Card Value during The Swiss, and The Top 8.

[Shax]

Hey everyone this is Shax, just wanting to know how everyone feels about the new rule having to do with Top 8 Sanctioned Vintage play.. And maybe a few more after looking into the situation further. But first the Play/Draw rule.

The first major rule change is the expansion of the Premier Event Top 8 play/draw rule. Nearly a year ago, it was decided that for Pro Tour Top 8s if you had a higher finish than your opponent in the Swiss portion of the tournament, you would have the privilege of choosing whether to play or draw at the start of your playoff matches. With the most recent update, this has been expanded to include not only Pro Tours but also Grand Prix events, World Magic Cup Qualifiers, and Pro Tour Qualifiers. Wizards wants people to play Magic. This rule was implemented to reward players who did well playing Magic during the Swiss portion instead of intentionally drawing in.

So what I have perceived from this is going to be a doozy. For good players, drawing in the Swiss to the Top 8 simply meant you got to skip a round of Magic and mess with pairings. Now that this is no longer a option in most cases because of the above rule, it directly forces players to play decks that can take advantage of the first turn, or in the opposite scenario the opponent taking advantage of the second turn. But Shax wasn't this how it was before?

Well let's look at it from the ground up. Way back a long time ago, a deck called U/R Landstill 2007 was made that destroyed Blue decks, Shop decks, but did not have any Sidedeck space devoted to beating Dredge so you lost the Match to it. Shockwave's list I will go by because it makes a point. Before this rule change, manipulation of the Tournament from a Player's perspective was different as it is today. I can prove this point by saying that now in Swiss rounds, you cannot lose any round if you want to have increased odds of winning the Tournament, or you can if you want to intentionally go second in the Top 8 games. Shockwave could afford loses to Dredge because he on paper beat Shop and Blue decks. Now present time being any seed but #1 when playing a deck like U/R Landstill is putting yourself at a disadvantage regardless of opponent. Of course it was like that back then too, because being paired lowered could mean that you face the Dredge deck in that top 8. But now it entails that if he is seeded lower his opponent will have the important/non important first turn, or get to decide if he goes second turn, advantage. Deciding choices is one of the biggest plays a Magic player can make. Being able to have the #1 seed is the biggest advantage a Magic Player can have now in a tournament, regardless of cards because if you do have it and don't even need it, it forces everyone else in the Top 8 to play without that choice to make. We can trace what I just said to this years Gencon Tournament. Marc Lanigra was #1 Seed going into the Top 8. He also won the tournament because every other player no longer had a choice when facing him.

 Now, while going second may not seem that bad... Vintage decks that are designed to take advantage of the first turn I think will see a increase in play. There is a chance you can win going second, but a good example is Ad Nauseam versus MUD decks. Ad Nauseam needs to go first to have a chance to win the match most of the time, while MUD players also want to go first since they usually do not have Leyline of Sanctity. Ad Nauseam can win going first with nothing to fear here, but so can MUD. You can even see how it changes the Metagame first hand in a tournament report of the Top 8. MUD decks that benefit from going first (Prison Style) have seen a reemergance. But this can all be easily explained by Metagame tendencies you say, but these rules have only been announced this year. For those of you who still don't understand where I'am going with this, most Top 8's from before these rulings are taken into effect need to be looked at from a different perspective. Decks that feature cards such as Necropotence, where you need a turn to set up are going to be much better. Imperial Seal is going to benefit from this. Trinisphere decks obviously. And while I can go on and on about how it helps certain decks because they are going first, then it falls on the player to be able to play these decks in the Swiss successfully to get that #1 seed.

