I'm surprised it took this long for some component of Workshop decks to be finally restricted. Shop decks accumulated so many turn 1-2 lock pieces over the years, it brought back (painful) memories of the 4 Trinisphere days.

This might now change with Grafdigger's Cage, especially if the card ends up in maindecks instead of SBs. Dragon can actually afford to play some great maindeck solutions such as EE, Deed, or even just Hurkyl's Recall (EE and Deed gain in value if the format shifts to more aggro-control strategies), and Dragon's draw engines/card filtering are mostly unaffected by Cage. If Cage is played out of the SB, that could also be to Dragon's advantage, since Dragon has much better tranformational SB options (not Oath as that is hit by Cage, but there are a few great aggro strategies that can really punish those that aggressively mulligan into graveyard hate and/or Cage).

I'm really excited about the impact Cage will have on the format, and excited by the prospect of Dredge being pushed to the margins and WGD rising to be the premier Bazaar deck again.

If we are to believe that Dredge has contributed to format diversity by reducing the number of SB slots in the most powerful archetypes, then the Cage might contribute even further to diversity by reducing the number of maindeck slots which now will have to be devoted to fighting Cage. Powerful archetypes with their overpowered win conditions such as Tinker and YWill will never go away anyways, and the fringe which is not affected by Cage will rise to even greater prominence.

There are really only two scenarios that I think might result in making things worse for vintage:

1) Dredge is killed off because it is too difficult to fight so many maindeck Cages, and Shops shortly follow because they have a really tough time competing with many of the fringe aggro/aggro-control decks using hatebears or outdrawing/outracing with cards such as SFM. This leaves vintage with control-combo duking it out with midrange aggro-control, control-combo being strengthened with the reduction in Dredge and Shops.

2) People get turned off by the more random nature of the games, which will reduce down to being able to draw solutions or solutions to solutions. Cage utterly decimates entire strategies or win conditions, and if an archetype relies on those strategies or win conditions, it needs to be able to resolve removal past the opposing disruption suite. We might see many more Misstep battles, as the Cage wielding decks will probably have their own missteps even if they're not base U.


I don't think either scenario will play out as stated, and I think Cage will instead have a positive effect on the format.

I'm so curious whether the set designers literally had vintage in mind when they designed this card. It might have been for Snapcaster across many formats, but all these additional hoser effects and the fact that they affect almost all of the major vintage archetypes suggests otherwise.

I really don't know yet whether this card is a good thing or bad thing for the format - it might make things too random, or might make more decks competitive, or both.

I never got the impression that this was what the "real complaints" are about.

Furthermore, too often in the past many would dismiss complaints against cards/decks and accuse those that lodge those complaints as "whiners" who simply didn't test enough or were not good enough deckbuilders or players.  Many would also posit that the whining stemmed from the fact that the complainers would lose against decks they were complaining about. We already saw this from a number of posters in this thread alone.

As far as I'm concerned, even if I were to mount a 20-0 record against Dredge with only 4 SB slots (and thus not experience the "tactical inconvenience" you refer to) I'd still have a problem with the archetype.


You're preaching to the choir here - anyone who holds such a position as you describe should rightfully not be taken seriously. Is this by chance what you thought Brian was doing in his article? It seems that a few posters in this thread thought so.

Of course it's relative. I'm not sure if your comment was intended to challenge my point; you'll have to clarify.


What exactly do you mean by "tactically inconvenient"? Is this some new vintage magic lingo that I've yet to learn about? .

Let's be fair here. The types of cards that can be used game 1 to interact with the Dredge deck are almost all too narrow to devote to the maindeck. The other "turn 2" kill decks in the format can be disrupted with much more flexible cards that are useful against just about every archetype.

I think those that defend Dredge are missing something - the question isn't whether Brian tested enough or used the "right" sideboard cards, or played them correctly. If I understand Brian's position, he would still rag on Dredge even if his Bant deck crushed Dredge in both games in the event.

Always enjoy reading articles that try to break new ground! I was wondering whether we'd actually see GSZ in vintage, and whether Sylvan Library has been an overlooked card. The deck in the article is the type of deck I wouldn't mind trying out in an event.

I'm still puzzled though why that blight upon the format, Dredge in its current iteration, is permitted to persist. It reminds me of the time when we were arguing for Trinishpere's restriction; the key points made in favor of restricting Trinisphere at that time completely apply to nerfing Dredge (and I would consider Dredge to be 10 times worse in the current format than 4 Trini Shop deck were back then).

