[Article] Veggies and Kelp

[Vegeta2711]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11132.html

Me rikey predicty.

[MoxMonkey]

Great Article and I agree with stax and slaver being around in 06. I think Entomb could come off the list since Dragon wouldn't be that more powerful or something people should be worried about.  Maybe we get lucky and see some new cards unrestricted so we can make some new decks or the new set giving Vintage something like Thirst for Knowledge of Mindslaver.  Man what a Set.   
Also the Playtesting with Rich Shay and not doing good with his Builds is a load of fun I don't know what your saying.

[Gabethebabe]

A deck that can win turn 1 by playing 3 unrestricted cards (Ritual-Entomb-Animate Dead) is not something that Wizards will want.

So no, Entomb is not coming off.

[Kasuras]

A deck that can win turn 1 by playing 3 unrestricted cards (Ritual-Entomb-Animate Dead) is not something that Wizards will want.

So no, Entomb is not coming off.

I fail to see how that is a turn 1 combo with 3 unrestricted cards to kill someone: are you going to bore them into them conceding or just make everything a draw? You'll need something to get that Ambassador in the graveyard and you'll need something to play that Ritual, 2 extra cards. So I think it'll be just as safe as Belcher with Land Grant and Dark Ritual at the moment.

[Vegeta2711]

A deck that can win turn 1 by playing 3 unrestricted cards (Ritual-Entomb-Animate Dead) is not something that Wizards will want.

So no, Entomb is not coming off.

Unless I'm missing something, it's actually 4 cards since you need a instant-speed kill in hand or you'll draw the game (since you'll have no Bazaar out or way to stop the combo). Four card combos don't particularly scare me, especially when they get hit by graveyard removal, creature removal and a bit of extra hate like BEB. Consider that we have Belcher which is a 1 card kill condition that plays tons of restricted and unrestricted mana accel to make it happen on turn 1 far more frequently than the Entomb Dragon win.

Of course if someone has a broken Entomb Dragon deck, I'd love to see it. I really don't know if it'd be all that awesome.

[JuJu]

Josh, if Entomb comes off, I start playing type 1 again. And not because of retarded bad combo wins, but because Budget Reanimator is hot stuff. I agree with the rest of the article entirely, and I'm hoping that Guildpact and the last set in RAV block gives us some nice stuff to work with, CHK was extremely limited IMO.

Family Guy Mention, especially after that IRC Convo, was awesome.

[Methuselahn]

This is a great, casual article with many safe but accurate predictions.  Good work. 

If I recall correctly, the DCI intends to unrestrict not-as-broken cards at a slow pace to test the proverbial waters.   I HAVE to believe that Voltaic Key and Entomb will both come off the list eventually.

[Necropotenza]

I find these predictions, and this article, to be shallow and pedantic.

[forests failed you]

 

To summerize:  Veggies and Klep together reach the following conclusions:


a.  Klep and Veggies suggest players  customize their decks to suit their individual playstyles.

b.  Klep and Veggies speculate that Entomb, Voltaic Key, and Frantic Search could become unrestricted in 06. 

c.  Klep and Veggies predict Yawgmoth's Will and Tinker will not become banned. 

d.  Klep and Veggies predict the two strongest finishing decks in 2005, Slaver and Stax, will be good in 06.

e.  Veggies wrote the article so that it sounds like he is talking on the radio.

Strong article boys;  I was amazed at how much genuine information you were able to squeeze into such a short amount of space.  I was really glad to hear that my Slaver deck will still be going strong in '06!  Keep up the good work

FFY

[The Atog Lord]

Well written, and a fun read.

[Klep]

It should be noted that I was not conciously aware of any assistance I provided in writing this article.  Clearly Veggies has voodoo powers.

a.  Klep and Veggies suggest players  customize their decks to suit their individual playstyles.

Playskill, not playstyle.  The article says if you aren't good enough to play a deck as-is, then you need to change it to simplify the decision tree to a point where you are good enough, but don't change it in a way that compromises the deck's core strategy.  This may not be possible in some cases.

Personally, I hate the term 'playstyle.'  Whenever someone uses it, it's generally as a way of making excuses for not being good enough at something.  People who say things like "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" really mean "I'm not good enough at control to play Control Slaver properly" and don't want to admit it.  There's nothing stopping these people from learning the proper skillset to overcome their deficiencies, they're just lazy.