Certain decks might always be able to benefit from certain strategies as in dropping matchups for the sake of being built superior like U/R Landstill, but the risk involved is now much greater than a match loss in the Swiss. The lost die roll in the matchups that did matter (Control, Prison) are now more apparent. This is assuming the Control or Prison deck made it to a higher seed. A good question this poses now is what are the value of my cards when I do have to roll a die, and what are the value of them when I do not have to roll a die?  (Top 8 matches only) If you answered I'am never rolling a die and playing Paper-Rock-Scissors you are brilliantly funny. With the Top 8 being even more sadistic because of what one could fear when playing against the #1 Seeded player is going to be the factor for as long as these rules stick. A few situations come to mind why you should tie now. You and your buddy are going to be #1 and #2 seeds, so you choose to tie to make sure the deck that you want after running statistics goes first every matchup of the Top 8. Doesn't this promote collusion? If I know I can get a certain deck to #1, I almost garuntee the tournament from the odds your given. Players that will do anything to win now or used to make it to Top 8 will want to win more, because of # cushion. Likewise, the #8 player is at a statistical disaster for winning the Tournament unless they are playing a deck that wants to go second. But even then they should have been #1 seed to garuntee that second turn advantage they receive by playing Draw-Discard-Dredge deck.

If anything, the rule change puts more value on the first Die Roll you roll during the first match of Swiss in the Vintage World Championships. Because eventhough your Ad Nauseam's card values might be great going through the first match.. assuming you make it to the top 8, and your seeded #1 it took you winning out basically to keep the card values from the first match of Swiss you had at the start of the Championships. (This is assuming you won the die roll in the first match, to get maximum value out of the Ad Nauseam.) All of a sudden having card value sustain/decay in decks is going to become more important. Part of the reason why I think 4 MUD decks made the Top 8 of the Championship at Gencon.

I also expect the turnout on The Vintage Prelims of Gencon next year to be way higher. Like almost numbers of the actual tournament high. If a player can receive byes now to the Championships, then that #1 seed is even closer.

[LotusHead]

Deciding choices is one of the biggest plays a Magic player can make. Being able to have the #1 seed is the biggest advantage a Magic Player can have now in a tournament, regardless of cards because if you do have it and don't even need it, it forces everyone else in the Top 8 to play without that choice to make.

I only have positive thoughts about the Top 8 Play/Draw rule.

It give people an advantage for doing their best in the swiss rounds, and while I understand and used ID options, and concessions, to help teammates, and players who's advancement to top 8 I am willing to support, it DOES mean that we should not have the ID or concession play as auto correct.

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Deciding choices is one of the biggest plays a Magic player can make. Being able to have the #1 seed is the biggest advantage a Magic Player can have now in a tournament, regardless of cards because if you do have it and don't even need it, it forces everyone else in the Top 8 to play without that choice to make.

I only have positive thoughts about the Top 8 Play/Draw rule.

It give people an advantage for doing their best in the swiss rounds, and while I understand and used ID options, and concessions, to help teammates, and players who's advancement to top 8 I am willing to support, it DOES mean that we should not have the ID or concession play as auto correct.

Do you really believe that the 4 seed who has .XX better tiebreakers really did better in the swiss then the 5th seed?

[LotusHead]

We accept that points is points, and a win is 3 points, draw 1 point, loss 0 points.
How you win is irrelevant (except by an opponent conceding to you), as anyone can win a game due to awesome draws/opponents super lousy draws.

It's part of the game. But the decision to play it out is ASSUMED to be the correct play, even though the structure of the tourneys might dictate other correct plays.

The Top 8 Play/Draw rule reinforces the assumption that playing out your round is correct, and to me that seems instinctively correct.

Given that, the tie breakers do not lie (unless you are willing to concede to an opponent who is supposed to statistically beat you that game, but they got lousy hands versus your awesome hands).

If you get 5th seed and someone else gets 4th seed on tie-breakers, complain all you want, but that's how the game works. The matches you play, and the matches your opponent plays are part of the equation. The Top-8 Play/Draw rule just minimizes "fixing" the top 8 by ID/concession. I don't see a problem with this.

I've been top seed (before this rule) by having to play out my 5th round of swiss (our tourneys are usually under 30 people), and I am super proud of being top seed in those situation, but the only advantage that got me before, was by being paired against lowest seed opponent. Now, as longtime Shop Player (but Vintage in general), I get to drop Chalice/Sphere etc first, and pwn my way into top 4, and hopefully do the same there.

