This is a steal for the Quiet Speculation ownership and staff.

Let's put it this way...

I had never heard of Quiet Speculation until today and now I will be visiting at least once a month (maybe more once I get the feel of the place).



The only card you may have underestimated in SoM is Riddlesmith and it is a stretch to say that you have underestimated it.  It is already finding a home in a storm artifact deck that is pretty filthy based on early testing.  If it becomes a legitimate deck still remains to be seen.  Either way, I enjoyed the article and look forward to reading more!

Dave

You are not connecting the dots properly. 

If there was a 2/2 creature with Null Rod's ability for 2 mana (even if it was 1+colored mana) it would be incredible.  The comparison is not between Null Rod and Suppression Field.  The comparisons are Null Rod is to Suppression Field as Leonin Arbiter is to XXXX. 

Those two cards are hardly comparable.  How many utility enchantments see play in Vintage?  Now, how many utility creatures see play in Vintage?  Similar cards do not always have similar applications.  Look at Noble Hierarch and BoP...Birds hits two more colors and has evasion, all while being a 0/1 for G.  Yet it is Noble Hierarch that gets play because of a relevant ability.  Likewise the ability to be able to swing with a 2/2 while disrupting your opponent is what defines Fish decks in the current state of Vintage. 

With that said I think that this card will see plenty of play, but I don't think it fits naturally into any deck pre Scars.  I think it will find its own Fish deck to run with, and that may very well run 3 colors, too.

I completely agree with you. 

To add to your point, cost is a relative thing in a couple of ways.  First, different people have different values - this can be headed off by using one site - but runs the risk of upsetting people who use a different site to price cards.  In the end this is the easiest to work around.  Second, cost is relative to each person.  While one person might believe that a certain price point on a certain site ought to be the cut off, well, that is often because they can manage around that cutoff.  It ends up creating the same argument for or against proxies as a whole.  It is easy for a person who will fall within the accepted area to claim that it should be attainable for anyone.  the logic is that they made the sacrifices to pay for the cards, so why can't the others?  In the end it is never that simple. 

The best course is to do exactly what the above poster argues for:  Make it a social argument as compared to a financial argument.  Suggesting players pick up the cheap (relative, of course) cards causes them to invest in the format - no matter how much or little.  If each time they play a proxy tournament they grab a few more cards, then they are investing in the format at their comfort level and will likely keep coming back.  Thus, it ought to be gentle suggestions or even lending newer/less financially solvent players cards to get them out of the practice of proxying what can be deemed as unnecessary cards (again, slippery slope).  I think we can all agree that proxying preordains is unnecessary - even if a player is testing them out, they are a common from a standard legal set and should be easily attainable in cost and availability. 

Carl,

I am excited that you took some of our ideas into account!

Unfortunately I will be unable to attend as I have a league Rugby match that day.  I am really bummed about this with the new unrestrictions!

I am sure this one will pick up attendance and I look forward to attending your next event!

Dave

2.  Easy to say when you clearly have power.  

4.  WOW!  You say no offense after that?!  You, sir, are the kind of person that is DESTROYING this format.  Your holier than thou horseshit is so jaded it is unbelievable.  Let's count the insults in this section:

A.  Snot faced brat
B.  All those who proxy are net deckers.  With the added implication that those with power don't net deck.
C.  Those who proxy win by sheer luck

Without even going into the sheer absurdity of your claims, it is apparent that you are simply bitter that you cannot succeed at a tournament unless 5 people show up and odds are you couldn't even top four that one.  Perhaps your time would be better spent 'net-decking' instead of complaining about those who don't have the ability to drop $3000 for 9 cards alone, not to mention the other myriad of expensive cards out there.


I really hate getting personal like this, but you need to be put in your place if you think that the only reason people who proxy succeed do so due to net decking and luck.

And I still maintain that having people show up willing to devote a day to a format that isn't supported by Wizards and play Vintage, even while not having all of the cards, is far 'healthier' than 5 people playing against each other while powered up.  Getting people to consistently play a format that gets older by the day ought to be the end goal.  If they power up, great!  If they don't power up, well that is still another player to play against. 

Out of curiosity...

How long have you been playing Vintage?
Do you own power?  If so how much and when did you get it?  If not what do you play? 

I could be mistaken but it seems that everyone who is in favor of sanctioned Vintage has, A.  Been playing Vintage for a long period of time and/or B.  Owns power/all the cards they personally need to play Vintage. 

Maybe it bothers some people that they made an investment that others are not willing to make, but it all boils down to whether Vintage players want more people to play with or want to have a negative population growth and have the format die a far quicker death than some suppose is happening now.

As for your "Back in the day" section, why should people play a suboptimal list or even a list that they don't enjoy just because it is budget and therefore sanctionable?  What does sanctioning even do?  Provide ratings?  Frankly in Vintage it seems that the currency is more about respect as a skilled player than player ratings.  Not to say that they are mutually exclusive, but I can't remember the last time I saw a person post their Vintage rating on TMD let alone post it as a way of saying that they deserve respectability.

