August 12, 2020, 01:26:25 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 16, 2016, 06:52:34 pm
I don't understand your logic in saying that the card is  inefficient against mentor because it "costs more than the cards it's answering." if you are using supreme verdict to deal with 1 mentor then it's using it inefficiently but when it's mentor and tokens given that each token adds to the cost of the mentor it is an uncounterable board wipe that happens to be pretty good. Also the gush engine is only good if the gush resolves, standstill decks play considerably more counter magic than mentor so yes if the gush draw engine is uninterrupted then mentor is advantaged but that can be said of any deck that goes uninteracted with. Standstill doesn't have to win with factories, Jace is also a viable win con in the deck. Moat is a beater in most match ups right now. Shops, dredge, mentor, Tinker blightsteel, all cannot beat a moat.

Four mana, three of it colored, is a lot more than  {2} {W}, especially when Mentor can kill you in that one turn window before you can Verdict. The tokens are generated as a byproduct of casting other spells and so there isn't really a tempo disadvantage - the Mentor pilot is still drawing cards, filtering, Delving and progressing their game plan. A Verdict that wipes the Monks doesn't undo this and it's easy and frequent to follow up with another Mentor that can't be answered. That's assuming the Landstill player is able to find one of their two or three Verdicts given the short clock a resolved Mentor represents. Fighting Gush and the other draw spells is not easy to do - Spell Pierce and Flusterstorm normally don't work which mean you are relying on Mana Drains and Force of Wills. The cantrips and manabase keep the gas coming and you are generally better spent saving your counterspells for the Mentor itself, Cruise/Dig, and Dack/Jace.

I beat Landstill three times in splitting a Black Lotus/Ancestral Recall with Brian Kelly at EE3. I've played against the VSL UW version three times recently in online dailies. In these 6 matches, I think I lost 1 game. My overall impression of the match up is that it is highly favorable for a competent Mentor pilot...perhaps 75-25 or higher, not even close to a coin flip (respectfully disagree with you here Josh).

Moat is an interesting idea but it is certainly has not been a part of recent lists. I normally keep 1-2 Wear/Tears in the deck as they kill Factories and Crucibles while being instants to pop a Standstill at EoT. Against the Moat control decks that occasionally pop up, my strategy is generally to commit one Mentor to the board and then use card filtering and Probe to force an EoT Tear through. That or ultimating a JVP has won me a couple of games here and there.

2  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 16, 2016, 01:18:29 pm
Depends on the list, if it's red the mentor match up is really bad but white has moat, supreme verdict, swords, as very good options to attack mentor.

Those options are hardly very good. Swords still leaves the tokens, provided it resolves against the deck's counters, and the tokens are generally large enough to bash through Factories. Supreme Verdict is a poor card in most matchups, inefficient in that it costs more than the cards it's answering, and honestly hard to cast at times given the triple colored cost in a deck with 9-10 colorless lands. The Gush-cantrip draw engine is also adept at churning through it's deck, so the Mentor player is likely to have additional copies after the Verdict. And I have never seen a Landstill deck run Moat and TCDecks turns up zero results for Standstill+Moat. In theory, I guess it could catch the Mentor pilot by surprise, but it also shuts down Landstill's primary win condition.

I've played this matchup a lot from the Mentor side and I feel it's one of Mentors better matchups.
3  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 16, 2016, 06:58:18 am
So congratulations to LSV for winning the league. Well done!
The dominant deck of the finals was clearly their UW Landstill build and it seems to be positioned pretty well in the meta. It has shown that it can beat Shops and Dredge and should have a reasonable matchup against all the rest.

Landstill has an abysmal matchup against the Gush decks, especially Mentor, and I would take the Dredge result (N=1) with a grain of salt - it's not traditionally a good match up for Landstill and LSVs draws were pretty mediocre. The lack of Gush in the VSL is one thing, but in a typical tournament, it tends to be 15-20% of the metagame. Just a caveat to those looking to jam this at their next event. And board your Standstills out in the mirror...
4  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Thing In The Ice on: March 14, 2016, 10:49:01 am
TITI can also be combined with Vampire Hexmage and Hex Parasite. No need for instants and sorceries ⌒.⌒

Hmm, that is actually an interesting interaction I didn't know about before I said this card was terrible.  Dark depths, thespian's stage, vampire hexmage, thing in the ice in a blue black shell is pretty reasonable.  Vampire hexmage is actually a very good magic card.  