[Twiedel]

Hey there,

As the first one to really benefit from this change (at least in the Vintage Community) I'd really like to comment on this one, as it seems to be a complicated topic. First of all, I am aware that one of the intents of this new rule is that people play more matches in the Swiss - and I must admit, it worked. I played the 8th round of the Vintage Championships solely to be #1 ranked after swiss (me and my opponent for that round, Court Schuett, were already 100% in).

So, I guess I must somehow defend the new rule from this point of view: I went 7-0-1 in the swiss, with 14-2-0 in games (the draw was an I.D. with Blaine because I really needed some rest and I was afraid messing around with a guy that is like a full headsize bigger than me, haha). That really was an incredible finish, and being rewarded for that surely felt nice. BUT - and this is a big but - I would've been much more freaking out if I had like a 0.3 worse oppscore than my first Top 8 Opponent, and I would have to go second in that match and loose because of that. Having earned more points seems a (somewhat) reasonable point for gaining an advantage, but as I have no control in whom I'm facing in the swiss (it's not like I can pick an "easy" or "hard" bracket or something), it would feel wrong if I had the same points as someone else, literally having the exact same finish in games even, and he gets a reward in our game. That just seems inappropriate to me, and I would argue against this at all times (even if I am on the good end of this!)

In regard to the significance of going first: It seems an even more complicated case here. The main reason I was so lucky with going first was not only the sole fact of being on the play: it was the combination of being on the play AND knowing that my opponents (semi and finals) were on Workshops. I mulliganed at least 2 hands that I would have kept vs an unknown opponent and that would've most likely lost against MUD decks, even on the play. So I think it was really the combination here that was topnotch and really putting me in a very, very good spot.

But let me stress one more thing. I am well aware that it always makes a difference (in any format really) who's going first, but I'm convinced that in a blue mirror in Vintage this advantage seems the lowest to me of maybe all & every format. A blue mirror is almost always resolving around who's has the most acceleration early on - and this has nothing to do with who's going first at all. If I start it a slow and and "land, go" my opponent could easily put on that land and the moxen he has and it would actually feel as if he had gone first. Nevertheless, I realize that you could go first AND have that fast opening, so it sure makes a difference in the end, but the one more card one gets really offsets that by a great deal. So if it was only blue decks in the top 8, I wouldn't really mind the rule so much.
The only deck that is greatly affected by the die roll is workshop/prison. The difference of chalice 0 or even a sphere before or after my first turn is gigantic.

With that being said, and the top 8 having four workshop decks, I feel that in this tournament it actually made a big difference. I'd argue that with so much Workshops around like in these times we're having now, the new rule for the top8 playoffs doesn't seem right to me. I would have gladly rolled a die in all my matches, and I would have thought it to be more fair in a certain way. I think the most extreme of this rule would be a workshop deck making top 8 with the #1 record in the swiss, and facing 3 fast combo-like decks in the top8. You'd have a deck that is really gambling for winning a lot of coinflips to gain a high percentage automatically winning that flip and carrying a huge percentage through all its matchups. I don't like that idea at all.

I hope that covers the topic, and I really want to state that this is just my view, yours may of course differ. Just think about being the player that is on the worse end of the deal because of tiebreakers, worst case facing workshops when playing ANT or TPS (not that anybody still plays that) - and then tell me that it would seem in any way"well deserved" to you.

best regards, Marc

[LotusHead]

We totally appreciate your input Marc, and I'm pretty sure Blaine would not have kicked your ass (physically, in game, maybe) in that round of swiss.

I would have gladly rolled a die in all my matches, and I would have thought it to be more fair in a certain way.

I would totally be happy with rolling a die for each match in Top 8 of Vintage (after all, winning the die roll is one of the most exciting things about Vintage), I am totally in support of this Top 8 Play/Draw rule that encourages more swiss games be played out, and somehow penalizes ID or scoops to teammates in a real, tangible way.

