[Free Article] Vintage: Mid-Year Checkup

[voltron00x]

Vintage Champs is only 2 months away, and a number of decks are cementing their place in the top tier of Vintage, alongside Tezzeret.  I present some updated versions of MUD, Oath, Dredge, and Fish - basically the decks I'm carrying around with me right now.  If you're curious what I'd be battling with if I had a tournament today, this article is for you.

Oh, I also talk a bit about the restricted list, Time Vault, and Vintage Champs.

Enjoy!

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/19412_The_Long_Winding_Road_Vintage_MidYear_CheckUp.html

NOTE:  The Oath SB is missing 2 cards, both Ravenous Trap.

[Smmenen]

The restriction of Thirst was not only super, duper warranted.  Tezzeret was flat dominating Vintage until it was restricted.   I have plenty of data that repeatedly shows how good the restriction of Thirst was.  It immediately shifted from having Tezzeret just dominate, to being just one major player.  

There hasn't been a more valid restriction, imo, since Trinisphere, than Thirst.  





In the first half of 2009, Tezzeret was winning 40% of tournaments. After the restriction of Thirst, Tezzeret’s percentage of tournament victories (in medium and large tournaments) has significantly declined.

That said, I've always said that the June 2008 restrictions were wrong, and overbroad.  They should have just hit Scroll or Scroll and Brainstorm.   Those errors forced them to restrict Thirst, since Drains just dominated at that point.  

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players.   The DCI should never listen to the players; they should base their policy on tournament results. 

[CorwinB]

Adjustments to the Restricted List also seem to have some very powerful psychological/emotional side effects, which is something worth considering when you are dealing with the older and most faithful players. I've seen many people complain about Vintage as a whole (and some of them drop the format as a whole) when what they disagreed with was a restriction/unrestriction (Time Vault and the Summer 2008 restrictions seems to have generated the most emotion).

[voltron00x]

We're not supposed to discuss restrictions / unrestrictions here, so I won't.  Stephen - If you want to open up a thread where such a discussion is permitted by the mods, feel free to do so and I'll explain my opinion there, which I'm sure you'll have a compulsive need to try and disprove, despite the fact that it is an opinion and not really provable, one way or the other.  


In any case, my point is that once the DCI is able to nudge a format, and supports that effort by giving other strategies better weapons, it makes sense to try to reintroduce cards into the format rather than leaving them banned forever without any evidence that they still need to be sidelined.

[Demonic Attorney]

We're not supposed to discuss restrictions / unrestrictions here

Correct.  The posts following this one on the subject of B/R adjustments are moved off the boards for now.  When the forums get reorganized, there'll be a place where these discussions will be allowed on a trial basis, so feel free to resume arguing there when the time comes.

If anyone has any questions, PM a moderator.

[tezzajw]

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players.   The DCI should never listen to the players; they should base their policy on tournament results. 

I don't think that it's as simple as that.  Tournament results and listening to players are dependent upon each other.  The tournament results are one way that players 'speak' to the DCI, by showing them the decks that are being used, but they may not explain why those decks are being used.  If I was the DCI, I would be checking the major forums to carefully consider the varied comments from all players.

In my local Meta, the first Vintage tournament after the introduction of Lodestone Golem caused a spike in the number of Workshop decks being played.  Everyone wanted to try it.  Gradually, the number of Lodestone/Workshop decks has declined. 

The tournament results will show that Lodestone/Workshop decks did win, sure.  But the players' opinions may vary on how useful (or not) Lodestone Golem was to their deck choice.  Some Blue based decks started packing more maindeck Hurkyl's Recall and even Energy Flux.  Things swung back to 'normal'.  Admittedly, we have a very small Meta here with few opportunites for regular tournaments.

Tournament results, in a vacuum, are just statistics.  Statistics can sometimes tell a misleading story, needing to be clarified by human input and narrative.

Nice article, it was a good read.  Thanks for sharing it.

[honestabe]

Matt, this is imo your best article so far.  Glad to see you weren't afraid to tackle the most contriversial of issues.

As far as the restricted list goes...

We never got to see Time Vault and the blue spells together, so it's really hard to say what would happen if the two worlds combined.  I mean, thirst got retrcited last year, but is this because Time Vault is too good, or because without brainstorm and Ponder, drain decks were the only pillars with a steady draw engine, and nothing else could compete?  I'd love for someone to do some testing

I agree with your idea of unrestricting gush.  This would really do nothing to the current meta, except open up GAT as an archtype again.  People like GAT, and without 4 scrolls, I sincerely doubt it would be overpowered.  I'd also like to see Brainstorm/Ponder be 4-ofs again.  The question is how would brainstorm effect each archtype?  I mean, if Tezzeret just starts trashing the field again, obviously, it's a problem, but if it aids fish,  tendrils and drain decks equally, why not?  Brainstorm is a card people love to play with, and it's beneficial to vintage to have it unrestricted.