Am I right that even after a Hexmage you need to cast a spell to trigger the flip? If so, hexmage really only save you two spells. Maybe this is enough in a shell with the more broken Hexmage targets.

Yes, flipping is part of the ability that triggers when you cast an instant or sorcery.
5  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 13, 2016, 07:25:00 pm
My argument is that the competitors on the VSL should have the freedom to play the decks they want to and that this backlash against "anti-Shops, anti-Dredge sentiment" is unwarranted.

They can play whatever they want sure, but making a side agreement to not play half the metagame is not Vintage.  I'm curious as to what does warrant criticism then?  What if they had an anti-blue sentiment?

I feel disagreements about Lodestone Golem and the state of Vintage were appropriate topics for criticism or discussion, but criticizing a 1-week gentlemen's agreement between two participants is a bit much. And I would be fine if they decided to have a week without Gush or Force of Will.
6  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 11, 2016, 09:47:26 pm
Matt that's exactly what I intended; a disengenous post meant to mislead people.  Wastelands, Leonin Relic Warders, Ingot Chewers; that deck is terrible against Shops!

Not what I meant at all. You used MTGGoldfish metagame data to undersell Death and Taxes percentage of the Legacy metagame, and I was pointing out that there is important context missing. And if you use the same database, it looks like Hatebears isn't actually a part of the Vintage metagame. I'm not debating other points you made about Hatebears having won in the past or having a favorable matchup against Shops.

My argument is that the competitors on the VSL should have the freedom to play the decks they want to and that this backlash against "anti-Shops, anti-Dredge sentiment" is unwarranted.
7  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 11, 2016, 06:19:56 pm
Death and taxes comes up as #9 on mtggoldfish meta breakdown. 3.1% of the metagame. Additionally, the hate creatures in the deck are only a portion of the total strategy. More card slots are devoted to "beat down" (Stoneforge Mystic, Serra Avenger, Brimaz)

If you read my post you'll see that I am noting the differences in Vintage hate bears deck and decks like death and taxes; Vintage hate bears is not very good against opposing "fair" decks such as modern legal decks.  Legacy death n taxes has more impactful cards for "fair" metagames (Such as Stoneforge, Brimaz, and Serra Avenger)

Vintage hate bears has won and will will Vintage tournaments. But I'm not really interested in arguing with anyone. As someone who has piloted hate bears, I can say hate bears is a good Vintage deck specifically for the role it plays in keeping Shops in check.  I'll also double down on my statement that hate type decks in Vintage get away with a lot that modern/legacy decks cannot.  Staxless stax lost to a turn one Raging Goblin, remember?  That sort of thing is a recurring element of Vintage.

What else isn't remotely true?

Rishardan Ports are 180 tix a piece (Black Lotus is 140) and not typically played outside of that deck. I'm guessing that is responsible for the 3% figure from MTGO as the deck has put up several recent finishes in SCG events. In any case, it seems disingenuous to cite the Death and Taxes % in legacy and not mention Hatebears % from MTGGoldfish. Which is 0.
8  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 10, 2016, 10:27:36 pm
Why should there even have to be any "gentleman agreement"? just play. If they didn't want to pilot bazaar or shops, then dont. Seems silly to even announce it. If this continues to be a "thing", why not change the name to something more fitting and not Vintage Super League.
Maybe this:
Arbitrary Eternal Format Super League


Did you watch the VSL last week? Out of six matches, there were zero that did not feature a Shops deck. The VSL is entertainment and frankly the viewers were getting bored watching reruns...

But by all means, if this continues to be a "thing", feel free to not watch.
9  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 10, 2016, 06:13:14 pm
So calling the format a 2 deck format, while there are clearly 4 pillars, is incredibly disingenuous.  Especially considering 3 of the 4 pillars have large amounts of diversity.  How many formats in magic right now have 4 main pillars, and a number of tier 2 non pillars?

Modern? UW, RG, UR, and colorless Eldrazi are all viable Tier 1 decks. And Affinity. Isn't color diversity great?