I made enemies at a Team Sealed event because our team was running hot, and out of 22 teams, we were 5-0 going in to 6th round. We were locked in. We wouldn't scoop (I dunno if we rejected an ID, as our resolve was pretty much set in stone for the lulz), but we lost the quarterfinals ( ) so we have that karma issue  to resolve. But the Option To Play First was definately something that affected our behavior that day (also opening 12 playable rares in our 12 packs. 10 made it into our maindecks.).

I don't see any downside to Top 8 Play/Draw rule, so I'm for it.

[Thecheese]

I like the rule. Let me ask Marc this. If in the last Swiss round you were in if you drew or won but out if you lost would you have played it out or id?

[A.-1.]

Hey everyone this is Shax, just wanting to know how everyone feels about the new rule having to do with Top 8 Sanctioned Vintage play.. And maybe a few more after looking into the situation further. But first the Play/Draw rule.

Several people have discussed this topic over here.

So what I have perceived from this is going to be a doozy. For good players, drawing in the Swiss to the Top 8 simply meant you got to skip a round of Magic and mess with pairings. Now that this is no longer a option in most cases because of the above rule, it directly forces players to play decks that can take advantage of the first turn, or in the opposite scenario the opponent taking advantage of the second turn.

IDing in the last two rounds is certainly still a valid option. If you're tired/hungry/paired against a friend, IDing is probably more beneficial. I have predominately played Shops this year and have also predominately IDed in the last two rounds when given the opportunity. From my experience, seeding seems to be almost irrelevant.

Now present time being any seed but #1 when playing a deck like U/R Landstill is putting yourself at a disadvantage regardless of opponent... Being able to have the #1 seed is the biggest advantage a Magic Player can have now in a tournament, regardless of cards because if you do have it and don't even need it, it forces everyone else in the Top 8 to play without that choice to make. We can trace what I just said to this years Gencon Tournament. Marc Lanigra was #1 Seed going into the Top 8. He also won the tournament because every other player no longer had a choice when facing him.

I'd contend the biggest advantage in Vintage is being the better player, knowing your deck inside and out, knowing the meta, etc. Like Marc himself said, he did not win solely because he was going first versus Shops.

Now, while going second may not seem that bad... Vintage decks that are designed to take advantage of the first turn I think will see a increase in play. There is a chance you can win going second, but a good example is Ad Nauseam versus MUD decks. Ad Nauseam needs to go first to have a chance to win the match most of the time, while MUD players also want to go first since they usually do not have Leyline of Sanctity. Ad Nauseam can win going first with nothing to fear here, but so can MUD... Decks that feature cards such as Necropotence, where you need a turn to set up are going to be much better. Imperial Seal is going to benefit from this.

Ad Nauseam would be fine if you could guarantee being on the play EVERY match not just the top 8 as a higher seed. The deck still has to run the gauntlet that is Swiss. Necropotence is still bad. Passing the turn versus decks like Landstill and Shops without winning that turn is awful. Imperial Seal is still pretty poor too.


This new rule change has not affected the way I play or the decks I play at all. Shax, I think you are hastily jumping to conclusions.

[voltron00x]

Nick Coss has been using this rule at his Top Deck Games events for some time, as an FYI.

[Shax]

Hey everyone this is Shax, just wanting to know how everyone feels about the new rule having to do with Top 8 Sanctioned Vintage play.. And maybe a few more after looking into the situation further. But first the Play/Draw rule.

Several people have discussed this topic over here.

So what I have perceived from this is going to be a doozy. For good players, drawing in the Swiss to the Top 8 simply meant you got to skip a round of Magic and mess with pairings. Now that this is no longer a option in most cases because of the above rule, it directly forces players to play decks that can take advantage of the first turn, or in the opposite scenario the opponent taking advantage of the second turn.

IDing in the last two rounds is certainly still a valid option. If you're tired/hungry/paired against a friend, IDing is probably more beneficial. I have predominately played Shops this year and have also predominately IDed in the last two rounds when given the opportunity. From my experience, seeding seems to be almost irrelevant.