Curious, isn't it. In Magic, if a teammate would purposefully concede to another teammate no one would bat an eye, and yet when that happened in the soviet era chess world, that was viewed as a major sin punishable by disqualification.

By the way, doesn't Pat Chapin look very similar to Bobby Fischer in the first two pictures? Two geniuses that look eerily similar - must be those intense eyes.

It's not so much that I haven't considered it, it just that I have no data to support any of my hypotheses. Ergo my questions in this thread. I'm here as a student wishing to learn, so please don't interpret my questions as accusations that the card isn't really as good as some claimed it is.


Ah, I think we have a different conception of the term utility. You're emphasizing the importance of uncounterability after a few spells have been cast to ramp Flusterstorm's storm count. I was thinking more in terms of flexibility that a card such as Spell Pierce had to offer. So would it be fair to say that in the context of your many hours of testing, more often then not you were happy that Flusterstorm was Flusterstorm instead of Spell Pierce (or any other card that Flusterstorm is possibly replacing, such as perhaps Mental Misstep)?

Isn't this rather a strike against Flusterstorm?


You mean conditional counter. A bomb against Fish isn't necessarily going to be preceded by a flurry of spells or be an Instant/Sorcery (Tinker, Oath, and Vault/Key pieces being prime examples). Even if a few spells are played, it doesn't even guarantee that Flusterstorm will do it's job, or that it will be effectively "uncounterable" because of storm.

When I posted my questions, I wasn't really looking for a list of why the card is good - such lists can be generated for any card by anyone, and usually have little relative value unless the list includes a use that many didn't think of. I was looking more for a discussion of opportunity cost (how the cards stack oup against cards that would be used in its place) and performance in testing (beyond the claim that "it has been effective in testing", because that is unclear). Keep in mind that I am not against the card, nor do I feel it's bad based on theoretical considerations - it might be a godsend in vintage for all I know. It's just that someone has to play devil's advocate.

Well, to each his own. I'd definitely run 4 YawgWills .

Plus, regarding the point of my post, it wasn't the "4 of XX" that mattered.

Recursion is possible with Riptide Laboratory (remember that card?).

That being said, I think I'd actually prefer running 4 Regrowths instead of the much more conditional although instant speed Mage. And I wouldn't run 4 Regrowths. It remains to be seen whether this Mage is good enough to run in anything outside of Fish/Wizard decks.

 

Look forward to that article!

I indeed saw your reasons for running Clique, although I'm curious why so many others have refrained from using it. It's so heavily used across formats, I wonder if the vintage crowd is just too slow in adopting it, and it is indeed the bomb that it looks to be.

I know I'm late to the party, my congrats on your performance and the deck innovation!

I am very curious however about your choice of Vendilion Cliques. Paul elected not to run them, and it seems that many that have copied your deck to play in more recent events have eschewed Clique as well. Since it seems that there is very little analysis of this card, I was wondering if you could elaborate on Clique, and whether you would still run it in this deck, or if you would opt for Vault/Key (although by your earlier analysis of Vault/Key in this deck, I understand that this is doubtful).

Just curious - does Brady go into details about the Soviets' purpored cheating at major events? Fischer wasn't the first to throw around those accurations, and in fact a lot of evidence has been put forth that soviets did lose games against their compatriots on purpose to ensure that a soviet would win a given event. This was part of an important struggle in the cold war era - a form of "validation" of the soviet communism and the superiority over the capitalistic west.

Would you recommend Brady's work?

Hi Steve, and thanks! I'm not surprised that you're still at it - I never truly left either (I've been observing from the background, following the format, but work prevented me from playing). I think when it comes to magic one never really leaves - one only takes a break  . That break might be a month or a year or a decade, but what ultimately draws one back is the incredible depth of this game, and the fact that it constantly morphs into new and interesting things. I'm especially excited at Modern and even Legacy (in fact, I'm quite eager to work on 12post...if only I can get some Vesuvas). Vintage is actually looking exciting as well from my perspective!

Hey Steve, that was certainly an interesting article! Haiving played chess for many years before quitting competitive play, I certainly agreed with the parallels you drew in your article. I do have some comments about some of the points you raised in the article:


It is certainly hard to imagine how luck can arise in chess, but there is more luck than one would at first imagine. particularly:

1) Many games in a tournament boil down to heart-pounding time scrambles. They are certainly fun to watch (even for someone who doesn't even understand the game), and tend to be quite swingy. There can be a significant luck involved in such a scenario, where many moves that are made are more based on intuition and pattern recognition (or even playing the probabilities) than anything else.

