year:
1) Arcbound Ravager
Last year I called for the restriction of Arcbound Ravager, the enabler that made Workshop Aggro so broken, in my view. This is the card that made Hangarback Walker insane, and ratcheted up Walking Ballista. I felt that restricting Ravager would tame Workshop Aggro in exactly the right way. And until recently, including through the Vintage Championship last year, my opinion remained quite firm. What changed is this: Karn, Collector Ouphe, and most importantly, Force of Vigor. There are now enough tactics in the Vintage card pool that I am no longer quite as concerned about Workshop Aggro.
2) Gitaxian Probe
Last year I felt strongly that Gitaxian Probe should not have been restricted, and restricting it unnecessarily harmed Dark Petition Storm and other decks. But with Dredge so dominant right now, I can’t see how this could do anything but make Dredge even better with more turn one Dredging, and more accurate Therapy hits. So my recommendation is that this stays restricted, for now.
My Suggested Old School 94 Banned and Restricted List
Here is the Banned and Restricted List I would personally recommend for Old School 94 (more commonly referred to as 93/94; I simply adopt the term Old School 94 as a convention that extends to later years).
The following cards are banned in Old School 94:
Bronze Tablet
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Jeweled Bird
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
The following cards are restricted in Old School 94:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Braingeyser
Chaos Orb
Channel
Demonic Tutor
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Mind Twist
Mishra’s Factory
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Time Walk
Timetwister
Wheel of Fortune
Since last year’s article, yet another version of Old School 94 arose, under the label “Atlantic Rules.” Either on account of coincidence or great judgment, the Atlantic Rules evolved toward exactly what I recommended last year.
It took us a while, but a few dozen monkeys with typewriters finally stumbled into bringing the Atlantic #oldschoolmtg B&R list exactly in line with @SMenendian's recommendations from this article. Coincidence, or outrageous fortune? https://t.co/ar17cA0fi2
— Dave Firth Bard (@dfirthbard) May 16, 2019
Obviously, I have great admiration for the Atlantic Rules format. That said, there is one thing that I think has to change in Old School 94 that none of the format managers have yet adopted.
Differences between my suggested Old School 94 Banned and Restricted List and other Old School Format Banned and Restricted Lists:
1) Mishra’s Factory
Mishra’s Factory is a card that has somehow escaped scrutiny in Old School Restricted List discussions, but it’s time to change that. Mishra’s Factory is ubiquitous in the format, and extremely problematic.
First of all, almost every single deck that can run it, does. Its percentage of Top 8s exceeds that of almost any card in the format, including Strip Mine. This is no small thing. Strip Mine is one of the most widely played cards under Eternal Central rules. In fact, it is probably, at this point, the defining feature of EC rules, as most global Old School managers restrict the card.
Yet, consider this: in events I have tracked, Strip Mine averages 25.9 appearances per Top 8 under Eternal Central rules, while Mishra’s Factory is close behind at 23.3 cards per top 8. Bear in mind that the maximum number of copies that can be played is 32.
The problem is ever worse in Swedish rules. The average number of Mishra’s Factories per Top 8 under Swedish rules is an astounding 27.6. It is in basically every deck except combo decks like Mirror Ball or Twiddle Vault. I suppose in a format where Strip Mine is restricted, that should be expected.
Second, it’s far more powerful under modern rules than it was back in the day. The main reason is that, back in 1994, you could not block, and then tap to pump itself. This makes Mishra’s Factory a trump to creatures like Kird Ape. Some communities have gone so far as to consider issuing errata on Factory to restore its original functionality. While I do not endorse this approach, I can understand why they would do it.
Third, restricting it would allow more decks to incorporate more colors more reliably. Factory is so good it eats up significant deck space. And in environments where Strip Mine is unrestricted, you can’t afford to get color screwed, and so need an even larger mana base. Restricting Factory would create more deck space to support tertiary and fourth colors.
Fourth, restricting it would nudge The Deck, one of the top decks in this format, back to the Moat/Serra Angel shell instead of The Abyss/Factory shell, which it thrives with. Nudging The Deck back to this configuration should weaken The Deck, even as Aggro decks lose an offensive threat.
Factory is not needed to make Aggro strategies viable (Aggro and Aggro Control constitute the largest portion of Top 8s, by a large margin, in my tracking of both EC and Swedish rules), and restricting Factory shouldn’t kill any individual archetype (not even Atog). But it would weaken UR Control and Atog, which are more reliant on the Factory for board pressure. I consider that a good thing, as these archetypes are already at the pinnacle of the format, and could stand a little weakening.
2) Strip Mine
I side with the Swedes and the Atlantic Rules managers on this one. The full explanation was provided in last year’s article. I would only add to that the fact that Strip Mine has averaged nearly 26 (25.9) copies per Top 8 in tournaments played under Eternal Central rules. I haven’t verified this, but I assume it is by far the most played card in EC Top 8s.