[Nantuko Rice]

<Cue commercial break>
…
Aside
Has anyone noticed how much quality television is on the air right now? I'm thoroughly shocked by how often I'm watching TV at night. In the past, if I wasn't watching ESPN, Law and Order, Comedy Central or Adult Swim, I wasn't watching anything at all.

Now I stare at quality shows that have come out… House, The Boondocks, Veronica Mars, Everybody Hates Chris, My Name is Earl, The Shield, Family Guy and even that remake of The Office is pretty good now.

Life is sweet.
End aside
…
<End commercial break>

Of the shows listed I only watch Family Guy and House. AND HOW COULD YOU FORGET ARRESTED DEVELOPEMENT!!!

EDIT: Oh yes, I'd like to also predict that in 2006, Stax and Control Slaver will go on a downward spiral while aggro decks rise up. Wait and watch.

[Komatteru]

Personally, I hate the term 'playstyle.'  Whenever someone uses it, it's generally as a way of making excuses for not being good enough at something.  People who say things like "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" really mean "I'm not good enough at control to play Control Slaver properly" and don't want to admit it.  There's nothing stopping these people from learning the proper skillset to overcome their deficiencies, they're just lazy.

But that's just it.  When I say "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" I really mean that I don't have any interest in playing the deck.  Could I learn how to play it? Sure.  Would there be value in that? Sure would.  Would it be all that much work?  Not really.  It's not like it would be undertaking a monumental task, and I've done that before (like when I first picked up Long after playing Fish for my entire Vintage career).  So why don't I?  I just don't like playing with countermagic.  My personal playstyle takes advantage of my skills as a mathematician and engineer, and control just doesn't reward that like combo or even Stax do.  It is very likely I'll never cast Mana Drain in a tournament ever again.  However, Given a few weeks and someone who knows something, I could learn how to play Control Slaver properly without a lot of difficulty, but I just don't want to.  It's not that I can't/don't want to learn new skills, it's that I just don't find it necessary or worth the time.

[forests failed you]

It should be noted that I was not conciously aware of any assistance I provided in writing this article.  Clearly Veggies has voodoo powers.

a.  Klep and Veggies suggest players  customize their decks to suit their individual playstyles.

Playskill, not playstyle.  The article says if you aren't good enough to play a deck as-is, then you need to change it to simplify the decision tree to a point where you are good enough, but don't change it in a way that compromises the deck's core strategy.  This may not be possible in some cases.

Personally, I hate the term 'playstyle.'  Whenever someone uses it, it's generally as a way of making excuses for not being good enough at something.  People who say things like "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" really mean "I'm not good enough at control to play Control Slaver properly" and don't want to admit it.  There's nothing stopping these people from learning the proper skillset to overcome their deficiencies, they're just lazy.

If saying that 'playstyle' is a codeword for poor playskill, than isn't it almost essentially that same thing?  And, either way aren't you kind of just arbitrarily splitting hairs here for the purpose of being difficult, or do you just like argueing with me over everything and anything?


Secondly, saying that people who choose not to play a deck because it doesn't suit their playstyle are 'lazy' and/or not capable of playing said deck properly is bunk.

I guarentee you that I could pick up any archetype or style of deck in Vintage, Standard, Limited or Extended and play it more competently than literally 99% of the players out there; yet, I always play control where it is viable.  It isn't because I am too lazy to learn how to play other archetypes properly, because I already know how;  Rather, I don't play them because they doesn't suit the style of MTG that I prefer to play.  It might be fair to say that some people use the excuse of incompatable playstyle as a cop out for why they don't play a deck they don't understand, but in general I think that most good players play decks that cator to their particular strong suits and preferences.  

 Â 

[Klep]

But that's just it.  When I say "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" I really mean that I don't have any interest in playing the deck.  Could I learn how to play it? Sure.  Would there be value in that? Sure would.  Would it be all that much work?  Not really.

Then why be disingenuous and not just say "I don't have the playskill to play CS properly."  As you've indicated, it's not necessarily a bad thing.  I find that all too often people use the term "playstyle" to abrogate their responsibility for being unable to play certain decks.  By using "playstyle" instead of talking about their skillset, they are able to imply that it is not a matter of their choice which prevents them from being unable to play those decks.  I used to do the same thing.  I used to think my "playstyle" was very controlling, and thus I played control decks almost exclusively.  Then I tried out Long and Rectal Agony and discovered with a little work I could play combo.  Then I picked up Limited and became much better at understanding the combat step, so I could play aggro.  It dawned on me that I really didn't have a "playstyle" in the sense most people use the word.  I just didn't have certain skills, and that with work I could gain those skills.