I also agree with your analysis of time vault, in that something has to be the best.  However, I think Time Vault is too powerful to be in the same format as 4x brainstorm, ponder, gush, tfk.  I think in the future, someone (be it DCI, or the vintage community) will have to decide if they want to play with blue spells, or time vault, as I don't think they can co-exist

edit:  Just wanted to say that with Legacy as popular as it is, nows a reeeaaallll good time for the DCI to shake things up and get a few legacy players to show up at en event and fall in love with type 1

[zeus-online]

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players.   The DCI should never listen to the players; they should base their policy on tournament results. 

I'm wondering how that could ever lead to unrestrictions?

I think the current restrict list is a mess to be honest, they did alot of good work cleaning it up and now it's a mess again.

I am not a fan of mass restrictions, it's too unpredictable and you never really get a chance to see which pieces was actually "broken", "too good" or "unfun".

My opinion on Time vault is in my signature if anyone cares

[Rico Suave]

I'm sure we all have opinions on the B/R list, but it always boils down to opinion and is nearly as painful as discussing politics with in-laws.

Matt, I disagree with a few points regarding the lists, but they are small points.  Nevertheless those lists are pretty spot on and make for excellent examples to people trying to get in to the format.  Good job.

While you gave sample lists, you didn't actually say which deck you'd play at a tournament tomorrow. =)

Are you going with the dart board method for choosing a deck at the upcoming tournaments? 

Or are you setting us all up, and giving us a gauntlet that's easy for your secret deck to beat?  I remember you releasing an article on Dredge immediately before playing a tournament with a deck that had 4 Leyline of the Void maindeck.  You can't fool us twice sir.

[Smmenen]

I'm sure we all have opinions on the B/R list, but it always boils down to opinion and is nearly as painful as discussing politics with in-laws.

That's exactly why the DCI shouldn't ever listen to people's opinions, which are subjective.   Instead, they should only use an objective standard: tournament results to tell them what to restrict.  

And I thought this thread wasn't supposed to talk about this anymore -- yet we've got half a dozen more posts on this subject.  

[voltron00x]

I'm sure we all have opinions on the B/R list, but it always boils down to opinion and is nearly as painful as discussing politics with in-laws.

That's exactly why the DCI shouldn't ever listen to people's opinions, which are subjective.   Instead, they should only use an objective standard: tournament results to tell them what to restrict.  

And I thought this thread wasn't supposed to talk about this anymore -- yet we've got half a dozen more posts on this subject.  

On the schoolyard, that's called "tattling".

I very much want to respond to you as I strongly disagree and think you're way, way off the point, but will find another forum in which to do so.

[Smmenen]

I'm sure we all have opinions on the B/R list, but it always boils down to opinion and is nearly as painful as discussing politics with in-laws.

That's exactly why the DCI shouldn't ever listen to people's opinions, which are subjective.   Instead, they should only use an objective standard: tournament results to tell them what to restrict.  

And I thought this thread wasn't supposed to talk about this anymore -- yet we've got half a dozen more posts on this subject.  

On the schoolyard, that's called "tattling".

I very much want to respond to you as I strongly disagree and think you're way, way off the point, but will find another forum in which to do so.

How convenient; we both have forums from which to do that! 

[Nehptis]

Like it or not, as far as the Public Vintage community knows Tom's article from last June is still the DCI's current approach to managing Vintage: http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/44

The key take-away from the article is this:
The four tournament Vintage archetypes that we have identified revolve around four cards: Dark Ritual, Force of Will, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Mishra's Workshop. In the current Vintage metagame, Mana Drain is by far the most powerful unrestricted blue card other than Force of Will, so almost all of the Force of Will decks are also Mana Drain decks. In order to keep a diverse metagame, all four of these archetypes need to have a real shot at winning a match and the archetypes need to stay distinct.

So, when "Matt's" questions are viewed within the boundaries that the DCI has defined; the questions he posed are very simple to answer:

Is it really fair for people who want to play Gush to be pushed out of the format, while Dredge is allowed to warp the format because of some need to prop up all of the “pillars”?
Yes.  See 4 Archetypes comments above.

Who made the decision that Gush decks didn’t make up a sixth pillar?
The DCI.  See 4 Archetypes comments above.

Given that Time Vault is now part of the format, would Gush decks, as we knew them before, still be at the forefront of competitive Vintage?
2 different points.  Gush decks can no longer be assessed "as we knew them before", the format has changed.  If you are asking would Gush be a powerful Draw spell if it was un-Restricted?  Test it in any Blue Combo/Control deck and I think you'll find the answer to be Yes.