Seriously though, I'm not trying to put down any archetype or pet deck. The VSL is not supposed to be a representative view of Vintage: it's a bunch of Magic celebrities (from the VSL website) playing cards legal in Vintage on Magic Online for entertainment purposes. This response to two player's making an agreement by themselves to play what they wanted to play is frankly ridiculous... Rich even chose to run not 1 but not 2 Shop decks, and that was perfectly within his rights as a competitor.
10  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 09, 2016, 09:37:39 pm
This is so off point I don't even know where to begin. I am not promoting my own bias, but rather I am simply wanting an absence of bias when folks decide what is "good vintage." Any deck that is legal should be fair game to choose. Actually, I find what they did yesterday quite exclusive and pretentious and I think it damages the reputation of vintage as a format where "any cards can be played and any strategy can be tried as long as it competes."

The VSL is free entertainment and the players are in it largely for their own enjoyment. You don't think that two friends have the right to a "gentleman's agreement" on what decks they want to play before a match?

Also, where did this "any cards can be played and any strategy can be tried as long as it competes" "reputation" come from? First of all, you CAN play any card that's legal in any strategy you want, regardless of whether or not it's competitive. I jammed Palinchron into an Academy-Humanstorm hybrid deck and ran it into the top 8 of a small event, because a friend dared me to and there happened to be one in the case while I was registering for a tournament. How is this different from literally any other competitive format? Why do you think this statement only applies to Vintage? I played nothing but Battle of Wits decks at Standard FNMs when that was recently legal. It was a blast.

All I'm saying is that VSL participants outside of Steve and Rich used to post in these forums at the beginning of the VSL. They since stopped doing that and do you think the entitlement of similar posts and the backlash from the community here might have contributed to it?
11  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: Vintage Super League: Who Would You Like to See? on: March 09, 2016, 05:57:47 pm
I have to express that I'm starting to get pretty disillusioned with VSL at the moment. I think the icing on the cake was last night when both LSV and Eric Froehlich decided to have a "gentlemen's agreement" to not play a deck with Workshop or Bazaar. This sort of anti-shop anti-dredge sentiment as "not being real magic" needs to stop or it'll start to permeate the community and then more toys for those decks will be restricted. Blue decks are just one facet of Vintage and not ALL of Vintage. Get over it folks. It's really starting to get old to hear the soap box from many of the Vintage elite and *cough cough* the Wizards elite.

My 2 cents,


The "gentlemen's agreement" was likely a reaction to viewer sentiment, which was sick of Shops and looked on Rich Shay choosing two Shops decks the week before unfavorably, and the play-style preferences of LSV and Efro. David Ochoa flat out rejected such a "gentlemen's agreement" when Randy asked him about it, so it looks like you won't have to worry about it next week...

However, I have to call you out for hypocritically getting up on your own soap box here. The pros and viewers of the VSL have a right to their own opinions, as do you. Telling them to "get over it folks" because this is how I say Vintage should be comes across as arrogant and portrays the Vintage community as pretentious and exclusive. It certainly isn't doing much for your position.
12  Eternal Formats / Northeast U.S. / Re: BMG Invitation Vintage Event 3-12-16 on: March 08, 2016, 12:06:21 pm
4 days away...
13  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: - New Direction? on: March 05, 2016, 11:47:30 pm
Agreed. But how do we, as a community, foster that discourse?

That's the million dollar question. Like Godder said, it comes from the people using the forums and is largely independent of what administration does. It's been frustrating though watching people I respected give up on this forum and not post anymore. And I know my frustration comes out in some of my posts.
14  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: - New Direction? on: March 05, 2016, 11:17:51 pm
Second, whenever somebody does try to innovate they get beat down.  There are people who will be encouraging. But there are some who are set in their ways and wont give something new a chance unless 'it has tournament results.'  I think that is a community problem that the site admins have little control over. The content on this site is very results driven. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. We are, after all, here to discuss competitive T1 and what better way to determine competitive than with results?  But innovation on this site really gets stifled.   Which is a shame. Because nobody puts together a new deck, takes it to a tournament and wins.  They play test it. Revise it, revamp it. Alter it, tweak it etc.  But there are very vocal people on this site who don't seem to want to give this process a chance.   "Show me a tournament victory or shut up," mentality.