Which isn't to say that there isn't a perfectly acceptable use for the term "playstyle," just not how it is most often used.  One could say, for example, that a player who makes his plays quickly and forcefully has a very aggressive playstyle, or that someone who doesn't reveal much and remains calm and quiet the entire match has a very reserved playstyle.  This, however, has no bearing on the decks that person is capable of playing well. Smmenen, for example, is equally boisterous whether he is playing Mono-U or Tog and Kevin is almost invariably a blank slate during a match, even when he's not playing Stax.

All I want is for people to use the word properly, and not as an excuse for a deficiency in skill; to be honest with themselves, and admit to their failings.  That's how you can make progress as a player.

If saying that 'playstyle' is a codeword for poor playskill, than isn't it almost essentially that same thing?  And, either way aren't you kind of just arbitrarily splitting hairs here for the purpose of being difficult, or do you just like argueing with me over everything and anything?

If you hung out in IRC you would probably know my beef with the term "playstyle" is nothing new.  You just happened to be the person that mentioned it.

but in general I think that most good players play decks that cator to their particular strong suits and preferences.

Which would indicate weak suits in other areas, which means they have deficiencies in those areas. QED.  As I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just want people to be honest.

[Anusien]

The issue with playstyle is that it shouldn't matter.  The only time people can get away with saying "I play CS only" is that CS, Stax, Gifts and the combo decks are all broken enough that you can play them, metagame slightly, and still make out okay because they're so broken.  If you only played Mono-U in T2, you'd win in metas/fields where Mono-U was good and lose in metas/fields where Mono-U was bad.  The idea is to be Jacob Orlove* and scout the field.  If it's a field good for Workshop Aggro you need to be a Workshop Aggro player that weekend, or if the field dictates you play Oath, you play Oath.

* Time travelling powers not required

[forests failed you]

But that's just it.  When I say "I don't play Control Slaver because it doesn't fit my playstyle" I really mean that I don't have any interest in playing the deck.  Could I learn how to play it? Sure.  Would there be value in that? Sure would.  Would it be all that much work?  Not really.

Then why be disingenuous and not just say "I don't have the playskill to play CS properly."  As you've indicated, it's not necessarily a bad thing.  I find that all too often people use the term "playstyle" to abrogate their responsibility for being unable to play certain decks.  By using "playstyle" instead of talking about their skillset, they are able to imply that it is not a matter of their choice which prevents them from being unable to play those decks.  I used to do the same thing.  I used to think my "playstyle" was very controlling, and thus I played control decks almost exclusively.  Then I tried out Long and Rectal Agony and discovered with a little work I could play combo.  Then I picked up Limited and became much better at understanding the combat step, so I could play aggro.  It dawned on me that I really didn't have a "playstyle" in the sense most people use the word.  I just didn't have certain skills, and that with work I could gain those skills.

Which isn't to say that there isn't a perfectly acceptable use for the term "playstyle," just not how it is most often used.  One could say, for example, that a player who makes his plays quickly and forcefully has a very aggressive playstyle, or that someone who doesn't reveal much and remains calm and quiet the entire match has a very reserved playstyle.  This, however, has no bearing on the decks that person is capable of playing well. Smmenen, for example, is equally boisterous whether he is playing Mono-U or Tog and Kevin is almost invariably a blank slate during a match, even when he's not playing Stax.

All I want is for people to use the word properly, and not as an excuse for a deficiency in skill; to be honest with themselves, and admit to their failings.  That's how you can make progress as a player.

If saying that 'playstyle' is a codeword for poor playskill, than isn't it almost essentially that same thing?  And, either way aren't you kind of just arbitrarily splitting hairs here for the purpose of being difficult, or do you just like argueing with me over everything and anything?

If you hung out in IRC you would probably know my beef with the term "playstyle" is nothing new.  You just happened to be the person that mentioned it.

but in general I think that most good players play decks that cator to their particular strong suits and preferences.

Which would indicate weak suits in other areas, which means they have deficiencies in those areas. QED.  As I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just want people to be honest.

