Consistency and Brokenness in Vintage

[Polynomial P]

I need to post this thread to fulfill my TMD exam requirement. I was struggling to come up with an idea for this thread and noticed two different strategies in vintage: The Consistent and The Broken and the struggle for the Broken to be Consistent. I hope you enjoy this thread:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of this thread singletons will refer to the 1- and 2-ofs in a deck as the chances that these cards are in an opening hand of 7 is low: 12% and 22% respectively in a 60 card deck. Furthermore, it is relatively unlikely that these cards will be topdecked at any given time. Often it is the burden of the deck designer to explain the “random singletons� in their deck, why they are good, why they are singletons (unless restricted), and how they plan on getting the singleton at the right time.

Take a moment to compare the two following decks. Both of these decks did extremely well at the same tournament, finishing 1st and 2nd at SCG Chicago in October 2005:

Sean Bauer: 5c Stax                     Robert Vroman: Mono Red UbaStax

4 Chalice of the Void                     4 Chalice of the Void
4 Smokestack                          Â     4 Smokestack
3 Crucible of Worlds                      4 Crucible of Worlds
3 Sphere of Resistance                  4 Uba Mask
1 Trinisphere                                1 Trinisphere
1 Sculpting Steel                          3 Null Rod
1 Sundering Titan                         2 Duplicant
1 Triskelion                                  1 Solemn Simulacrum
4 Goblin Welder                        Â   4 Goblin Welder
2 Gorilla Shaman                          Â 2 Gorilla Shaman
1 Ancestral Recall                      Â   1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Crop Rotation                           4 Bazaar of Baghdad
2 Swords to plowshares
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Karn, Silver Golem
1 Balance
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Tinker


28 Mana Sources                        26 Mana Sources



Sean’s list runs a total of 11 non-mana singletons and 2x 2-ofs compared to Vroman’s 3 singletons and 2x 2-ofs. This vast difference in decks with similar overall strategies has to affect the consistency of each deck and how they interact with their opponents.

5c Stax has a “silver bullet� quality to it. Somewhere in that deck is an answer to nearly any situation. The difficulty is finding the right answer at the right time, which is why Sean has 3 tutor effects (Demonic, Vamp, and Tinker) to find his singleton answers. So instead of having a conglomeration of randomness, 5c Stax uses it tutor effects as numbers 2, 3, and 4 of its singletons thus creating some consistency. The downside to the silver bullet strategy is that the wrong answers could show up in the opening hand or as a late game topdeck. Too many bad topdecks in a row will spell doom for 5c Stax.

On the other hand Vroman’s list has very few singletons and is therefore very consistent. Most opening hands are very similar and the playstyle of the deck is similar in most matchups: use each and every card to push towards a hard lock. The deck is therefore proactive and has a difficult time reacting to a resolved threat. Ubastax actually sacrifices some of the brokenness of running restricted singletons, like ancestral, tinker, and balance, in order to be more consistant with its opening hands and draws.

These are mere examples, but the principles of singletons and consistency can be applied to vintage on broader scales. Most aggro or aggro-control decks lack the brokenness of other Vintage decks. What they lack in brokenness is made up for in consistency. Fish, Goblins, TMWA, OFM, and Wild Zombies all have relatively few singletons and few tutors. They thrive by consistently killing their opponent in a set number of turns. The burden is on their opponent to win before that set number of turns is up.

Alternatively, decks like Gifts and Grimlong run numerous singletons and can win early in the game due to their extreme brokenness. To survive the randomness of their decks, they run as many tutor effects as they can support (even so much as lending the decks their names).

The other possibility to improve the consistency of a deck flooded with singleton answers is to have large amounts of draw. Slaver would be a good example. Modern slaver decks run somewhere around 14 non-mana singletons. In addition to running 3-4 tutors there is also a robust draw engine of 4 Brainstorms, 4 Thirst for Knowledge, and Ancestral Recall to sift through the deck and find the needed answer.