2) In a course of the game, especially at high levels, there is frequently an interchange between one type of an advantage versus another type of advantage. For instance, a player might invest material for positional gain or to put a lot of pressure on the opponent and shift the burden of defense onto them. These types of sacrifices of material are often speculative - it is nearly impossible to calculate their long term outcome. The player must rely heavily on experience and intuition in such cases, but of course their sacrifices don't always pan out.

3) The “matagaming” in chess can have a significant luck component. Many games are determined not over the chessboard, but in home preparation. Periodically, strong players would unearth Theoretical Novelties (TNs). TNs at times were so significant that they would completely turn the tables, changing a negative evaluation of a position by theory to an overwhelmingly positive one. Arguably, one who falls for a prepared line is “unlucky” in the sense that they cannot possibly anticipate all of the subtleties of every conceivable position, and minimizing the chances of falling for such TNs would usually mean adopting systems that were known by theory to be equal or lack aggressive punch. Thus, if a player was highly ambitious and wanted to play the most challenging lines, they would be more prone to TNs. 

Interestingly enough, Fischer proposed the “Fischer Clock” to combat the luck involved in scenario 1. The Fischer Clock would add an arbitrary number of seconds after each move (usually 10 seconds), to avoid situations in which moves are made almost mindlessly leading to horrible blunders. The Fischer Clock has even been used in major chess tourneys in the past.

Fischer also proposed a new chess variant that would completely eliminate the “luck” involved in scenario 3: randomly scrambling the back row of each side of a chess board before each game. This way players were left to their own devices, instead of reliance on home preparation (and to be fair, that home preparation might have come as a result of that player's helpers, called “seconds” - and thus entire games could be won with minimal effort from that player himself).


Going back to Fisher's behavior after his losses, you parallel that to the behavior of certain magic players after they lose their matches. However, I wouldn't necessarily paint Fischer's behavior in a negative light - in fact, I think it can be interpreted as a very good thing. Fischer had incredible drive and an incredible killer instinct. He would be upset after losing because he felt that he should be able to beat anybody. I think that while he might have been emotional in the short term, those feelings fueled his drive to succeed. I have no doubt that he meticulously analyzed his losses, and learned a lot from his mistakes.

This is what sets him apart from many magic players that ascribe their losses to luck – such players never truly learn and grow.   

Thanks for that informative article Matt! I'm looking to get back into Vintage (and Legacy and Modern) this fall and I'm interested in people's insights into 4 cards:

Flusterstorm
Mental Misstep
Dismember
Vendilion Clique

In your article you elaborated on some of the benefits of Flusterstorm against blue decks. You also advised testing with it and against it. I'm just curious if you have any hard data from your testing regarding that card. Is it something you'd consider running maindeck or strictly out of the SB? How would you evaluate the opportunity cost of running this card? I must admit I'm suspicious of its power because it's a conditional counter against certain instants and sorceries - I'm not sure if it's ability to counter a storm card is a significant positive (as opposed to, say, using a "hard" counter to meddle with the opponent's set-up cards). Furthermore, it seems that the control archetypes these days pack too many alternate ways to win/build significant card advantage that doesn't involve chaining multiple spells in a turn (using Bob, casting a Tinker, beating down with small beaters).

I'm also wondering whether you can expand on your opinion of Vendilion Clique. You made a brief comment in your article that you felt Paul's version of Bob-Gush was better than Steve's version. I see very little discussion of this card in the forums, and I also see that it is relatively sparsely used in tourneys as well (although perhaps that is just my misconception).


I also have a question for you and anyone else that would like to comment: if you're running Mental Missteps, would you automatically counter Preordain/Brainstorm/Ponder on the first turn, irrespective of what your opponent's deck happens to be (whether it has many of few one-drops)? If used in such a way, Misstep becomes something close to a Time Walk, and since at times players have a penchant for keeping risky hands hoping their cantrips/cheap search will "bail" them out, it seems that the correct play might indeed be to alawys counter.

They do have an alternate option - Null Rod.

I think that if a MUD deck isn't running Metalworker it should run Null Rod.

I'm not entirely sold.

There might be too great an opportunity cost associated with this card. Its inclusion means that some key component that contributes to a lock or to beatdown (with more than 2 power) gets omitted. I think the strongest argument thus far is that it can be almost equivalent to another Sphere because it can shut down a non-land mana source, although that is a reactive strategy and not a pre-emptive one like playing Spheres is.

Also, while it's nice to have some answer to your opponent's game winning cards (like Vault or Jace/Tezzeret), or control their disruption (like Pridemage or Bomb), that kind of defensive, mostly-1-for-1 strategy seems at odds with what MUD is trying to do.