You speak on the issue as though it were some kind of proven fact.  It isn't.  There is no rule that says prefered playstyle has any corrolation to ones ability or inability to play any other kind of deck. 

I can say this because I know it from personal experience.  I can win equally as much with almost any deck you hand me.  For instance, I am a very strong Stax player (Surprise!) but I would never play it in a major tournament; not because I'm not confident that I could win with it, but because I don't have fun playing it.  That is a reflection of prefered playstyle, not ability or inability to pilot a deck.  Another good example of this is Windfal l.  He was actually the best combo player I have ever seen play combo.  But he would never take it to a major tournament because he thought it was too stressful and inconsistent to play for seven rounds.  He thought slaver was better suited toward his playstyle, even though I believe he was actually a better combo player than Slaver player!  (which is saying something, because he was a great slaver player in his time)

I don't mind you saying that some people will use playstyle as a cop out for not admitting that they don't know how to play a specific deck.  However, I don't really think there is any reason to assume that just because a player's prefered playstyle lends them toward playing a specific deck that they are any weaker playing any other archetype.  It may be your personal opinion, pet peave, or whatever, but it is certainly not a universal truth by any stretch of the imagination.

[dicemanx]

I guarentee you that I could pick up any archetype or style of deck in Vintage, Standard, Limited or Extended and play it more competently than literally 99% of the players out there

For instance, I am a very strong Stax player (Surprise!)

It may be your personal opinion, but it is certainly not a universal truth by any stretch of the imagination.

I know you like to rile people on this site FFY, but some things go both ways you know .


I think that "playstyle" is a little misunderstood. You added the word - "preferred" to playstyle, which is actually significant - it suggests being well versed in a variety of styles, but also having a favored one. I agree with Klep, however, that the majority of the time people have a certain playstyle that both limits them as players and at the same time might make them more of an expert with a particular deck or set of decks (a "specialist" if you will). This inflexibility can backfire on a player, if it turns out that the deck which might have the best chance in a given field doesn't suit his or her "playstyle" (ie you are not well suited to pilot such a deck).

[Evenpence]

I really liked your article in the section about combos, like untomb and belcher.

The thing I've realized over the time I've been playing Stax is that we seek for a turn 1 win many times too, whether it be by laying down tangle wire and some moxes, eventually getting to the point where we can start wastelanding you to death with crucible out, then getting a welder to recur the wire while playing tons of permanents in our hand that seek to limit your ability to do anything.

Just like alot of combo, force of will is often the only thing that can stop you if you have a killer hand.  I wouldn't put Stax in a combo variety at all, but it's alot more like it than alot of people would like to admit.  The reason that Stax wins so much is because it has the ABILITY to win outright on the first turn via trinisphere or stax or anything else, really, but even if things don't go Stax's way, it can eventually win as well, something that combo can almost never do if null rod + Chalice for bounce comes down.

[Vegeta2711]

To summerize:  Veggies and Klep together reach the following conclusions:

a.  Veggies suggest players  customize their decks to suit their individual playskill.

b. Veggies speculate that Entomb, Voltaic Key, and Frantic Search could (should) become unrestricted in 06. 

c.  Veggies predict Yawgmoth's Will and Tinker will not become banned. 

d. Veggies predict the two strongest finishing decks in 2005, Slaver and Stax, will be good in 06.

e.  Veggies wrote the article so that it sounds like he is talking on the radio.
FFY

Klep had nothing to do with this. I wrote with Kelp. Clearly people missed this distinction, sadly. Otherwise there would've been some sort of co-writers credit at the signed end somewhere. I fixed the inaccuracies in your quote though.

@Rice
I forgot about it. Fox cancelled it which saddened me. Best comedy in a while though.

If you guys want to argue playskill vs. playstyle, feel free to take it to another thread. Do not clutter this thread with some neverending debate.

[forests failed you]

If your only going to post to show off your mad sarcasm skills, you can do us all a favor and not post.

[Demonic Attorney]

Nice article, guys.  Or...guy and seaweed, if that's more appropriate.  One question I had regarding your section on tweaking decks:  For the average player having trouble succeeding consistently with a given archetype, would you advise changing the list to accommodate playstyle, or changing the deck archetype? 