Now present time being any seed but #1 when playing a deck like U/R Landstill is putting yourself at a disadvantage regardless of opponent... Being able to have the #1 seed is the biggest advantage a Magic Player can have now in a tournament, regardless of cards because if you do have it and don't even need it, it forces everyone else in the Top 8 to play without that choice to make. We can trace what I just said to this years Gencon Tournament. Marc Lanigra was #1 Seed going into the Top 8. He also won the tournament because every other player no longer had a choice when facing him.

I'd contend the biggest advantage in Vintage is being the better player, knowing your deck inside and out, knowing the meta, etc. Like Marc himself said, he did not win solely because he was going first versus Shops.

Now, while going second may not seem that bad... Vintage decks that are designed to take advantage of the first turn I think will see a increase in play. There is a chance you can win going second, but a good example is Ad Nauseam versus MUD decks. Ad Nauseam needs to go first to have a chance to win the match most of the time, while MUD players also want to go first since they usually do not have Leyline of Sanctity. Ad Nauseam can win going first with nothing to fear here, but so can MUD... Decks that feature cards such as Necropotence, where you need a turn to set up are going to be much better. Imperial Seal is going to benefit from this.

Ad Nauseam would be fine if you could guarantee being on the play EVERY match not just the top 8 as a higher seed. The deck still has to run the gauntlet that is Swiss. Necropotence is still bad. Passing the turn versus decks like Landstill and Shops without winning that turn is awful. Imperial Seal is still pretty poor too.


This new rule change has not affected the way I play or the decks I play at all. Shax, I think you are hastily jumping to conclusions.

Thanks about pointing me to that thread, while basically the same topic.. I also want to point out that players don't mention the Card Decay and Value aspect of the game now. (They do, but not directly) Taking a gamble on a deck like Goblin Charbelcher means your running better cards at getting the #1 Seed assuming you can win die rolls all day up till that point. Then you within reason win the Tournament. The lower the Seed, the less it matters that your on the Play or Draw. Only being #1 Seed is where the real advantage is at, since they can control the most of the Top 8. Running the Swiss is not that hard, running out the Top 8 in my Vintage experience is way harder because it is filled with Heavyweight Players.  In a dream Vintage world, skill is not a factor because both players are the same skill level. Then this takes into account other factors like Seeding. Making Seeding a huge part of Vintage Organized play I think just means players that know how to take risk on all-in strategies like Tendrils get rewarded more.

Also, Steve M. got Top 8 at the Prelim with Necropotence, and Imperial Seal so they cannot be that bad regardless of Skill level involved. Cards that can win on the first turn can usually run out the Gauntlet since you also get the favor of die rolls. Having Top 8 advantage with MUD or Combo is going to be huge and like someone pointed out in the thread, Blue decks can survive on the draw. Magic is a game of luck, skill, deck selection anyways. Any way to prioritize luck in certain matchups can be good or bad now depending on what you want to do. If anything the proof of #1 Seed dominance will be a interesting stat to keep track of in future Vintage events. We already have a sampling from this years Gencon, next will be even better.

And while I do make some strong assertions on what is going to happen, why things are happening.. etc, I firmly believe that Combo has received a jump start at being able to succeed in Vintage events. (This is only assuming players play the Combo decks, and avoiding Mental Missteps, Shop die rolls, other combo etc) It's the one archtype where going first has the most advantage, aside from MUD. Heck, my Combo MUD deck benefits from going first more than other MUD decks, so you can safely assume it has gotten better also.  At the end of the Top 8 Play/Draw rule thread LotusHead talks about how if he had drawn the 6th round opponents would have made it into the Top 8. This poses another question. How often do you want to give the go ahead Tie so 'deck/archtype X' can make Top 8? If you feel comfortable playing against MUD and you scoop it in because your on Null Rod, was it really that much better because now your taking a risk on the Blue deck going first in the Top 8?

[A.-1.]

Thanks about pointing me to that thread, while basically the same topic..