"No one puts together a new deck, takes it to a tournament, and wins." I've done that quite a few times and I know Brian Kelly has as well. I learn more from competitive play than from noncompetitive matches on either Cockatrice of MTGO and generally my rough drafts are close enough to being competitive that I don't simply get steamrolled. That said, that's not really the point...

The problem with most "innovation" on this site is that it lacks quality, not results. If you go to the recent thread on Brain in a Jar, the two scenarios given as incentives to play the card are actually pretty terrible. Later, on a different point, one person said to me "I didn't say it was good, I just said it was possible." Three people have asked how the card interacts with Spheres. This isn't quality discourse.

I am more than willing to embrace new and crazy ideas but I would like logic and reasoning behind it.

15  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Brain in a Bottle on: March 03, 2016, 04:09:03 pm
Well, there is.  You can sacrifice/bounce/blink the Brain with it's second ability on the stack.  It won't place a counter, and last known information will be zero, so it will allow you to cast Suspend cards.

Best use I can think of for this is Greater Gargadon / Restore Balance combo, since it works nicely with both sides of the combo. 

Ah, well, then we are just talking about a 3 card combo that either draws 3 cards or has the end result of a card that is virtually unplayed right now. If you can make that a viable Vintage deck...or really viable in any format...

Seriously, I'm going to go into hibernation for the rest of spoiler season. See you guys then.
16  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Brain in a Bottle on: March 02, 2016, 11:43:58 pm
You're right as always, Chubby! End of discussion!

You asked the question...

My point still stands that you have traded tempo and card advantage for...Quicken? I'm not sure what the payoff is here.
17  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Brain in a Bottle on: March 02, 2016, 10:37:50 pm
How sick would Brain into Tutor/Wish into Brain into Tinker (saccing Brain) look?

Probably not as sick as just casting Tutor into Tinker and being two turns faster and up a card.
18  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Brain in a Bottle on: March 02, 2016, 12:49:14 am
You can play a Tinker for 1 mana at instant speed. This could be really good against Workshops. 

That's the one reason I haven't called it unplayable. Against non-shops decks, it doesn't generate enough value for it's cost. Unlike aether vial, it doesn't make the spell uncounterable and unlike Birthing Pod, it doesn't generate value in the same way (pulling the card from the library).
19  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: [SOI] Brain in a Bottle on: March 01, 2016, 04:26:55 pm
The templating on this is kind of wonky. So, it's one action to put a charge counter on and play a spell? In other words, the first time you activate it, you can cast a 1 mana spell, then the next time you activate it you can play a 2 mama spell? Can you also play more than 1 1-mana spell after you activate it? It seems like you can't "store a spell" so to speak by activating and playing the spell at a later time. Right?

Yes, it is templated this way to prevent unwanted interactions with Ancestral Visions and similar spells, at least in my opinion
20  Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Vintage T.O. Report for Deal Me In Games on 2/20/16 on: February 28, 2016, 05:08:49 pm
IT WASNT ME IT WAS JUSTIN LOL. I am the one in the league!

Are we sure Justin and JP Kohler aren't the same person? I've never seen them in the same place at the same time before...
21  Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: MTGO P9 Metagame Breakdown: February Edition on: February 28, 2016, 03:08:06 pm
Is there an official ratio we should be using that might make these discussions a little less open to player bias?  What do you think it should be?

No, of course not, which leaves it open to interpretation and therefore inevitable bias. I'm not on team Restrict Golem but I am taking note of this tournament: the fact that Shops was the most played archetype and the best archetype in this event makes it's showing more impressive than Gush's showing last event - the more prevalent a deck is, the more it's MWP should trend towards 50%. There have also been those that argued Shops has not won an event and this contradicts that.
22  Eternal Formats / Online Tournaments / Re: MTGO Power Nine Challenge - Saturday, January 30th on: February 27, 2016, 11:01:02 pm
Metagame breakdown:
23  Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / MTGO P9 Metagame Breakdown: February Edition on: February 27, 2016, 10:54:14 pm
Alright, after an hour of so trudging through replays by myself because MTGO decided Ryan was not special enough to have access to the event literally right after it ended (!define "Quality"), Ryan and I are please to present this February's metagame breakdown:

Top 16:

Shops: 19 (22.9%) - 61.2% MWP
Ravager: 12 - 60.1%
Aggro: 3
Stax: 2
Other: 2

Combo: 18 (21.7%) - 44.0% MWP
DPS: 12 - 46.2%
Doomsday: 2
Belcher: 2
Other: 2

Gush: 17 (20.5%) - 51.4% MWP
Jeskai Mentor: 11 - 49.3%
Delver: 3
Other: 3

Dredge: 12 (14.5%) - 48.4% MWP
Traditional: 11 - 46.4%
Pitch: 1

Oath: 7 (8.4%) - 37.1% MWP
Control: 4
Odd: 2
Oathstill: 1

Big Blue: 5 (6.0%) - 40.0% MWP
Painter: 3
Tezz Academy: 1
Jeskai Control : 1

Other: 5 (6.0%)
BUG Fish: 2
Hatebears: 1
Eldrazi: 1
Suicide Dark Depths: 1


Shops was by far the best archetype by every possible measure: it won the whole thing, put up a 60+% match win percentage, and dramatically overperformed relative to its percentage of the metagame (50% of Top 8, 50% of Top 16 while being 23% of the field. While this is only one event, it is a data point in favor of a possible restriction to the Shops archetype.

Friends do not let friends play Oath - Without Rich Shay and thediabetical to boost the numbers of the Oath archetype, it put up a 36% win percentage this month.

Edit: I did some additional work going back through Shops player's matches and filtering out the mirrors (which would tend to push the archetype towards 50%). Without the 20 mirror matches, Shops had a match win percentage of 66.3%.

24  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: Eternal Masters CONFIRMED on: February 26, 2016, 06:34:26 pm
I think buy outs on reserved list cards are pretty horrible for the game aspect of magic.  The cheapest competitive non proxy vintage deck is around 4000 dollars, dredge.  Then it goes up dramatically from there.  Even budget decks are expensive now with the recent buy out of Null Rod.  I guess if all you care about is the value of your own cards it would be fine in your mind, but I am a Vintage player not a Vintage collector.

I hope that in the future TOs can start to adopt a policy of allowing all reserved list cards to be proxied, and all non-reserved list cards to be real instead of just simple number, like 10 or 15.  This would reduce the barrier of entry significantly, and might even boost sales as players will now be buying some of the non-reserved list cards they had been proxying.

Only issue with that is it's a bit unfair to those who own Power but don't happen to own chase Standard Mythics (for instance, those that didn't preorder their sets of Jace, Vryn's Prodigy). I think a more equitable solution would be to relax the proxy limit or unbound the proxy ceiling, such as 15 proxies with an indefinite number more for $1 each.
25  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: Eternal Masters CONFIRMED on: February 26, 2016, 06:29:04 pm
And now we have a masters set every year.  Sure it looks like slippery slope fallacy, but it's a reality.  Give the players what they want, then they demand more.  Sell the cards at 3x what you sell normal packs for and the Board of Hasbro wants more.  

I took a logic class in college, I know all the "fallacies" you are evoking.  Believe it or not, because something is fallacious that doesn't make the statement WRONG.  It simply makes it fallacious.  

1) We have a Modern Masters set every other year and what has it done to prices? What has it done to collectability? In able to justify the price hike on the packs, the product they are selling must retain value. Your assertion that we are on a slippery slope to dollar Moxen without the reserve list is not supported by what we've seen with either of the Modern Masters sets.

2) Yes, fallacies are errors in logic - they do not make the premise false OR true and therefore lend no support to the statement. If a statement is RIGHT, you should be able to support it without making fallacious arguments. Saying "just because something is fallacious doesn't make it wrong" is a deflection as you should be the one constructing your own valid arguments for your position, which you have largely failed to do. And if you read my responses, I don't just say something is fallacious and leave it at that: in the above case, for instance, I used Modern Masters as an example of a reprint that did not significantly hurt the price and collectabiliity of cards, thus suggesting there is no slippery slope.