Would Brainstorm’s unrestriction be too beneficial to Oath and Tezzeret decks, or would it do more to prop up TPS and Drain Tendrils than it would for control decks?
It would help both.  The bottom line is that BS would prop up 2 of the 4 Archetypes and distort the balance the DCI is trying to create and maintain.

Given the relatively low percentage of Storm decks in most modern Vintage tournaments, would Ponder help juice up that deck, or is it really too broken?
Ponder is not as simply answered as BS.  Although I think it's a powerful spell, it was dismissed by the DCI too quickly.

The restriction of Thirst for Knowledge helped show a number of things, such as the fact that other decks could still function in a Tezzeret/Time Vault world, and that Tezzeret decks would keep finding draw engines no matter what cards were restricted. Now that Dredge, Noble Fish, and MUD have footholds in this format, would Thirst for Knowledge still be too powerful?
Yes, TFK allows Blue Based strategies to exploit a resource that is common in Vintage, Artifacts!

The DCI seems to be managing Vintage out of adherence to a set of principles rather than listening to what people playing the format are saying.
That's a good thing!  Principles allow for consistent decisions to be made.  The vocal minority's opinions can change like the wind!

Is it really impossible to pull 100 Vintage players together?
Very close to being, Yes.  US geography is a barrier.  TO risk in running a large tournament that would attract 100+ is a barrier.  Lack of WOTC support is a barrier.  The US Vintage community size itself is a barrier.  We are not growing.  Players are getting older, work and family priorities are getting stronger.

[voltron00x]

And I would argue that per your last point, the player base is shrinking because the format is being run as if it were a set of academic principles rather than a game.

This is a game!  Players, especially players of a niche, unsupported format like Vintage, are playing it to have fun.  

Why wouldn't we want to generate some excitement and shake things up?  God forbid people actually get to play what they want and have some fun in a format that could be purposefully made dynamic by setting up a different managing philosophy.  Heaven help us, anything but some changes that would generate interest online, create blogs, generate aticles, foster discussion on this website, and feed interested players to TOs.  Anything but that!

You answer my questions by looking at the existing principles the DCI uses to run the format.

What I'm saying is those principles are running the format into the ground in the US.  When your player base starts fracturing itself into "retro" tournaments, you have a serious problem that can't be ignored.

Except, obviously, it CAN and IS being ignored, because we'd all rather cling to a set of established principles that are pushing the format to extinction.

I might add that the very fact that we're playing unsanctioned, Proxy tournaments speaks to the fact that players can and will find ways around the DCI's policies so that they can play the cards that they want to play and experience the format as they want to experience it.  What's at stake is the further fracturing of Vintage beyond simply proxy and non-proxy into "DCI restricted list" and "not DCI resticted list" or "DCI restricted list from period XX/XXXX".

[serracollector]

Basic principles.....such as any card that can draw more cards or make more mana than it costs is too powerful?

Thus....
Brainstorm banned
Thirst unrestricted
Gush Banned
Ponder Unrestricted
Mana Drain, BANNED?
Tinderwall BANNED?
Voltaic Key BANNED?
Bazaar/Workshop?Dark Ritual BANNED?

Also, I was wondering, IF they were to make changes to the banned/restricted list....does regrowth still deserve a spot on the restricted list?  Its green so thus not pitchable to force, and many ppl don't even play it in green decks (fish, oath etc).  So if it's not even played with in green decks, which are few and far between (unless you count 4 oath's, and 4 goyfs as a "green" deck), why should it remain restricted?

[Nehptis]

Just a disclaimer, let's set the proxy / non-proxy issue aside.  Abiding by strict DCI rules about no proxies or ignoring those rules to increase player attendance has little or no barring on most of the major points being discussed in this article / thread...

I might add that the very fact that we're playing unsanctioned, Proxy tournaments speaks to the fact that players can and will find ways around the DCI's policies so that they can play the cards that they want to play and experience the format as they want to experience it.  What's at stake is the further fracturing of Vintage beyond simply proxy and non-proxy into "DCI restricted list" and "not DCI restricted list" or "DCI restricted list from period XX/XXXX".

So, are you advocating for the removal of Vintage as a DCI governed format?  Are you lobbying for a fully player managed format and B/R list?  That's fine if you are.  But, I think the fracturing of the community that concerns you will happen even more quickly if the format becomes "casual".

If you are not advocating for a player governed Vintage, then concessions have to be made.  And unfortunately they will be one-sided, by us!  Why?  Because Vintage is less than a blip on WOTC's radar compared to the other formats.

So, the concessions I speak of are that we are at the mercy of the DCI to structure their policies around 4 Archetypes and then having them make decisions within those guidelines.  From time to team they may reach out to experts like Steve M, and others to get a "feeling from the players".  But, this will amount to basically a "Beer Summit", to use a semi-current event analogy.  For the most part the DCI will decide what they feel is best for the format, PER THEIR DEFINITION OF THE FORMAT (e.g. 4 archetypes).

