[Article] Skill in Vintage

[Smmenen]

In the SCG forums, Mike Flores questioned my claim that “Skill is King” in a format with, admittedly, the most forgiving and broken card pool.

In this article, which was once premium, but is now free for all to read, I systematically analyze the four major skill sets that Vintage tests: Design, Mulliganing, In-Game Decision making, and Sideboarding and test whether Flores criticisms ring true or are misplaced.  I particularly like my analysis of SBing skill.

This article remains as analytically accurate today as the day it was published:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12842.html

Comments, thoughts, rebuttals, spare change?

[LotusHead]

Matchup knowledge is a huge skill in Vintage, and a fantastic hand in one matchup is garbage in another. Consider this potential draw from Uba Stax:

Sometimes the "I can win turn 1, 2 or 3, if the opponent doesn't have Force of Will" situation comes up.

That is a gamble, and playing the "statistics say I am right" comes up, and only after turn 2 (or 1 if Force does come up) does that come into play

Knowledge of your opponent's deck (Matchup Knowledge) is a huge advantage to a regular Vintage TMD user.

Scouting (or at least showing up regularily to your local T1 hangout) is also another factor.

Knowledge and expertise  of MTG rules is another advantage (this would be skill).

Excellent article, by the way.

I won my first piece of power by piloting a deck I believed in (Oath Salvagers, as opposed to SlapJack: Now Bomberman)
but my next important matchup I had to actually say, outloud, "You only have 40% chance of having FOW in your hand. I'm going for it." Game 1, AND 2. It paid off.  I was more afraid of my opponent's skill/knowledge/deck choice than a beliver in my deck's strengths. I won (yay for Stats!), but the only real lesson I learned is that Oath beats Slaver. (valuable, nonetheless)

EDIT: I did lose in one Top 8 when Luis Scott-Vargas (part of USA Magic-Team) checkmated me on Game 3 of finals.

I had a Gawd Hand against Confidant TPS, on the draw. Chalice. Sphere. Waste. Threat. He checkmated me on his turn 1 (my turn 0) and killed me. D'oh! That is vintage.  It's not like my decks haven't won turn 0 occasionally. Leylince, Force. Both the Glue of T1. (and turn 1 Chalice for X)

[Roat17]

Skill is unquestionably the one thing that will seperate good results from bad results.  Anyone who says otherwise either has little to no experience in such a format.  It is this reason that hate decks are viable.  If the makers of decks such as TMWA and the other b/r/w deck that utilizes Sphere, Gorilla Shaman, and Chalize.  Those decks have no borken (relative to being able to play Tinker, Ancestral etc...) plays, yet they can and DO post good results thanks to the skill of the pilots.  The pilots of hate type decks are able to beat control/combo players because of the skill in every aspect that Steve has mentioned.  Add in the fact that both pilots will hae to play around certain cards, and it is no more obvious that skill is a huge factor.  

I recently built a hate deck to battle aggro/control decks in my meta.  I was playing against a control deck, and I made a misplay that cost me the game because I was not obsersvent enough to see my optimal play.  I even knew exactly what cards my opponent was playing, and what his sideboard was.  I attribute that loss solely on my lack of skill during this match.  I was able to outplay Oath using B/R aggro even though many would assume an auto-loss.  The analytical skill I believe is relevant to all four of your skill categories.  In sb'ing, did my opponent side in any cards?  If they did, given their deck, should I mulligan into something better suited as to what I think my opponent put in?

While it can be the morst forgiving, it can also be the least.  I've seen a friend Ancestral, Thirst, Brainstorm, and have about 4 draw steps and they did not draw the one mana source they needed (as their opponent had many lock-type pieces out).  

With such a vast card pool, the inclusion of restricted cards, the fact that you play a randomized opponent with a deck that could have been picked arbitrarily, the only constant that you have in each match is your play skill.  That is why the best players more often than not put up good results, with whatever deck, and bad players can go 0-X with Gifts even with favourable matchups.

[Moxlotus]

With the idiot-proof manaless Ichorid decks out now, skill being a factor for success may have significantly decreased.  A monkey could play that deck and win tournaments.  When an entire deck can use next to no skill and win (and have no real way to use skill and outplay anything), it can be hard to see how skill is necessary for success.

[Smmenen]

With the idiot-proof manaless Ichorid decks out now, skill being a factor for success may have significantly decreased.  A monkey could play that deck and win tournaments.  When an entire deck can use next to no skill and win (and have no real way to use skill and outplay anything), it can be hard to see how skill is necessary for success.

Come on man, I know you read the article.

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.   Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.   Sore losers

[Implacable]

With the idiot-proof manaless Ichorid decks out now, skill being a factor for success may have significantly decreased.  A monkey could play that deck and win tournaments.  When an entire deck can use next to no skill and win (and have no real way to use skill and outplay anything), it can be hard to see how skill is necessary for success.

Come on man, I know you read the article.

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.   Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.   Sore losers

The problem, in my opinion, is not that skilled players are losing, but the fact that a complete idiot could be handed the deck and still beat almost every deck that didn't pack Leylines.  In my testing against it, it beats Slaver (even with multiple Crypts + Welder postboard), Fish, Gifts, Stax, and just about every other deck that you care to name.  Even Bomberman, which should annhilate any graveyard-based strategy, still loses the majority of games against it.  On the flipside, decks that sideboard Leyline destroy it, because even Emerald Charm simply doesn't work well enough when the deck can't really Bazaar to find it.

[Smmenen]

With the idiot-proof manaless Ichorid decks out now, skill being a factor for success may have significantly decreased.  A monkey could play that deck and win tournaments.  When an entire deck can use next to no skill and win (and have no real way to use skill and outplay anything), it can be hard to see how skill is necessary for success.

