FREE ARTICLE: Interview with Buehler - Want to Learn Meandeck Gifts?

[Dozer]

2) We got into a huge argument about what mana was floating when.  He made some play mistakes and the judge rewound the game.  I floated mana and I forgot to notate the burn.  On his endstep I said: Cunning Wish for card X.  Then, on his endstep as well he played Intuition for Cabal Therapies and got the judge to rewind the game because I forgot to take the burn so that he could FIRST MAINPHASE Cabal Therapy me.  WHICH WAS RETARDED.

I think this is the most horrible ruling. All that "naming a card" business -- as long as my opponent knows what card he wants to hit, I don't really care about him knowing the name, although he has to be precise enough so his guess doesn't include all possible cards. The "Lotus" example illustrates this, because that can get very cheesy. Your opponent says "Lotus", and you show him a hand with only Lotus Petal. What does he do? If he's trying to make you discard Petal, it is an extremely sketchy play, or flat out cheating. But if you call a judge over to have him clarifiy the name before Therapy resolves, you give valuable information about your hand away, because -- pure theory here -- your opponent might specify his guess to Lotus Petal just because you called the judge.

However, getting the game-state backed up to play a first main phase Cabal Therapy which you got on your endstep after that mainphase is cheating. No discussion.

And I don't think this is off-topic. Randy Buehler did not talk about Gifts only, he also made a comment about Vintage, and remember that his perception is very likely to be mirrored inside R&D because Buehler is the one who most regularly appears in the format (outside casual play in R&D, of course). The issue of Vintage-style play vs PTQ-style play is valid (if there really is a difference). The fact that Randy feels there is a difference illustrates that this is part of Vintage just like the usual brokenness.

The example that Smmenen provides is interesting. Even though Steve admits he was the spikish player, look at how he describes his opponent. Then ask yourself: How often do you meet a player like that in a Vintage tournament? How often does a player at a Vintage tournament not care? Rules lawyering happens in Vintage as well as any other format, but I have never seen players erupting into a 15-minute discussion with a judge about a probable misplay and a mis-floated red mana. In my experience, the one thing judges have to do most in a Vintage tournament is to explain card interactions. Not slow play, not clearing up a mess the players made, not backing up the gamestate.

Even though Steve might single-handed ruin it, Vintage still deserves its reputation as "the gentleman's format", or rather the format where the players care about the game and their opponents. It would be interesting to hear from the TMD'ers that played when the proxy thing began if proxies have changed this!

"I also believe that would make the format less fun for just about everyone involved."

NastyNate got it right, and Steve vividly illustrated it. Playing against players that are horrible persons is not fun and apparently happens in Vintage less often than in other formats.


On a totally different note, as a card, Gifts Ungiven is objectively stronger than Thirst for Knowledge, letting you see more cards and chose which ones they are. They fulfill different roles in different decks, so you can't switch Gifts for TFK and except the same performance. Gifts is stronger as a card and that strength goes into MG, and TFK's strength go into CS. I think that Gifts is the stronger deck, but Control Slaver has (as of now) the stronger players just because it has been around for longer.

Dozer

[doylehancock]

Couple questions about the article, Chicago, and Gifts

1) I agree we have less assholes in type 1 but I think that is because of *most* of the tourneys have small prizes.  I would say that there are more asshole players at power tourneys then at a regular tourney.  But if the asshole player is just following the rules are they really an asshole?   this does not apply to cheating with therapy or moving the game back cuz that is just wrong.  Vintage has a great name for itself.  The worst thing anyone says about vintage is the players bitch about ristrictions thats a whole lot better then "Mike Long cheapted me out of thousands of dollars"  . Wouldnt you agree?

2)Does anyone know how many meandeck gifts were at Chicago?  If you ran it what kind of hate did they use against you?  What did you do for mirror matches?

3) Now that I have been playing with gifts I am running duress in the board (have been running 3 for about 2 weeks) but I was wondering what does everyone elses board look like?  How have you changed the main deck?  I am still loving 4 scrolls main deck against control so I am keep it that way. 

Thanks for all of your responses in advance as I am looking for feedback from any player.   :lol: Thanks.

[Smmenen]

"The only thing I'm sure of is that the card is way, way more powerful than Thirst for Knowledge and that makes this deck pretty much strictly better than Control Slaver."

Whatever you say Randy Buehler...

How many pro tours have you won Brian ?

[Matt]

Yeah dude, the judging philosophy on the matter has completely changed.  Go read the judges list and you'll see what I mean.  Andrewpate is correct.  The basic idea is that since a player can get a judge to look up the name of a card, there is no reason that they can't basically describe the characteristics sufficient to distinguish the card with Cabal Therapy.  I think that's bad becuase one of the skills iwth cards like Meddling Mage and Therapy is to know the decks and the card names.  Intent is not enough.  What about my Consult example?  Lotus could mean Gilded, Vale, Black, or Petal.