I am simply saying that if the only reason Carl runs these events is to make money/not lose money/have high attendance then perhaps he is best served limiting the number of tournaments, or not running them at all.  If the reason he runs these tournaments is because he loves the format (which I suspect to be the case) then that is all of the reason that he will ever need!

But I could be mistaken.

A.  Yes
B.  Absolutely will not play sanctioned.  I am not throwing any amount of money plus time away because I am not powered to any degree.  Nor will I play a sub par deck or a deck that isn't my preference, to play sanctioned.
C.  Not relevant (I.e. I like playing there just fine)
D.  Never intended to play this tournament.
E.  See D. 
F.  I suppose you could say that, see above.
G.  I like your 10 proxy events for $10 with the option to buy 5 additional proxies for $1 per.  This grows the pot, grows the player base and is not unreasonable.  It does require an investment into the format that is also accessible. 
H. 
i.  Not everyone will be able to make every tournament.  I understand your frustration since this followed a weak August showing, but I don't think that they are related.  This one, in my opinion, was almost exclusively about sanctioned.  There are three of us in Boulder that play/test vintage whenever we see each other (at least once a weak) but are no where close to powered.  There are a bunch more that like coming out to your sanctioned events when we can.  Honestly I think August was about simply bad luck with timing.  It is one of the most traveled months.
ii.  I would be interested in playing for power or other valuable cards instead of cash payout.  This may not be the popular opinion (and I know that you have done this in the past) but I play simply for fun and it would increase my fun to play for a card as compared to cash.  Again, I may be in the minority here and that is fine if I am.
iii.  A good way to grow the scene for your tournaments would be to offer a % discount off the entry fee to a player if they bring a new player to your event and the same % discount to the new player.  This encourages people to introduce friends/acquaintances to the format and more specifically to your store/events.
iv.  I know it is 'your thing' but maybe change the Thursday night Vintage at your store to non-sanctioned.  As many of the debates around here have mentioned, it is an intimidating format for younger/newer magic players to get into, especially when they don't have the card pool to be truly competitive immediately, especially in a sanctioned environment. 


Remember that these are all ideas and should be treated as such.  They are not criticisms, only suggestions and explanations.




Are you losing money on these tournaments?  I only ask this because if love for the format is not reason enough to continue the tournaments (assuming you aren't losing money on them - which based on your model for the tournaments I would imagine is a safe assumption) then perhaps you shouldn't waste your time on them anymore. 

There were a lot of people that told you they would not be there when you posted the event. 

August is a tough time for this. 

Should be there for the next one unless it is the weekend of the 18th. 

Yes I missed your point before.  I still think you are incorrect.  As a Fish player you are concerned about the THREAT they drop (in your words: Tinker/Oath/etc) not the subsequent protection that they may have.  Once again as I have stated several times.  Noble Fish is not designed to win counter-wars.  This is flat out irrefutable, most fish players run 8 counters maximum and don't have enough search pieces to go get a counter piece when they so desire.  The Noble Fish player does not run Sensei's top, Mana Drain, etc.  As you pointed out, the reason for this is because our creatures are lock/control pieces too (as I pointed out above).  And once again back to the major point Spell Pierce does not touch Noble Fishes threats.  To repeat myself, Oath is vulnerable to Trygon and Pridemage, Tinker is vulnerable to Mindcensor, this is how Noble Fish wins games, not by worrying about an opponents Spell Pierce. 

Again, like I said above:  An opponent with a Spell Pierce can cause you to lose a game, but the frequency of that being the case is A.  Usually held to game 1 because most intelligent opponents will board out Spell Pierce.  and B.  Rare enough to be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

You are really arguing a point just to argue.  Honestly answer this question:

What deck does not board out Spell Pierce in portion or entirety when playing Noble Fish?

The obvious answer to this question proves my point. 

Here are the two things that you said.  No question about it.  100% direct quotes, typos and all.





In the first quote you argue that you need to be able to drop a threat (i.e. in this deck a creature) and protect the threat with Spell Pierce.  No argument there right?

In the second quote you completely back track and start talking about caring about an opposing player countering your FoW with a Spell Pierce.  A completely different scenario.  No argument there right?

Just for the record, the point that you took issue with from me is my original statement, being this:


and clarified to this:



No argument there right?


Now let me restate what is quoted above.  Yes! Spell Pierce is very important for a Noble Fish player to run.  In fact, I run 4 main in my build.

Let me further clarify.  Sure you can be concerned about getting into a counter-battle with an opponent, but seeing as Noble Fish is not designed to win counter-battles this is really a null point.  The creatures that a Noble Fish player runs are that players threats.  The reason that this deck is viable in the current meta is that you can run creatures to solve many of your problems.  Sure an opponent can Tinker, I run Aven Mindcensor.  Aven Mindcensor CANNOT be countered by Spell Pierce.  Sure they can play Oath, preboard I run 7 creature answers to Oath.  Guess what!  None of those can be countered by Spell Pierce.  That is my entire argument. 

