[Free Article] Resurrecting Vintage Gro

[voltron00x]

I would've liked to have written this 2-3 weeks ago before Snapcaster and possibly Fact or Fiction changed up the metagame, but in any event...

This is an article about a new version of Vintage Gro I've been testing for the past month or so.  It has some pretty good match-ups against the key decks in the format; I'd probably suggest going -1 Trygon Predator, +1 Mystical Tutor / Mystic Remora in the maindeck b/c Shops seems somewhat less prevalent than they were 1-2 months ago.

Regardless of your thoughts on the deck, I hope that you'll find the concept of the article interesting - that is to say, the way in which you can and should approach deckbuilding as finding a solution to a  problem.  This isn't always right, as sometimes it is fine to build in the abstract or in a void, such as when a format is new or wide open, but when a format feels "solved", this is useful theory to use.  And, I tried to point out some common pitfalls with regard to testing, especially with regard to new decks as you brew.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/22927_The_Long_And_Winding_Road_Resurrecting_Vintage_Gro.html

[Onslaught]

Gro decks will always hold a special place in my heart, so this was a fun read. Interesting stuff with the Remoras...

 I've been dicking around with a "10 Duress" Gro list (4 Duress, 4 Thoughtseize, 2 Clique) lately, which of course is garbage vs. Shops but crazy fun vs. everything else. I think x2 Snapcaster is worth looking at too, since it beefs up Dryad while recurring Time Walk (usually the best card when you have an active Dryad).

[Prospero]

Great article Matt.  I particularly enjoyed the bit about how you playtest and what you look for.

[Daenyth]

Excellent article as always.

[diopter]

GAT in its last form was never about attacking. At its heart its gameplan was to be an ultra-resilient storm deck, like SX without committing all-in and with Forces and Duresses. Dryads were just less explosive but more reliable Tendrils. I think Smennen even said as much at one point. Some players just ended up playing Tendrils and Empties which were basically the  same decks.

So, now, I really must ask you if you think your deck has the same gameplan. Because to be GAT is not to have 4 Dryads, but to just rip through half your library in three turns and kill your opponent with the good stuff. I don't see this deck doing that (Confidants and Remoras just don't do that), you're more of a Time Walk deck where everything you do buys you half a turn here, two thirds there. So Dryads are actually the worst part of your deck, by a mile.

Remoras and Confidants are awesome together though. I would focus on that synergy.

[voltron00x]

GAT in its last form was never about attacking. At its heart its gameplan was to be an ultra-resilient storm deck, like SX without committing all-in and with Forces and Duresses. Dryads were just less explosive but more reliable Tendrils. I think Smennen even said as much at one point. Some players just ended up playing Tendrils and Empties which were basically the  same decks.

So, now, I really must ask you if you think your deck has the same gameplan. Because to be GAT is not to have 4 Dryads, but to just rip through half your library in three turns and kill your opponent with the good stuff. I don't see this deck doing that (Confidants and Remoras just don't do that), you're more of a Time Walk deck where everything you do buys you half a turn here, two thirds there. So Dryads are actually the worst part of your deck, by a mile.

Remoras and Confidants are awesome together though. I would focus on that synergy.

Nowhere do I claim that my deck is a recreation of GAT, nor is it named such; "Gro" as a deck name cuts across formats (including Legacy and Extended) and there's no reason why that nomenclature isn't appropriate.  I've been quite happy with the Dryads in testing as they accomplish one of the things I wanted the deck to do.  Of course, I suppose every deck must, by definition, have a "worst" part.

[diopter]

Time for brutal honesty I guess. It's a bad Gro deck too. Gro was Storm before storm existed, fused with Time Walks. The storm half allowed Dryad to be an efficient finisher instead of just a bad tactical option.

Your deck, outside of the usual broken-win draws, is all Time Walks. Dryad is just not a good tactic in any of the key matchups.