Obviously tweaking a list is going to require less of an economic investment, but some archetypes may lack the flexibility to adapt to a given player's style.  For instance, players intent on playing all-in, balls-to-the-wall, in your face aggressively should probably not play Gifts, in my opinion.  That approach tends to inspire jumping the gun on Gifts Ungiven and maneuvering into a position where you're big on threats, but short on mana or ability to force them through opposing disruption.  So, for the average player having a tough time with a given deck-- modify the list or jump ship to another archetype?

Demars baiting removed.

[Vegeta2711]

One question I had regarding your section on tweaking decks:  For the average player having trouble succeeding consistently with a given archetype, would you advise changing the list to accommodate playstyle, or changing the deck archetype?

Obviously tweaking a list is going to require less of an economic investment, but some archetypes may lack the flexibility to adapt to a given player's style.  For instance, players intent on playing all-in, balls-to-the-wall, in your face aggressively should probably not play Gifts, in my opinion.  That approach tends to inspire jumping the gun on Gifts Ungiven and maneuvering into a position where you're big on threats, but short on mana or ability to force them through opposing disruption.  So, for the average player having a tough time with a given deck-- modify the list or jump ship to another archetype?

If trying to suceed with a deck you've been playing with for some time, then I'd try to tweak the list first. If this meets with equal failure, then I would heavily consider a switch to another archetype. If you can't play a certain deck well and making it easier to play with adujstments isn't helping much, your best choice is to then switch. The only time I defer from this is when you aren't playing the 'best deck' (When there's a known one) in which case you probably shouldn't even bother tweaking the weaker deck and just switch over immediately.

In Vintage, what you can play well is usually more important than the type of deck since so many are broken. In my example scenario, I can't play CS as well as Shay and I won't for some time. So I just adjusted the deck to be more broken and this allowed me to improve my win rate. Eventually this wasn't enough for me so I went back to mainly playing with Fish decks which gave me a better shot.

[forests failed you]

Warned for trying to start a flame war. Rule number 2.
-Klep

[The Atog Lord]

In Vintage, what you can play well is usually more important than the type of deck since so many are broken.

Well said, Josh.

I think that this discussion here relates to the excellent discussion started by Smmenen some time ago, in which it was discussed whether one should be a generalist or a specialist. My point then, and my point now, is that players are often better with some decks or archetypes than others. Whether this is due to some innate factor or to some matter of experience, we can leave for another time. Yet it does seem true that at least the majority of us are, for whatever reason, better with some decks than with others.

My belief is that while not always the case, this disparity in playskill of a player from one deck to another is often enough to make a player do better with a suboptimal deck with which he is good than with a good deck with which he is average. For myself, even if control slaver weren't the best deck in the format (I think it is, but that again is a whole other can of moxen), I'd still do better with that deck than I would with another deck, at least until I had a lot of practice with that other deck.

An excellent example of this is Dave Feinstein. Dave plays decks that look like they escaped from a Mirrodin Limited side event. But the man puts up excellent numbers with his Kird Apes. He plays his aggro decks very well. And, in fact, the one time I recall him not doing well in a Type One event was when he tried to play Control Slaver.

So, what I'm saying in a long-winded way is that while your Thallid deck might not be able to get you a piece of power, Josh has an excellent point that how you pilot a deck will mean a lot. Dave Feinstein has done some very impressive things with some pretty underpowered decks.

[Machinus]

My belief is that while not always the case, this disparity in playskill of a player from one deck to another is often enough to make a player do better with a suboptimal deck with which he is good than with a good deck with which he is average. For myself, even if control slaver weren't the best deck in the format (I think it is, but that again is a whole other can of moxen), I'd still do better with that deck than I would with another deck, at least until I had a lot of practice with that other deck.

What does this tell us about Vintage?

Experienced players often describe the impossibilty of obtaining a "best" deck or an "optimal" list. They frequently cite metagame differences and rotation developments as the causes for this. These are valid reasons, but is there more to the format's ambiguity? (why is it possible to win with Kird Apes? - no offense to Mr. PT Prague)

Is Vintage so complex - and the Tier 1 decks so close together in power level - that we have just not discovered what really are the best ways to build decks? With enough hours of testing with skilled players, would such an analysis be possible? Have uneven skill distrubution and metagame variance hidden valuable conclusions about the most powerful decks, or is the format really so undefined that skill and metagaming are the only ways to increase ones abilities, rather than just the most effective ones?