Your idea of Street Wraith is certainly thought provoking. My first instinct is to avoid using the card in WGD, but perhaps testing would prove me wrong. The reason I haven't seriously considered the card in the past is because of the same reason I've avoided using Time Walk - a Walk or Wraith in your opening grip can cause a misevaluation of your starting hand, and you might end up mulliganing more often than you should. I would at least consider adding Time Walk ahead of the first Street Wraith. Time Walk incidentally has some synergy with Entomb, as it enables some turn 1 kills (WGD typically needs two lands outside of Ritual-fueled kills).

I have another suggestion: while Rituals are synergistic with Entomb, it might ultimately be better to ditch the Rituals and return to a full complement of Moxes/Lotus/Sol Ring/Crypt/Vault. Without those extra artifact mana sources Read the Runes loses a LOT of its power, as does Intuition.

Caller in hand doesn't combo with Entomb and I was referring alternate comboing outside of Bazaar. Entomb versions should maximize their turn 1 and turn 2 kills - ideally you want to be able to play Underground Sea, Ritual, Entomb, Animate on turn 1, but to maximize this play you need a boatload of instants to allow this combo to actually kill. Bazaar doesn't help here.

I think you need to ask a different question: what is the minimum number of instant speed spells that I need to run to support the Entomb/RtR alternate win plan? Dropping Whispers entirely leaves you with:

4 Entomb
3 Read the Runes
2 Cunning Wish

You'll use the first Entomb/RtR to deposit a WGD in the yard, and then have 8 instant speed cards as back-up if you plan to win instead of drawing the game. You'll have to decide whether that is sufficient or whether more is necessary. Keep also in mind that even if you deem 8 sufficient, there is always the question of whether Cunning Wish should be played over Intuition. Wish isn't really that amazing in WGD at fetching answers to problem cards, and it isn't necessary as a win condition if you run Oona.

In any event I'll be watching to see how things develop - I'm curious to see if Entomb builds can generate some success in the current field.

Keep in mind that Intuition actually adds to the speed by inflating the number of instant speed kill cards to support Entomb and Read the Runes; the fact that it can be used outside of the combo is merely a bonus (and a big bonus at that). Intuition is thus as good as Whispers with respect to the speed of the kill, unless you feel that being able to cycle Whispers contributes to the speed (which it doesn't actually, since you don't want to be cycling an actual combo card for the most part). In fact, Intuition should actually increase the speed in Ritual builds because you can tutor up a WGD into the graveyard and still have mana to Animate on turn 2 if another non-land accelerant is used in addition to the ritual.

What is the purpose behind this poll if you don`t mind me asking? Are you simply curious, or do you wish to follow it up with certain proposals to alter the site in some way to match what you feel the purpose of the site should be?

In your second list, perhaps you could consider replacing Whispers of the Muse with Intuition? Whispers is one of your weakest cards, and while it does cycle, quite often cycling in WGD = passing the entire turn for the sole benefit of cycling (so replacing Whispers with Intuition rarely "slows" the deck down, and isn't thus contrary to the deck's intent - run as a speed WGD deck). Intuition gets some additional mileage from Rituals, and can address the problem of an initial thwarting of the combo by adding additional tutors into the mix. You can even consider adding a second Deep Analysis (probably at the expense of Demonic Consultation) if you go the Intuition route - you don't sacrifice much speed but you do improve slightly the tutoring and draw power.

For speed WGD builds, another option is really going whole hog and ramping up the number of Oonas and Spoils of the Vault. A final option is to ramp down the number of WGDs and go the Buried Alive route (with Ancient Tombs making more sense). I was never a big fan of Buried Alive, but maybe there's some sort of combination that will fit nicely and make for a strong deck - no possibility should be discounted when exploring your options.
  

Chiz, this is a very interesting SB plan for WGD. So long as there is little Null Rod in the meta, it might even be a stronger option than the Oath plan. I wonder though if you perhaps considered Lim Dul's Vaults for tutoring to both assist the WGD combo andhelp assemble the Time Vault combo, or if you considered actually running TV main deck? I always consider the possibility of hybrid strategies for WGD whenever possible instead of strictly limiting the alternate plan to the SB.

On a very important side note: as I understand it, Transmute Artifact and Sundering Titan doesn't work...yet. There is still power level errata that SHOULD be removed from Transmute Artifact to allow the Titan to enter play even if you cannot pay the mana difference to keep it in play. I think we should petition WotC to de-errata TA.