[voltron00x]

Time for brutal honesty I guess. It's a bad Gro deck too. Gro was Storm before storm existed, fused with Time Walks. The storm half allowed Dryad to be an efficient finisher instead of just a bad tactical option.

Your deck, outside of the usual broken-win draws, is all Time Walks. Dryad is just not a good tactic in any of the key matchups.

Based on... what?  Your experience looking at it on paper?

It was good enough to beat Mastriano (on Cobra Gush) and DeMars (on Snapcaster, I believe) in a set of cash matches at the TMD Open.  It's been good enough for me, in testing, to beat Rich Shay's Gush deck in a test match, to put up very strong numbers against Pikula with Bob/Jace control in a several hour long testing session, did well against Brad Granberry playing a recent version of Detwiler's Shop decks, and pummeled Dredge post-board testing with this year's Vintage Champ, among others.  Am I to believe that your "honest" appraisal carries more value than all that testing against all those people?

People's "brutal honesty" about Jace led the majority of TMD to believe the card was garbage in Vintage. I'll always take actual testing against quality testing partners over anonymous internet theorizing.

Further, I have to ask what you mean by a "bad Gro deck".  I don't understand why that would matter in any reasonable way - who cares whether a deck is a good or bad Gro deck, or any other such qualifier?  Based on my results I feel its a good Deck, period. I couldn't care less whether it measures up as good or bad against a GAT deck that has 4 Merchant Scroll, 4 Brainstorm, and 4 Ponder - that doesn't actually MEAN anything.

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Time for brutal honesty I guess. It's a bad Gro deck too. Gro was Storm before storm existed, fused with Time Walks. The storm half allowed Dryad to be an efficient finisher instead of just a bad tactical option.

Your deck, outside of the usual broken-win draws, is all Time Walks. Dryad is just not a good tactic in any of the key matchups.

Time for the brutal honesty, your fucking retarded. You have no concept of blue mirrors, and should stop going around talking like you do. You appear to have no concept of how they play out, unless you draw some broken cards in the first couple turns.

Also Matt, I think Paul was playing cobra storm when Hornung played him. The deck appears to beat up on the blue decks, and remora is a house against these gush decks trying to gain velocity with cantrips and gushes, combined with the fact that they cannot wait it out, since they are skimping on lands because of gush.

Verbal warning. You can't flame people like this on TMD. -- Rich

[voltron00x]

Fair, I just assumed he was still on Doomsday.  That deck seems pretty cool to me also.  Some sweet decks emerging in Vintage right now, that's for sure.

Beating Mastriano when he's playing anything competitive means you're moving in the right direction, in my opinion anyway.

[diopter]

Gro deck:

Gro was Storm before storm existed, fused with Time Walks

A bad Gro deck would be something that doesn't do these two things every well. Either it isn't great at distilling 30+ cards into the gamewinning 3-4 that you need, or it's not good at stifling opponent actions and buying you virtual advantage everywhere (i.e. the Time Walk).

Your deck is an awesome looking Time Walking deck. How many turns does it feel like you're getting when you play Remora with Confidant. It's 56/60ths dedicated to that gameplan, but Dryad (which was Tendrils before Tendrils, i.e. converting your library ripping into lethal damage without over-committing resources) doesn't fit in because the main elements of your deck don't exactly let you rip through your library in a similar fashion (with the aim of finding the goods). And if you're going to invest in a 2-3 mana do-nothing, you could probably do better than her.

[diopter]

Also, since you bring up Jace, I wasn't around for that thread but who in the world thought that would be bad for Vintage? It's kind of like a blue Necro, maybe half as powerful but many, many times easier to play.

[voltron00x]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=40410.0

This thread is one example.  There were plenty of other comments scattered about (and I believe entire threads, but I can't dig much as I'm at work), mostly about how Jace cost four mana and didn't win the game, was worse than FoF which didn't see play, was worse than Gifts which wasn't an auto-include in some blue decks, etc.