I am willing to accept your position on the Reserved list. I just would like you to actually make valid arguments for your position.
26  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: Eternal Masters CONFIRMED on: February 26, 2016, 03:28:58 am
I love Magic the Gathering, I think everyone in this forum does.  What I do not like are 3000 person tournaments that take extraneous amours of time to run.  I like the fact that the Eternal Weekend gets around 800-900 people for Legacy and 400-500 people for Vintage, and is growing at a mild pace each year.  These numbers are perfect for highly competitive play, but manageable in time.  I do not wish for these high end Eternal format tournaments to become the same thing as a Standard Grand Prix.  If I wanted to play in a 3000 person tournament, I would sell my collection, buy some nice things, and play standard. 

You certainly do not love logic. Even in the unlikely event that there were 3000 person Vintage tournaments, there would not only be 3000 person tournaments. You keep trumpeting on about a "Standard Grand Prixs" ignoring the fact that there are also a myriad of other competitive options ranging from FNMs to SCG invitationals offered to Standard players who don't want to go to a Grand Prix. If Vintage were successful enough to have 3000 people at its premier tournaments, it would assuredly give rise to these smaller regional events. As it is now, you can find Vintage events weekly in the Northeast US, monthly in certain select areas, and nowhere in the vast majority of the World. Oh, and on Magic Online, though Wednesday's daily didn't fire and Thursdays just barely got enough people.

Another fun fact, as cards have gotten more expensive, tournament attendance has increased.  Standard decks are the most expensive they have ever been, thanks $100 Baby Jace, and attendance is up.  Modern prices are through the roof, as is attendance at modern events.  Two years ago Grand Prix New Jersey came close to breaking records, Seattle last year is much less assessable so attendance was down.  Do you see a trend?  Higher prices have lead to higher attendance.  Because when people spend more money on cards, its a lot easier to justify travel expenses.  And it's also easier to justify travel expenses to a legacy tournament half way across the country when your local shop only has 10 players who play the format.

Correlation does not equal causation. Magic has grown at all levels because of WotC's coordinated efforts at promoting the brand along with independent efforts by Star City and TCGPlayer to run and cover tournaments that players enjoy playing and watching. The growth of other formats has overshadowed that of Vintage and Legacy and now, guess what? SCG has shifted it's resources away from Legacy to Modern and Standard. You are also focusing on Vintage Champs (I think you are underselling Nick Coss's efforts here) and ignoring the decline of Vintage events in Europe, which is cherry-picking your data.

As far as a "small batches" approach to selling power, duals, and breaking the reserve list. I call total horseshit on that.  Hasbo owns Wizards, they are a major corporation who cares about the bottom line.  Once they open up the floodgates, they won't be able to shut them off.  The game will turn into Monopoly, another Hasbro game. 

You hear all the endless and hopeless cries right now from players who don't own all the cards they want to own.  Magnify it by 10000 if they do a small reprint of reserve list cards.  If those people had hope, it will only grow louder and louder.  It would only be a small matter of time before no one buys another standard card ever again.  GG everyone loses.

This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. One need only look Modern Masters 1 and 2 to see that your assertion is, as you so elegantly put it, "total horseshit".

Why buy a booster draft, when everyone and their mother has a power cube?  Seriously it's game over.  I'd guarantee you would stop caring, and wonder why you've wasted all this time, money, thought, and energy on something that's as worthless as Monopoly money.

Believe it or not, some people actually like playing other formats for reasons outside of card availability - some people like the rotating nature of Standard, some people hate playing against Shops and Dredge, many will change it up "just because", and many will play what their friends play whether it be Commander, Modern, Legacy, etc. To assume that everyone will play Powered Cube and Vintage...well you know how the saying goes. And let's look at poker as a game that has succeeded without the "collectible" aspect - Magic's success has had much more to do with it being a game than it being collectible. Heck, less well designed and managed, and you probably would have them in a shoebox in your closet with your Pokemon cards and Baseball Trading Cards...

Everyone has a right to their own opinion on these boards, but I wish you would take the time to actually construct solid arguments in support of your position. The most convincing aspect of your previous posts has been the legalese and I frankly do not have the knowledge to comment on that.
27  Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: Eternal Masters CONFIRMED on: February 25, 2016, 11:16:33 pm

I'm not taking a position here but there are three areas where I think your logic is suspect:

1) Where are a significant number of people advocating for printing Power like Monopoly money? The much more prevalent and relevant position is that of a limited print run, similar to what they did for Vintage Masters, Modern Masters 1, and Modern Masters 2. You are creating a straw man here.