You mention that the SB is tested - how have you been finding Tombstalkers? It seems like a cool idea, but I'm a little worried about the Tombstalkers cc - even though WGD is a "graveyard" deck, it isn't that easy to deposit 5-6 cards into the graveyard consistently. Would you not want to run all 4 Tarms ahead of a Tombstalker? Furthermore, I'm not sure I trust such beatdown strategies - it just seems so underpowered compared to oath, or even Mask-Naught. The Oath plan is really good against aggro strategies (Fish and Aggro-Shop) that SB anti-grave hate heavily, but I cannot see such a SB making a dent against those decks. Thoughts?

 My summer work schedule has changed so that I'll be able to resume playing in events, so expect some new WGD ideas from me soon!

I agree that the current rules strongly indicate that you are not allowed to use Time Vault forever to "draw" the game. However, a draw to me should intuitively be the correct result, since this falls into a different type of category of "loop" where actions are actually completed in entirely different turns (thus a little different than stalling with Seeker of Skybreak for instance). In the above linked discussion in the rules forum, there was a claim made by Clariax that inaction leading to the infinite repetition of the loop should result in a draw, even though there is an action the player can take to break the loop (for instance, WGD goes off to attempt a draw, while either player holds a Disenchant in their hand; the player with the Disenchant is under no obligation to break the loop and the game is thus a draw).

I would argue that the Time Vault case is similar, in that the activation of Time Vault during each turn actually *results in a tangible, measurable gain* for the player, and should thus be considered progress (unlike using Seeker infinitely, which doesn't result in any tangible gain). What stops the progress afterward is the inaction, akin to the case Clariax discussed. I would suggest that a player cannot be forced to stop a tangible gain, just like he cannot be forced into action if the loop is one of inaction.

I understand that this argument isn't that convincing, but if we accept the starting premise that the scenario "should" result in a draw, then this is one way of "bending" the rules to reach the conclusion that the game is a draw.

I would focus on three categories of SB cards: bounce (Echoing Truth, Chain of Vapor, Hurkyl's Recall/Rebuild), mass stopper of instants (Xantid Swarm), and a mass sweeper of permanents (Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives). I would also consider extra mana against Null Rod strategies (either 2 extra basics or Ancient Tombs). If fast combo was a problem deck in the meta, I'd consider running Chalice of the Void; if Ichorid was being run in significant numbers, I'd consider some graveyard hate, although the best plan might be to play another deck to avoid running into Leylines. Finally, against control-combo archetypes, I'd consider running extra draw spells like Skeletal Scrying, 3 Squee, or maybe even 4 Accumulated Knowledge (!). I'd shy away from Squee though in case they bring in Pithing Needles.

For instance, here's how the SB might look (assuming no Repeals, and 1 maindeck Tropical Island):

1 Echoing Truth
2 Chain of Vapor
3 Pernicious Deed
4 Accumulated Knowledge
1 Island (or Tropical Island, and then run 4 Deeds)
1 Swamp
3 xxxx (meta-specific)

Alternately, if I decided to run 5-color, I'd definitely opt for Ancient Grudges and possibly consider Abeyances. I would definitely shift the SB around from event to event though, which is why I have never advocated any specific SB cards in the past.


I would run something like the following if I was running 2 Cunning Wish maindeck:

1 Stroke of Genius
1 Force of Will (or Misdirection if 4 FoW remain in the maindeck, which is where I'd likely keep them)
1 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Echoing Truth
2 Chain of Vapor
2 Skeletal Scrying
3 Pernicious Deed
1 Island
1 Swamp
2 xxx


It would take a while to outline every SB plan, so I'll stick to general considerations:

To transform, I would need to SB a minimum of 7 cards to make room for 4 Masks and 3 Naughts. These cards would be:

-2 WGD (I'd keep 2 so I can still Intuition into the combo; plus, WGD can be played under Mask, especially if you have Carpets to give you a mana boost)
-3 Animate Dead
1 1 Mulldrifter
-1 Read the Runes

To make room for Carpet of Flowers, I would remove 1 mana source (undoubtedly the Mana Vault), and 2 business spells. I might dip into FoW against some decks and only retain Duress, going almost full aggro-combo. For instance:

+3 Carpet
+3 Predator

-4 FoW
-1 Mana Vault
-1 Read the Runes

The two Survivals can be inserted at the expense of 1 Bazaar (no longer that critical) and 1 Intuition (also weaker post SB).

Of course against some decks I would only bother SBing in Carpets and Predators.