Quite impressive Carsten!  I'm going to check your math and get back to you!

@Cross: We have tested Dark Ritual, which my whole team agrees is superior to Cabal Ritual, which we first entertained.  I considered cutting a mox for it, but in the end I didn't.  I don't know what to cut, but I agree that Dark Ritual is strong. 

Well, the tweaks are pretty small.   IMO, you get objectively stronger.   I have continued to play more and more against Fish and I think that having Tendrils md is actualy incredibly strong.  Why?  Because you can win so fast that the Fish player, sometimes, won't even see it coming.   It's not even clear to me if how fast the deck can actually win now.   

The only change I hesitate over is cutting Rebuild for Hurks.  I can see in a heavy Chalice environment keeping Rebuild, but I really enjoy Hurks so far. 

I think your combo match is stronger, obviously - and that's an important match.


So, who is going to take me up on my offer? 

It's not that I have hot sb tech, but that I want to have some prerogative to keep some tech to myself.   

However, I would say that the sb changes are not nearly as important as playing Gifts optimally - which this article tries to get us to think about more deeply.

No, I raise that issue not to show that I"m correct, but to show you that tensions, inconsistencies and contradictions abound.  The way we resolve these is by reference to what lawyers call "policy."  Here the policy of saving time seems to be important.  But there has also been a policy shift to judge based on intent more than objective factors.

This has resulted in greater and stronger enforcement of the rules in many instances, esp. where there shouldn't be.

Hence: the McCarthy era of magic, a moniker I find perfectly fitting. 

What about the inconsistency of doing what the card commands?

Cabal Therapy says "Name a card"

White wall that reduces cc is not the name of a card.

Sure, you can short cut, but that isn't the letter of the law.  That's judging based on Intent.   Which I despise. 

Also, I'd like to show you how poorly worded the penalty guidelines are - if not actually inconsistent with the floor rules. 

IMO, you should have to name a card if it says name a card, but if you name the wrong card when you were supposed to name another, that in my view, is your fault.

Cabal Therapy specifically tests format knowledge.  To obviate that by providing a sufficient description is ridiculous imo.

I hate judging by intent.   

JD, you are slightly conflating the floor rules and the penalty guidelines.  But that is not your fault.  They are HORRIBLY written.

Some day I'll write an article tearing them apart for their inconsistency and lack of precision. 

Thank you very much!   

I was afriad that no one was reading this article.   I hate it when my articles go up on Thursdays.  It's the worst day of the week to publish an article and most of mine go up then.

Anyway, I'm glad at least one person read the piece.  This is possibly my favorite article I've written this year and without so much of a peep of response here, that's pretty disconcerting.

RE: JD and Atog Lord:

This is not true at all!

I was in an Extended PTQ Jan 2005 playing Osyp's UW Desire deck.  I was 5-0-1 and I needed one more win to draw into top 8.   (This was the last PTQ I've played in, btw).

My opponent was playing the Teen Titans deck.   He had seen the White Wall (Sunscape Famiilar?) that decreases the casting cost of blue spells in my hand.   He played Cabal Therapy naming "The White Wall."   He couldn't remember the card and yet the judge said that this was acceptable!   I was SO PISSED off. 

The judges explained that htis was a change in philosophy.  I spoke to the head judge extensively and we talked about cards like Consult, etc.   What about Meddling Mage naming Tendrils of Despair when it was quite clear that they meant Tendrils of Agony?   Intent governs.

So, JD and Rich, chew on that.

Regardless of whether you find that analogy applicable, there can be no denying that there has been both a shift in ideology regarding judging recently as well as an increase in various enforcement mechanisms.

First and foremost is the shift towards intent.   Intent is the new standard for judging.   Whereas before if a person played Spoils of hte Vault or Demonic Consultation naming "Lotus" that would get you screwed, now judges say taht intent matters more.   

Second and correllary is that since intent is the primary standard, cheating is more harshly adjudicated.   Cheating is now more often inferred from conduct that previously would not have been considered as such.

Finally, slow play.   

Vintage compresses the normal game of magic by many turns and yet the same slow play standards apply.  I strongly urge you to read my previous post and the link within it (I say that to everyone in this forum).   In vintage, such standards border on the absurd in many cases.    Technically, one minute to find 4 Gifts cards?  That's 15 seconds per card.   Good luck!

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12800.html

Blurb:



I'm very proud of much of the analysis in this article.

I think exploring gifts piles in far more depth than has previously been done - approaching Gifts more as a Dday scenario or a Combo puzzle -- is what is presently called for.   

The vast majority of Gifts players are far too flaccid in their gifts decision making.   This article is designed to act as a jolt to such complacence. 

It is a mathmatical question, but I think you should err on the side of doing more damage now.   Life is a resource, not just a number you keep track of to determine who wins.   If you can eat up that resource from your opponent, that means less they can do - less Vampiric Tutor, less fetchland use, etc. 