I think that is a really really stupid ruling. A card has a NAME. when you have to NAME a card it means provide the other player with a CARD NAME. Therapy doesn't say "guess a nonland card" or "describe a nonland card," it says "name a nonland card." I also think judges shouldn't provide card names to the opponent, except in the case of foreign cards. If you can point to a Geisterschiff and ask what it's name is, that's fine, but just describing things - no.

On a related note, is it legal for players to carry a copy of the Oracle (say on a PDA) with them to matches?

[tidal kraken]

Yeah dude, the judging philosophy on the matter has completely changed.  Go read the judges list and you'll see what I mean.  Andrewpate is correct.  The basic idea is that since a player can get a judge to look up the name of a card, there is no reason that they can't basically describe the characteristics sufficient to distinguish the card with Cabal Therapy.  I think that's bad becuase one of the skills iwth cards like Meddling Mage and Therapy is to know the decks and the card names.  Intent is not enough.  What about my Consult example?  Lotus could mean Gilded, Vale, Black, or Petal.

I think that is a really really stupid ruling. A card has a NAME. when you have to NAME a card it means provide the other player with a CARD NAME. Therapy doesn't say "guess a nonland card" or "describe a nonland card," it says "name a nonland card." I also think judges shouldn't provide card names to the opponent, except in the case of foreign cards. If you can point to a Geisterschiff and ask what it's name is, that's fine, but just describing things - no.

On a related note, is it legal for players to carry a copy of the Oracle (say on a PDA) with them to matches?

I agree completely with this. I've had people therapy me and name "card that produces any colored mana'' and see black lotus in my hand, and the judge rules in their favor.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't carry a copy of the Oracle with you, but don't quote me on that.

Oh, good article Steve.

[Dozer]

2) Does anyone know how many meandeck gifts were at Chicago?

Dr. Sylvan does, and has written it down in the SCG coverage (which is premium, alas). The answer is 12, against 13 Oath (so much for Oath is dead!), 14 CS, 24 Fish and 9 Stax + 1 Bazaar Stax (Vroman).

On a related note, is it legal for players to carry a copy of the Oracle (say on a PDA) with them to matches?

It is not covered in the floor rules, so I guess it is legal. If you treat them similar to mobile phones, TO's might ban their use. Also, no player will have to take it for granted that your version of the Oracle is correct, so even though you have the card text at hand, they might still call a judge. I know that when an opponent presents me with an Oracle wording, I always check it with the judge.

As for Therapy, that rather belongs in the rules forum, so I posted my findings from the SCG Ask The Judge database there. In summary, the opponent must say the correct name (although the answers differ on that, too), but he can ask a judge for it if he can accurately describe the card, and the judge provides the name from the Oracle. Weird. (Further discussion of Therapy in the rules forum, maybe?)

Dozer

[BruiZar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Smmenen on Yesterday at 02:52:44 PM
2) We got into a huge argument about what mana was floating when.  He made some play mistakes and the judge rewound the game.  I floated mana and I forgot to notate the burn.  On his endstep I said: Cunning Wish for card X.  Then, on his endstep as well he played Intuition for Cabal Therapies and got the judge to rewind the game because I forgot to take the burn so that he could FIRST MAINPHASE Cabal Therapy me.  WHICH WAS RETARDED.

I think this is the most horrible ruling. All that "naming a card" business -- as long as my opponent knows what card he wants to hit, I don't really care about him knowing the name, although he has to be precise enough so his guess doesn't include all possible cards. The "Lotus" example illustrates this, because that can get very cheesy. Your opponent says "Lotus", and you show him a hand with only Lotus Petal. What does he do? If he's trying to make you discard Petal, it is an extremely sketchy play, or flat out cheating. But if you call a judge over to have him clarifiy the name before Therapy resolves, you give valuable information about your hand away, because -- pure theory here -- your opponent might specify his guess to Lotus Petal just because you called the judge.

Just ask if he wants to call lotus guardian, lotus vale or lotus blossom. Then he'll specify by saying either petal or black lotus without you reveiling your cards. You should be consistent with this though and not just ask this when you have a black lotus/petal in hand

[Sagath]

Buehler is probably right, if pros did play vintage, it would be more competitive. I don't know if I agree with him implying that decklists would be tighter and players would be better, but I feel the environment would lose alot of the fun we all have. This isn't any different then when I played 8 years ago in tournaments for prizes, versus the modern T2 scene. Of course its different. Is it better? I guess thats in the eye of the beholder. I enjoy modern Extended just as much as old T2. For me, there isn't that much of a difference since the pros came along on a enjoyment level. But the competitive nature has defiantly increased. I see 16 year old kids every day make asses of them selves because of it. (Don't take offence if your 16, I'm just generalizing )

So I guess your now officially 16 Smmenen. Go pop your zits and listen to some teeny bop music instead of Lawyering! Oh the Irony!