Here is my admission to your point (at least what I can gather your point is because all you have done is made two separate and weak arguments and then told me I don't get what you are saying):  Yes, a well timed Spell Pierce by the opponent - usually protecting their threat - can lose a Noble Fish player the game.  HOWEVER, the frequency of that happening should be very narrow compared to all of the other decks that people run Spell Pierce to get around.  Which equates directly back to my original point that as a Noble Fish player you are almost never worried about Spell Pierce in the opponents hand. 

Let's set this straight.

Force of Will is not a threat in the sense of the word.  It is control and it is protection.  It is not a threat.  As a Noble Fish player you don't care about Spell Pierce nearly as much as most other viable top tier decks because their threats are susceptible to it and once again your threats are not. 

You are seemingly splitting hairs with me.  Your argument seems to be that you want to be able to protect your Force of Will with a Spell Pierce or you want to have Spell Pierce to counter their Force of Will.  Well, of course you do.  I stated above that as a Noble Fish player, you want to run Spell Pierce in the main without a doubt.

If for some reason you get into a counter war where they force your Tarmogoyf and you pierce back and then they pierce your pierce, well guess what!  Noble Fish isn't designed to win a counter war that deep.  Guess what else!  You just lost 1 Tarmogoyf and 1 Spell Pierce, they just lost 1 Force of Will, 1 blue card and 1 Spell Pierce.  That is card advantage!

I really am not certain what your argument is or how you think you are correct on this.  Know what most decks board out when playing Noble Fish?  Spell Pierce.  This takes us straight back to my original point:  As a Noble Fish player, you pretty much don't care about Spell Pierce in the opponent's hand. 

Allow me to quote myself.




I think we agree.

This is what I was referring to.


My point is that, yes of course, Spell Pierce is important for YOU to have.  But the vast majority of your threats are not susceptible to Spell Pierce.

Pretty much you don't ever care about Spell Pierce playing Noble Fish.

It says "non creature spell"

Hand 1 on the play without knowledge is a ballsy keep.  You can do it and rock them and you can do it and fizzle hard.  Really it is all about how ballsy you want to play it.  

If you play it, here is what it looks like.  

Play Trop
Play Lotus
Crack Lotus for Green
Play Goyf (Counter FoW with Daze if it happens)
Pass


Hand 2  I would not keep unless I knew what the opponent was on.  

Double Swords could be two dead cards in hand against the wrong opponent.  The mana denial is not rock hard and you have no guarantees to draw a threat any time soon.


Hand 3  This is another tough hand to judge if you have no idea what the player is on.

I would keep...

Play like this.

T1:  Rainforest
Emerald
Pass (Hope to stifle a T1 fetch; crack for basic Island)

T2:  Wasteland
Tap all mana sources (unless they dropped a non-basic, in which case take it out with stifle back up)
Play Trygon (if you still have wasteland)

Decision tree is too large to continue to consider based on draws and the mana denial package


Hand 4  Keep this hand on the play

Play as Maximum listed it.


Hand 5  Keep it

Should be an obvious play.




Keep in mind one of the benefits of Noble Fish is that it can be meta-gamed with ease.  

In all honesty I prefer Meddling Mages in the sideboard because getting one early in game 1 can be a huge waste, by the time that you are ready to name an important card, Meddling Mage is usually a dud if not too late.  

I would suggest looking into Vendilion Cliques in the main, they can be a complete house and have evasion.

It seems counter intuitive to me to run Wastelands and a Strip Mine and to play Path to Exile as a 4 of. 

Careful on that offer.  We all know that his proxies are no good for the tournaments!   

Won't be able to make this one.  I will be out of town.

Dave

Actually Carl took most of the pictures, with my camera. 

So the blame can go his direction!!

Dave

A few more!

Some pictures!

It ought not to be surprising that the average age on an eternal format forum is mid-late 20's.  Unless one bought many of their eternal cards during Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised then it would generally require an adult job to afford the cost of entry. 

Therefore an older population on this forum.

Maybe for a pre-attack Piledriver in a goblin build? 

Awesome! 

We'll try to get a good Boulder turn out again!

Gotchya.

Hey, Carl!

Will you let Colin know that I intend on returning that Selkie next time that I see him.  I did not intentionally keep it.

Thanks!

I don't think that was what Carl called the Painter list.  I believe that the 6 place deck was the deck referred to as Tezz.  But I may be mistaken. 

I am relatively certain that the Painter list belonged to Colin Moriary.

Thanks again, Carl, for putting this on.  I had a blast and the new store looks great!

- Dave

Both Pierce and I were at Gamers Guild last night as well.  Were you the guy playing the old school decks? 

Dave

Welcome!

I also live in Boulder.  There is a pretty solid vintage group around here although for the most part the group only tests and plays when there is an upcoming tournament like the one in Littleton on the 11th.  If you are interested in playing the tournament is 10 proxies without the option to buy more.  We are likely testing a few times during the rest of this week. 

-Dave

I know this is way off topic.

I just got back (about 12 hours ago) from visiting Switzerland, Geneva and Zermatt in particular, and you have a stunningly beautiful country.  I thoroughly enjoyed my trip!

Dave

/endjack