If your criteria is predominantly:   # of Top 8s / Number of Events Attended  , then I fail to see why I’m omitted.

I’ve played in 4 SCG tournaments this year and made top 8 in 75% of them.  I made top 20 at Gencon.   in the last five SCG events I've played (going back to October of last year), I have an 80% of making top 8.  At local events I have split 3 times for top 4 this year and I went undefeated in another local tournament, only to drop before the top 8 started.   This is my strongest year, performancewise, since 2004 where I made top 8 at multiple consecutive SCG events and the Vintage Champs.   

I understand why I’m omitted – I don’t play in your neck of the woods, you probably don’t see me very much, etc.   But I’m just pointing out that under your criteria, it doesn’t make much sense to exclude me given that I’ve performed just as well as anyone else on your list except perhaps TK, if you are going on % of top 8s/ percentage of events attended. 

I empathize with your position - because I would have been in the same position and just as flustered.


However, before the tournament I gave Paul M a piece of advice.    My teammate was playing Pitch Long.    I told him this: If you play Meandeck Gifts to call a judge over at the earliest sign of slow play.   Why?

Here's the deal:  We are not in the McCarthy era of magic.    Get used to it.  Did you hear what happened to Eric Becker at SCG Charlotte? 

Regardless of whether the Top 8 is timed or not, judges will still enforce the "reasonable time" rule.  Under the DCI floor rules evey single search should take NO MORE than one minute.    Thus, a simple search under a Fetchland should take no longer than a search for cards under Dday or Gifts Ungiven.


I told Paul to call a judge for this reason:  Gifts Ungiven, and particularly meandeck gifts, is in my opinion the hardest deck in the format to pilot PERFECTLY.  Which is not to say that you can't pilot it well or very well.  But to get perfect gifts piles every time is the trick.

Simply put, its not possible to do so in a reasonable time.   You have as much time to make that decision as a limited player does to decide whether to play some dumb creature on their mainphase.    Thats the way it is. 

There has been a HUGE debate on the SCG forums recently about particularly this issue: 

Read up on what this judge has to say about it:  http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=290682

It's frustrating, it's upsetting, it's maddening even.... but that's the rules.

It sounds like the judge made the right call under the rules, even though we don't like it. 

Heh.  I remember when Jeff Greene made top 8 eons ago at the Waterbury with Oshawa Stompy.  Props. 

any word on meandeckers RoChang, Ashok Chitturi, and Paul Mastriano?

ALL,

Check out what Randy Buehler and Kevin Cron said in the last two posts:

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=292893&start=25&sid=839470595be62eb3fd839edd47689e4e


I'm surprised more of you weren't following this conversation - it cuts right to the core of Vintage.

I think not running 4 Merchant Scroll and 4 Gifts is utterly crazy.


Both cards are utterly nuts.   Merchant Scroll is straight up demonic tutor that can't find Lotus or Will directly and Gifts, well, I can't for the life of me understand why you wouldn't run 4.  The card is NUTS!

Stephen

My latest tweak of Meandeck Gifts, which is the subject of my article next week, will show you that I absolutely and convinced that the Tendrils should be maindeck.   It makes the deck SO much faster.   I now win on turn three, on average - and often faster. 

i'm not going either.

How is True Believer, like not the second best card?  It stops Gifts, it stops Duress, it stops Hurkyl's REcall...god.  You say it competes with Orim's Chant?  How do you make that assessment?  He's a bear that stops so much stuff. 

This deck is AWESOME!  It should have absolutely no trouble beating Pitch Long.



@ Mods - sorry, I couldn't resist.

Sarcasm, jerkitude towards new posters and spam are unacceptable. Verbal warning.

-Hi-Val
TMD Moderation Staff

Yes, but lots of things are true of stax taht aren't true of other decks: for example, Ancestral REcall is no where near as good and most stax decks don't run time walk. 

Are you prepared for Pat Chapin to come in and shake things up?   

Last time he touched Vintage, he changed alot.  However, this time, I think he may run  his mouth and lead us to the wrong conclusions.  We'll see.

so what do you all think about Mike Flores reply to my article and his comment about Chapin's forthcoming series on Vintage?

The most broken card in Vintage mental magic, by far, is Fastbond.   

I also think that cards like Time Walk, Wheel, Timetwister, and the like are too broken to play.  That's why I think only Legacy Mental Magic should be legal. 

Who thinks wizards SHOULD be designing cards for Vintage?  I don't.  The last card they designed for this format was Chalice. 

Thanks.

It's really nothing I haven't said before - but it's more concisely stated in a single place. 

Yeah, Machinus gave me the idea to rewrite it. 

is that really true?  Doesn't that depend on other things?

On the other hand, I will say that going to a college where you don't think you will fit in may change you.


I was a very different person after my first year of college.  I learned more social skills in that first year than in the prior 18 years of existence.