I think your passion to grow the format is admirable.  But, the article you wrote, which I commented on, speaks more to your disagreements about the B/R list than it does about growing the format.  So, I think you have found a topic for your next article.  Keep them coming!

[honestabe]

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players. 

WHat about the whole time vault crusade?

[Smmenen]

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players. 

WHat about the whole time vault crusade?

Why do players confuse the DCI with the Rules Team?   

[honestabe]

I totally disagree with your idea that the DCI should listen to the players.  

WHat about the whole time vault crusade?

Why do players confuse the DCI with the Rules Team?  

I think it's a little ridiculous to say that the rules team can listen to players but the DCI can't.

Vintage, unlike any other format is played by people who want to have fun.  There aren't any players attending the local mox tournament to get up their DCI rating so they can make the tour, like there are in standard/limited/extended.  This is what make vintage unique.  If it isn't fun, people will stop playing it, and I do believe that many people found blue draw spells to be fun, and quit once they stopped being able to use them.  This is why vintage is in such a rough spot right now, when compared to just two years ago. I think it is the DCI/Rules Teams responcibility to listen to the players, to help give them an enjoyable experience while playing vintage.  Now, I'm not saying, if random Jonny writes a letter demanding ancestral recall to be unrestricted, to unrestrict it, but when the top 5 vintage minds in the country say "Unrestrict Brainstorm, Ponder and Gush" (like they did in Demar's Article)  maybe it's time to friggen unrestrict brainstorm ponder and gush

[The Atog Lord]

This is a good and interesting article, so I am resisting the urge to lock this thread.

But please, don't discuss the B/R list here. Not what it should be, nor what it is. For the moment, such discussion is not permitted on TMD.

This is not the first time this was said in this thread. Please don't force a third moderation post.

[tezzajw]

Because Vintage is less than a blip on WOTC's radar compared to the other formats.

If that's true, then it's kind of a slap-in-the-face to many older, original players of Magic.

I would expect that WOTC/DCI are as every bit concerned about Vintage, as they are about Standard.

To many of us, the tiny 'radar blip' is the reason that we continue to play the game.

[Nehptis]

Why do players confuse the DCI with the Rules Team? 

I'll admit I'm not 100% clear on the differences.  I'll give it a shot and ask for corrections.  Since, I'm not aware of a place where both are defined.

The Rules Team governs card wordings (errata), rules of the game (i.e. The Rules Book) .

The DCI governs B/R list decisions and tournament protocols.

Is that the gist of it?

[AmbivalentDuck]

The DCI is a group of Wizards employees, the rules team is effectively Mark Gottlieb's sense of aesthetics.

[Smmenen]

Why do players confuse the DCI with the Rules Team? 

I'll admit I'm not 100% clear on the differences.  I'll give it a shot and ask for corrections.  Since, I'm not aware of a place where both are defined.

The Rules Team governs card wordings (errata), rules of the game (i.e. The Rules Book) .

The DCI governs B/R list decisions and tournament protocols.

Is that the gist of it?

Now you're confusing the DCI with Organized Play.   

[Nehptis]

Now you're confusing the DCI with Organized Play.   

To quote Cadet Kirk, "enlighten me".  Or in this case us.  Seriously though, while we eagerly await a place to discuss the B/R topic of this article, an explaination of DCI vs Rules Team vs OP seems reasonable.

[scipio]

A small point - do you still think Woodfall Primus is a better choice than Terastadon for a dread return target in dredge?  Otherwise, I think the turtle dredge "shell," if you will, is a great way to approach the deck.  Has serenity typically been castable in your post-board games, and has the maindeck darkblast ever been particularly relevant over, say, another golgari thug or a second Dakmor?

[RTG]

A small point - do you still think Woodfall Primus is a better choice than Terastadon for a dread return target in dredge?  Otherwise, I think the turtle dredge "shell," if you will, is a great way to approach the deck.  Has serenity typically been castable in your post-board games, and has the maindeck darkblast ever been particularly relevant over, say, another golgari thug or a second Dakmor?

I tested with similar decks, so I think I can answer two of your questions.

Woodfall Primus can lock the opponent out of the game. Terastadon doesn't. It gives them blockers and blockers that make winning much more difficult, which gives the opponent more turns to recover. I personally do not think they are comparable because of that. The extra Zombie Tokens is also helpful.

Darkblast is often a very useful card that has won me multiple games. It kills Bridge from Below in the mirror by killing your own Ghast or Narcomoeba. Against Oath, it can kill Orchard tokens if that is ever important. It kills Bobs and is the only maindeck answer to random Gaddok Teegs as well as killing most of the creatures in Fish.

[Jacob Orlove]

You may continue the B/R discussion in our new Vintage Issues forum.