Good new vintage decks must strive to be both broken and consistent. When you are posting a brand new deck in the forums stop and ask:
Is this deck running a lot of singletons?
Why are they singletons (if not restricted)?
Is this deck running a lot of tutors?
How can I make this deck more consistent?

Consistency can make up for brokenness, but inconsistent brokenness will not win you any tournaments.

[Polynomial P]

By consistent I mean that the deck is reliable.

Using your example, Grimlong, the game is over when a lethal Tendrils is resolved. The spells you listed all aid in producing the lethalality of tendrils and finding tendrils (a 2-of in most lists). In grimlong, you likely need to resolve one of those spells to win and it is slightly likely that you will have one of these spells in your opening hand. In those cases the deck acts with "brokenness" by producing large amounts of card and strategy advantage (forcing the opponent to react or lose) very early in the game. In the 40+% of the time you do not have those spells in your opening hand you must find, and resolve, one of those spells to win. That is why Grimlong runs 8ish tutors. The tutors produces an aquired consistency.

On the other hand, UW fish does not need to resolve any one card to win its game. Any given 7 card hand is likely to include 2-3 creatures, 2-3 mana sources, and 2-3 pieces of disruption. This is an inherient consistency.

I think that each deck strives to be consistent. Grimlong has alot of inherient brokenness, but its deck hinges on a relatively few number of cards to win. It achieves consistency by running a number of cards that do the same thing (Draw 7+ cards in a turn) and using tutors to find those cards. Fish has a different kind of consistency. It is not broken. No card says "I win" if resolved. Nearly every opening hand seems very similar and "If it isn't doing what it did last game, it IS losing."

[kirdape3]

Consistency in terms of a Premiere level format is homogeneity of result.  Red Deck Wins would open with a fetchland to Mountain, a 2/x for R - followed by a mana disrupter and another one-drop creature.  That was literally every game.

In Vintage, it's doing SOMETHING ridiculous by turn 2 or 3.

Both are viable in Vintage, except that you have more control over the former through deck construction than you do the latter due to restriction.  I'd rather know what exactly my deck is going to give me every game.

[BigMac]

The beauty of 1-offs is that you can win every game on a day with a different route to that win. It keeps the deck flexible in many situations. Flexibility is another form of stability.

Tutors are another form that gives flexibility. Again this flexibility gives stability. Off course many tutors are 1-offs, but there are still a whole number of tutors that can and are used in many decks to provide flexibility and through that stability.

Many times these flexible cards bring you to the victory card. You can pretty much make a 1-off a 4-off by adding tutors. As an example i will take stripmine. You have 1 in your deck. By adding crop rotation, demonic tutor and vampiric tutor you virtually have 4 stripmines. Crop rotation is to circumstantial to make the cut most of the time, but when your gameplan resolves around stripmine it is a very good card to use to add stability.

My point is, broken cards are very much cards that add to your stability as well as playing 4-offs. And stable decks are consistent. However consistency for me very much also resolves around the player as well as the deck. Some players make a deck consistent by making the best of it, while others need to depend on the consistency of the deck as they tend to make mistakes. A consitant deck with consistant draws is easier to play than a broken deck with a lot of different draws. The possibilities are far greater with a lot of 1-offs than with a lot of 4-offs. So player consistency definitely is a factor.

[LotusHead]

Flexibility is another form of stability...

Tutors are another form that gives flexibility.

in my own experience, flexibility in SOME ways is given by NOT having tutors (in a Force/Drain meta, which is many, if not all, metas) in favor of draw, answers and the Combo Kill.

For example, to combat the expected Force/Drain and Null Rod/ Wasteland.4Trinisphere.dec era of latter 2005, I opted fpr NO tutors for a stable mana base (cutting Black Tutors/Will) for  5-6 basic lands at the time. 3-4 at the moment, but instead had 2-4 maindeck answeres to expected or problematic hatecards. (read: Null Rod, Trinisphere (at the time), opposing Forces/Drains and Crucible/Wasteland tactics.).