You're welcome? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The two periods at the end of the sentence is confusing. Are you attempting to use an ellipsis, which is three periods, to indicate a sarcastic or some other tone? Or was is just a typo? I wanted to direct you to a thread I thought you may not have seen considering you started a new thread instead. I had no other intention.

Taking a gamble on a deck like Goblin Charbelcher means your running better cards at getting the #1 Seed assuming you can win die rolls all day up till that point. Then you within reason win the Tournament.

Are you making this statement based on extensive experience? Since this rule was implemented, I've seen Ad Nauseam and Charbelcher still have a lot of difficulty winning ONE match while on the play, let alone an entire tournament.

Also, Steve M. got Top 8 at the Prelim with Necropotence, and Imperial Seal so they cannot be that bad regardless of Skill level involved.

The argument that <insert good player> made a top 8 with the card(s) <insert suboptimal card(s)> is faulty. You cannot justify a card based on one person making one top 8. If you would have read his article, he said, "Going forward, I would cut Imperial Seal for Hurkyl’s Recall, but I’m not sure about the other changes."

If anything the proof of #1 Seed dominance will be a interesting stat to keep track of in future Vintage events. We already have a sampling from this years Gencon, next will be even better.

One tournament =/= proof. From the sampling here in the Northeast, I would argue that seeding is irrelevant including being the one seed.

[Shax]

Thanks about pointing me to that thread, while basically the same topic..

You're welcome? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The two periods at the end of the sentence is confusing. Are you attempting to use an ellipsis, which is three periods, to indicate a sarcastic or some other tone? Or was is just a typo? I wanted to direct you to a thread I thought you may not have seen considering you started a new thread instead. I had no other intention.

Taking a gamble on a deck like Goblin Charbelcher means your running better cards at getting the #1 Seed assuming you can win die rolls all day up till that point. Then you within reason win the Tournament.

Are you making this statement based on extensive experience? Since this rule was implemented, I've seen Ad Nauseam and Charbelcher still have a lot of difficulty winning ONE match while on the play, let alone an entire tournament.

Also, Steve M. got Top 8 at the Prelim with Necropotence, and Imperial Seal so they cannot be that bad regardless of Skill level involved.

The argument that <insert good player> made a top 8 with the card(s) <insert suboptimal card(s)> is faulty. You cannot justify a card based on one person making one top 8. If you would have read his article, he said, "Going forward, I would cut Imperial Seal for Hurkyl’s Recall, but I’m not sure about the other changes."

If anything the proof of #1 Seed dominance will be a interesting stat to keep track of in future Vintage events. We already have a sampling from this years Gencon, next will be even better.

One tournament =/= proof. From the sampling here in the Northeast, I would argue that seeding is irrelevant including being the one seed.

I was actually thanking you for pointing me to the thread. I have tons of experience, but decks like Ad Nauseam and Belcher don't need to be on the Play to win a match from testing. Knowing how to play, what hands to keep, knowing what your playing against. All keys to victory.

And I quote ''My play mistakes definitely cost me games, especially my mulligan decisions and my poor usage of Imperial Seal.'' He also mentions how Josh Potucek does things with UR Landstill in the article. If a player can basically revive a Arch-Type by himself, I can assume the same for specific cards. Yeah Steve makes gamebreaking Metagame decisions and I use his list for a good testing guideline sometimes depending on how I feel the Meta changes, but when I look at a list you also need to take into account what a cards potential can be based on dropping specific hate ( Hurkyl's Recall), for something superior in setting up Time Vault-Key in most scenarios.( Of course, that is just A use of Imperial Seal.) Imperial Seal's value should not be taken lightly.

When taking skill into account it does mess with proofs and whatnot, but good players use proof to their advantage. Steve's article talks on end about matchups, well matchups don't mean anything unless you are skilled to win the matchup with the tools needed to defeat them. Seeding when backed by skill, is the BEST indicator of what is going to happen in a match assuming you know other factors and the player skill level is roughly the same. Just because player X does not win the big tourney even though he is number 1 seed, I can garuntee you if I'am player X I will win. So if there are 100 bad players( not winning going first) and 1 good player ( always wins going first) then after a while of me winning as player X you start to assume differently that going first will win, or that I'am lucky, or you stay indifferent because of biased opinon towards me.