3) Recall
Again, see my explanation last year. My views haven’t changed.
4) Maze of Ith
Again, see my explanation last year. My views haven’t changed.
5) Time Vault
See my explanation from last year. I only note here that the Swedes followed my suggestion and unrestricted this card. I’m excited to see what happens.
6) Mishra’s Workshop
Again, see my explanation last year. My views haven’t changed.
My Suggested Old School 95 Banned and Restricted List
Here is the Banned and Restricted List I would personally recommend for Old School 95.
The following cards are banned in Old School 95:
Bronze Tablet
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Jeweled Bird
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
The following cards are Restricted in Old School 95:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Braingeyser
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Necropotence
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Wheel of Fortune
Differences between my suggested Old School ’95 Banned and Restricted List and Eternal Central’s:
1) Strip Mine
See my explanation last year.
2) Maze of Ith
See my explanation for Old School 94, last year.
3) Recall
See my explanation for Old School 94, last year.
4) Necropotence
See my explanation last year.
5) Demonic Consultation
I was on the fence on this one last year, but I think wisdom prevails, and Consultation should be restricted in this format. It makes Power Monolith too good, even though it enables Reanimator as well. It’s probably the best unrestricted card from my Old School 95 Banned and Restricted List last year, and now joins that list.
Additional Notes:
See last year’s notes.
My Suggested Old School 96 Banned and Restricted List
Here is the Banned and Restricted List I would personally recommend for Old School 96.
The following cards are banned in Old School 96:
Bronze Tablet
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Jeweled Bird
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
The following cards are Restricted in Old School 96:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Braingeyser
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Mind Twist
Mystical Tutor
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Power Artifact
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Wheel of Fortune
Differences between my suggested Banned and Restricted List for Old School ’96 and from Eternal Central’s Rules & historical Type 1:
1) Necropotence
As with 95, Necropotence is restricted.
2) Mystical Tutor
See last year’s explanation.
3) Demonic Consultation
See notes above, but basically, it makes both MaskNaught and Power Monolith way too consistent, and I believe Demonic Consultation should be restricted here as well.
My Suggested Old School 97 Banned and Restricted List
Here is the Banned and Restricted List I would personally recommend for Old School 97.
The following cards are banned in Old School 97:
Bronze Tablet
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Jeweled Bird
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
The following cards are Restricted in Old School 97:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Braingeyser
Channel
Chaos Orb
Demonic Tutor
Library of Alexandria
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Power Artifact
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Wheel of Fortune
Vampiric Tutor
So far I can tell, there is no public list of Old School ’97 Banned and Restricted list aside from the actual historical Type 1 list of the time.
Differences from Old School ’96:
1) Mana Drain
Mana Drain can now be unrestricted given the variety strategies that are boosted by recent sets.
2) Mana Crypt and Mana Vault
Last year, I recommended restricting Prosperity instead of Mana Crypt and Mana Vault. This follows from the “narrow tailoring” principle described earlier. I’ve reversed my judgment on that for several reasons.
First of all, keeping Prosperity unrestricted keeps the deck concept alive. But restricting Mana Vault and Mana Crypt keeps the deck reined in significantly. Mana Crypt is already powerful on its own, especially with cards like Browse, and may be worth of restriction even outside of the Prosperity deck. I think this produces a healthier format.
3) Vampiric Tutor
Vampiric Tutor is restricted. It’s even better than Mystical Tutor, and needs to be restricted for the same reasons.
4) Strip Mine
Strip Mine is restricted again because Wasteland is in Tempest. Having a format with 8 Strip Mine and Wasteland effects is far too many. Strip Mine was restricted in early 1998 for this very reason.
Additional Notes:
Land Tax and Scroll Rack is a very powerful, but fair combo. I would not restrict either.
Conclusion
The management of formats is no easy or simple matter, but good management is vital to the health of a format. There is no single approach to managing a format through the Banned and Restricted List, but a range of possible philosophies. Without purporting to suppose that my approach is the only or the best approach, I strive to be clear on what my goals are, and transparent in how I rank those criteria. A more aggressive or even more libertarian approach could produce interesting and fun formats.
The best that a format manager can do is consider all of the evidence, weigh the pros and cons, and monitor the effects of their decision against their hoped-for-outcomes, and make adjustments as necessary. You can’t please everyone all of the time, but it should be possible to foster a diverse and balance format without too much difficulty.
Until next time,
Stephen Menendian
P.S. If you enjoyed this article and would like to read more about the history of the Vintage Banned and Restricted List, be sure to read this article, which examines every change in the history of the Vintage format, including my opinion on what should have happened.