Even Blue Based Decks can sacrifice the "tutors make restricted cards a four of" tradeoff for the stable manabase and  "I topdeck card X for the Win/Answer".

All T1 decks want to be "broken and randomly Uber"

[forests failed you]

Consistency is broken.  I play the most consistent and fair deck in the format and it wins lots of games because it mulligans well, and gives me the oportunity because of a stable mana base and cards tha intereact with the game to win lots of games.

[bebe]

There is a line drawn between consistent and explosive. I can look at Belcher and Tendrils Francais and similar decks and say that consistently and statistacally it can win on turn one or two every three or four games. I can also say that it will mulligan every three games on average. The remainder of the games are won turns three to eight. This can be design ( you need to play cautiously soemtimes and have the time to do so ) or by the soimple fact that games are not played solo so forced interactions will alter your hgame plan. But explosive decks like to play a game thsat ignores the opponent - they often do not care what the opponen is doing. They simply strive to go off as fast as possible. Does this make them inconsistent? By your definition yes. Resticted cards and no gauranteed brokeness in your opening hand is by your definition inconsistent.
I would prefer to measure consistency of a deck by its ability to win the majority of its games against tier one decks. Tutors allow a deck to achieve this goal as well as redundancy. Tutors make a deck consistent. If I have enough ways to pull a win condition from my deck regardless of the amount of singletons I use then my deck is consistent enough to win games.

You are comparing redundancy to silver bullets and tutors. Decks that employ bazaars ( as in your examples ) need to rely on redundancy. This is just good deck building. There are pros and cons to redundancy as a deck needs to built along its principles and redundant decks often cannot deal with explosive decks. This hardly makes them consistent in terms of finding answers and winning games. Perhaps we should discuss the merits of redundancy vs exsplosiveness ad the criterias in bulding both frameworks..

[vroman]

consistency vs brokeness is a real criteria for judging decks. I just think you're looking at the wrong half of the cards. mana base is what defines them better. look:

Sean Bauer
5 mox
4 crypt/vault/lotus/sol
1 academy
1 strip
1 b-ring
4 waste
4 gemstone
4 city brass

vroman
-4 gemstone
-4 city brass
+3 mtn
+3 b-ring

I run 2 fewer mana sources, bc 5Cstax needs to guarantee it gets that colored mana for its restricted spells. additionaly I have bazaar to cycle away excess mana mid-late game, or dig for mana early game. I want to be making my land drops only via crucible asap. 5c means more frequent color screw, overall greater vulnerability to mana denial, and ultimately less consistent results; than mono-color which is very rarely for want of its one color mana. and even a handful of basics makes a difference in resiliency to mana hate.

an even better example:
Smennen Grim Long
5 mox
4 lotus/sol/crypt/vault
1 petal
1 LED
4 city brass
3 gemstone
1 forbidden orchard
2 u-sea
1 academy
22 total

Eric Becker IT
5 mox
4 lotus/sol/crypt/vault
1 petal
1 academy
2 island
1 swamp
2 u-sea
4 delta
3 strand
1 bloodmire
24 total, plus 1 swamp sideboard

although both these decks are brutally fast storm combo, based around the same card [grim tutor], Becker's deck is substantially more consistent, just looking at the mana. besides the obvious fact Becker has an easier task coming up with only 2 colors for his spells, the lands he chooses are very telling. 8 fetchland and only 5 fetchables?! that is counter-intuitive ratio, providing incredible wasteland resistence. compared to Smennen, who has nothing but juicy waste targets, and fewer mana total to depend on.

[Smmenen]

I have two ESGs as well, which is as much total mana, not counting Rituals, which I have 6.  I also dispute my less consistent results.  Every time I've played Grim Long i've made top 8.  I made top 4 in Chicago and top 8 at Richmond.  Becker has played IT and made top 4 twice, only very marginally better than me - and he did it by beating me in a match that could have gone either way.  So, I don't really see how you can say that IT has performed better than Grim Long.