Metagame analysis takes time, as the more time that passes the more results we will have to base important questions and answers on. I might not be right today, or tommorrow but eventually I will be. (You can argue that then I'am on the losing side of the player X statement then, because of their resiliency to try to win eventhough they are 'bad' players. ) Hearing other peoples opinon's is just as important as mine, thats why when I say something I hope it echoes out to put myself in a better position going forward both reputation wise and knowledge wise. I don't just come on here to post about why I think the Big Bad Wolf is going to eat the pigs. I seriously think Seeding is going to become more apparent the longer these Vintage Champs go on. (Another garuntee'd 8 years on my watch)

[chrispikula]

I only skimmed this thread, but there is basically 0% chance that the play/draw rule should actually influence what cards or deck you play at a tournament.  There are no such things as decks that "get hot" and run the table more often than other decks- you can't play what people call a "high variance" deck like Belcher (I use quotes because there is no such thing as a high variance deck) because it is more likely to get the #1 seed. 

[A.-1.]

And I quote ''My play mistakes definitely cost me games, especially my mulligan decisions and my poor usage of Imperial Seal.'' He also mentions how Josh Potucek does things with UR Landstill in the article. If a player can basically revive a Arch-Type by himself, I can assume the same for specific cards.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. I witnessed firsthand as Josh tore up the Northeast scene with Landstill. He deserves a lot of the credit for the popularity of the deck today but so do Rich Mattiuzzo and AJ Grasso in my opinion. As for Imperial Seal, it's going to take a lot more than just the top 8 play/draw rule. The meta would have to shift away from the high number of Jaces and Shops, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Just because player X does not win the big tourney even though he is number 1 seed, I can garuntee you if I'am player X I will win. So if there are 100 bad players( not winning going first) and 1 good player ( always wins going first) then after a while of me winning as player X you start to assume differently that going first will win, or that I'am lucky, or you stay indifferent because of biased opinon towards me.

You lost me here. Are you saying if the one seed is a good player, they should win the tournament 100% of the time? If that's what you're getting at, you greatly overvalue being on the play.

I seriously think Seeding is going to become more apparent the longer these Vintage Champs go on. (Another garuntee'd 8 years on my watch)

You're guaranteeing the one seed will win GenCon for the next 8 years?

I only skimmed this thread, but there is basically 0% chance that the play/draw rule should actually influence what cards or deck you play at a tournament.  There are no such things as decks that "get hot" and run the table more often than other decks- you can't play what people call a "high variance" deck like Belcher (I use quotes because there is no such thing as a high variance deck) because it is more likely to get the #1 seed. 

[Twiedel]

If anything the proof of #1 Seed dominance will be a interesting stat to keep track of in future Vintage events. We already have a sampling from this years Gencon, next will be even better.

I just wanted to make something clear again: It actually WAS a big difference for me going first in the two shop matches, but a) My Deck and especially SB was build with shops in mind, and I considered myself being a favourite in both matchups. So even tough it was a big factor against these lock decks to put out my mana acceleration first - which I mulliganed to because I knew they were shops - I think that my deck & SB choices made the biggest difference here. With less than 4 Ingot Chewer and 3 Bolt I could've easily lost even when on the play.

I only skimmed this thread, but there is basically 0% chance that the play/draw rule should actually influence what cards or deck you play at a tournament.

Agree 100%. No sense in playing a weaker overall deck to get lucky in the swiss and then dominating the top 8.

The only "real" deck that REALLY wants to play first is workshops, and they could as well be #1 or #8 - so overall you will, in the big picture, draw and play the same amount of games. So I can't see how more players will rush to their set of shops based on this rule.

[Guli]

The victor of the matchup Beatdown versus Workshop is very often decided with the dice. Whoever goes first, usually wins, it is a tight match up.