Anyways, back to seriousness. Regarding the Smmenen incident itself;

The current ruling on 'naming a card' according to the DCI Judges list is short and sweet. You must be able to identify the card without any doubt to your meaning. Thus saying "that Akroma card" does not work (Vengeance, blessing, Angel), but saying "Visara" works since there is no other card besides 'Visara the Dreadfull"  that it could possibly be. This stems from the fact that (and this is a L5 judge indirect quote, not mine) magic is not meant to be a memory game. I may disagree with that, and so may some people out there, but thats the law

As for the oracle, There is nothing to keep you personally from putting it on your PDA, but (as a L1 judge) if I saw a player showing the 'oracle' ruling, that would be highly suspect and grounds for a warning (or further action as the case may be). Sure, use it for your own benefit OUTSIDE of a match, but do not bring personal (even publically available) info into a match. Digital Data can allways be altered. The judges personal copy is Law.

The old rule still applies to this day. If EVER in doubt, get a judge*.



*On that note, I'm sorry to hear you got the bum rap on that judge, but he was wrong six ways to sunday. You cant even back up a gamestate if alterations have been made or would be made, only in situations where it wouldn't change what would or has happened. And last I checked, Therapy after Intuition at EOT was a gamestate change. You and your opponent should have both been given warnings for Failing to track the Gamestate, and play should have ensued from CURRENT board position. But this is all my personal belief, and only holds so much weight

[MrZuccinniHead]

lol you are saying teen titans is based off a vintage deck, or the other way around?  Not mad or anything, but I'm curious to know whether or not another vintage deck made it big in another format.

[Necrologia]

lol you are saying teen titans is based off a vintage deck, or the other way around?  Not mad or anything, but I'm curious to know whether or not another vintage deck made it big in another format.

That is correct. Just like fish was seeing play in Extended, Teen Titans was a port of Team Hadley's Cerberal Assassin, at least as much as was possible. Careful Stuides instead of Bazaars and what not, but the decks had the same basic skeleton.

Compare:

Hadley's list October 2004:

4 Goblin Welder
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
4 Squee, Goblin Nabob
4 Animate Dead
4 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Force of Will
3 Sundering titan
1 Triskelion
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Tinker
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Intuition
1 Possessed Portal
8 SoloCrypten
1 Mana Vault
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Shivan Reef
3 Underground River
4 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass

To this Extended January list:

2  Sulfurous Springs
4  Seat of the Synod
2  Great Furnace
4  Shivan Reef
4  Underground River
4  Vault of Whispers
3  City of Brass
2  Platinum Angel
4  Sundering Titan
4  Goblin Welder
4  Hapless Researcher
2  Bosh, Iron Golem
3  Reanimate
4  Cabal Therapy
4  Exhume
4  Intuition
4  Careful Study

Both decks are really nothing more than Goblin welder/Animates + Discard Outlets + Sundering Titan. Score one for the home team.

[forests failed you]

Zero.  But, I'm working on it.  I can't seem to get that first PTQ victory, but I'm close;  four top eights in six months. 

And besides, as SCG Rochester showed us;  The standard pros owned our format...  wink

[Smmenen]

2) Does anyone know how many meandeck gifts were at Chicago?

Dr. Sylvan does, and has written it down in the SCG coverage (which is premium, alas). The answer is 12, against 13 Oath (so much for Oath is dead!), 14 CS, 24 Fish and 9 Stax + 1 Bazaar Stax (Vroman).

This is not accurate.  The blog said that only half of those were Meandeck gifts.  Many were SSB - which makes sense, if you'll recall, becuase it won the previous SCG Chicago. 

[Dozer]

We don't know the precise number of SSB vs MG, but yes, not all of the 12 Gifts decks were actually Meandeck Gifts. A minor oversight on my part there.

The hate should not be much different, though. Gifted, SSB and MG can all be hurt by the same hate, even though the black heavy Gifted builds are more resilient to REB.

[Smmenen]

Those were the ratios I was told by people at the event.  We'll find out when all the lists go up.

[doylehancock]

@steve:
In one of you articles on meandeck gifts you had quotes from Koen Van Der Hulst's tourney report.  Do you have that report so others can read it?

Do you think that vamp tutor or echoing truth main?

thanks in advance

[Eddie]

Maybe a search in the tournament reports? http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23726.0

[doylehancock]

Maybe a search in the tournament reports? http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23726.0

thanks, I should searched.