2) Arguing that scarcity breeds innovation and diversity is specious at best. How many budget decks do you see at a typical Vintage event? How many actually perform well? How much diversity is there within budget options: an unpowered version of another Vintage deck like Delver or Landstill, pick your hatebears.dec, Dredge (hardly budget now)? If you look at Vintage now, innovation in the format comes from those who have Power and are not constrained by scarcity. Look at Brain Kelly's list. Look at my lists (Humanstorm, Prodigy Dragon, MUC, Sensei Sensei that I won a set of online power with). Having access to the core cards in the format actually lets you attack the metagame in novel ways. Relegating yourself to playing without Power pigeonholes you into very narrow strategies in which there is actually little room to innovate. And that's if you even bother playing the format...most players are not going to invest time and effort into a format they feel they are at a competitive disadvantage because of card scarcity. What actually promotes innovation is a large, motivated player base unencumbered by card availability, which is quite hampered by the Reserve list.

3) Trying to keep Vintage exclusive and new people from joining sounds very similar in my opinion to Donald Trump building a giant is likely to be counterproductive in the long run. I was a new player 3 years ago and have enjoyed the influx of people since then - many are my friends. The community is based on inclusion, not exclusion, in my opinion.
28  Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / MTGO P9 Metagame Breakdown: January Edition on: February 23, 2016, 12:43:04 am
I had considered doing a full article and analysis about this but life happens on occasion. Major props to Ryan Eberhart (Diophan) for his help in collecting the data.

TLDR: Many viable archetypes with significant diversity. Gush was statistically the best archetype with Oath and Hatebears virtually tied for the worst.

Archetype - Number (% of Metagame) - Match Win %
Shops - 21 (20.4%) - 49.6%
Ritual Storm - 16 (15.5%) - 51.1%
Dredge - 16 (15.5%) - 50.5%
Gush - 15 (14.6%) - 58.2%
Oath - 10 (9.7%) - 43.4%
Big Blue* - 8 (7.8%) - 52.0%
Hatebears - 5 (4.9%) - 43.8%
Other** - 12 (11.7%) - N/A

*Loose category of TfK + Tinker/Robot + Yawgmoth's Will
**Other archetypes represented by less than 5 decks

Breaking down the major archetypes further:

Shops: Ravager 8-50.5% MWP, Aggro (Montolio's list) 5-48.3%, Tiny Robots 4-45.8%, Other 4-50.0%
Dredge: Traditional Antihate 9-51.9%, Pitch 5-50.0%, Other 2-45.5%
Ritual Storm: All of these were Dark Petition variants and very similar
Gush: Mentor 11-57.7%, Delver 3 - 61.9%, Gush Tendrils 1-50.0%
Oath: Odd Oath 5-51.6%, Other 5-31.8%

Top 16 lists here:

Make of these what you will.

Shameless Plug: Mentor CounterTop was 2/2 on making the top 16.  Smile Unfortunately, Vasu and I were 0/2 in our win-and-ins.  Sad

29  Vintage Community Discussion / General Community Discussion / Re: NYSE Open Giveaways - Would You Rather... on: February 18, 2016, 01:55:33 pm
Also, I'm going to commit to giving out a box of Eternal Masters the following week.  We'll determine the winner the day of the main event, and arrange for shipping to wherever they may be.

I had wanted to do two boxes of EMA, with one being broken down into draft sets given away.  Instead of that (as shipping eight draft sets adds an expense that I'd rather just focus on more giveaways), there may be a box of MM2 broken into draft sets. 

At the very least, there are going to be a fair number of playmats given away.  I just purchased some sweet mats from Melissa Benson.  I've also been collecting cool things to give away for the last six months, so I hope you're excited to see what I have in store.

It seems that I was the only one that voted for MM2 - I did so because I thought the additional cost and logistics of shipping would increase the burden on the TO for what is a cool bonus but not an essential part of the event. It seems like you've reached a pretty good comprise there, Nick.
30  Eternal Formats / Online Tournaments / Re: MTGO Power Nine Challenge - Saturday, January 30th on: February 01, 2016, 07:58:24 pm
Is there any resource for confirming the swiss points/records for the T16 (or beyond).  I'd like to know just how 9th compares to 16th.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 19 queries.