Come on man, I know you read the article.

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.   Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.   Sore losers

The problem, in my opinion, is not that skilled players are losing, but the fact that a complete idiot could be handed the deck and still beat almost every deck that didn't pack Leylines.  In my testing against it, it beats Slaver (even with multiple Crypts + Welder postboard), Fish, Gifts, Stax, and just about every other deck that you care to name.  Even Bomberman, which should annhilate any graveyard-based strategy, still loses the majority of games against it.  On the flipside, decks that sideboard Leyline destroy it, because even Emerald Charm simply doesn't work well enough when the deck can't really Bazaar to find it.

So, it's not that skilled players are losing but that bad players are winning?   What's the difference?

As I said:

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.   Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.   Sore losers

[RThomas]

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.  Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.  Sore losers

If you are claiming that 'skilled' players are going to lose to 'less skilled' players that are piloting this Ichorid deck, are you also saying that skill in terms of gameplay is now defunct?  The common consensus seems to be saying that even though excellence in gameplay decision-making is required in games 2 and 3, the game is still largely dependant on how the deck is designed to run.  So, since the game is being decided for us by the cards that we see from the library, has the decision-making process ebbed to the point where the game really is decided what we draw?  I hesitate to say that this new Ichorid deck's gameplay is by "autopilot"; there certainly must be important decisions to be made in the game that change the end turnout, that require gameplay knowledge and conditioning. 

It seems that the current valuable skill is indeed learning to select the correct deck, and how to tailor it to have a better chance against prospective opponents.  The work has been done for us by the creators in this case, exceeding the problems that were troublesome to traditional budget aggro decks: the new deck plays relevant disruption which does not impede the deck's natural progression towards the end of the game, and its gameplan is solid and difficult to disrupt.  The gap that exists between this deck and success seems to be of that which the deck's creators have not done for us; this is the "metagaming" and streamlining we must do for ourselves.  Whether this gap is crossed remains to be seen, but to me, this revives an older adage about most of the budget aggro decks that was heard: that, "the deck is only good in the hands of a good player."

The way this new Ichorid deck is designed seems to tell me that the designers have not only sought to create a deck that is difficult to "hate", but to create a deck that reduces the amount of decisions made in a game in the most strategic way possible.  Perhaps this particular achievement was a mistake, but coincidentally, perhaps this event is also a stumbling block in its course of reaching the height of dominance: that the deck cannot continue to be an adequate "autopilot" deck without radically changing the gameplan.  Perhaps also, this is doubly why you are claiming that this Ichorid deck is approximate for Type One in the first place: the double-whammy of monetary expense and ease of play will attract new, exciting players to the fold.

I am not challenging, but rather asking for clarification and expounding upon the statements you have made.

[Liam-K]

When I don't know a deck, I feel like I'm playing spells in a vacuum, one at a time.  Draw 3... oh look, new cards.  Um, duress?

When I know a deck really well I look at my hand and see what I can force it to do, what I can maybe make it do, what each of those lines of play is going to be vulnerable and can at least take a guess at how big a concern those weaknesses are.

When I don't know the deck my opponent is playing, I look at his cards in hand, board, and graveyard, and very rarely find any information beyond the presence of blue that would change my descision tree.

When I am familiar with my opponent's deck (both contents and use of), the exact same information implies expodentially more to me, and allows me to "guess right" regarding what will work best FAR more often.

When I playtest a match for hours a day for a significant period of time, I am two steps ahead of my opponent.  I control the tempo of the match and plays are made on my terms.  If I then ignore the game or match for a while, I don't have that feel for what's coming, let alone that utter confidence over how to meet it.  I can feel myself missing savage plays... I look at the game state (or worse ,what just happened, even when it's good) and say to myself "there's a way to do something ridiculous t/here, I can feel it.  I just can't see it."



I really find anyone contesting that skill has little impact on your plays, or that playing suboptimally has little impact on the outcome of the game, somewhat incredulous.

[Roat17]

A note on Ichorid...


...against a deck that packs Crypts, Grunts, or Wretches (even though they aren't as common), my better judgement leads me to believe that you have to play around these cards.  If you go all-in, against a crypt, that's a terrible decision, depending on what else has happened in the game. 

In sports such as football, hockey, and basketball, people can observe skill.  I believe that in a game that requires mental fortitude, skill is synonymous with decision making. 

Take this for example - Ichorid vs Any deck that pack MD grave hate ( and these decks do exist)

Ichorid on the play

Ichorid (1): Bazaar.  Activate.  Discard an Ichorid, a Grave-Troll, and a Therapy

GHate (2): Land, Tormod's Crypt...OR Land, Mox, Grunt

Hmmmm...This situation may not happen all that often, but now, do you dredge almost your entire deck next turn?  Probably not.  It's decision making time.  What am I playing against?  What is a typical list for this deck like?  Do I recognize this person and therefore know their style of play?  Can I bait them into using a Crypt, or do I let the grunt stick around because I know what else he has and I can still race him?

Please, play a game with Ichorid against a variety of different decks, and try to fully understand how to play Ichorid.  Don't just look at a list, say...hmmmm, looks easy and presume that everything is Auto-Pilot.  I would say the closest list to Auto-Pilot are certain versions of Oath.
EDIT:Even in these Oath decks I believe skill reigns supreme.  Has there ever been a deck, that has had a 100% winning ratio against a certain deck, no matter the pilots?
Just my opinion.

[OfficeShredder]

Something I noticed while reading the tournament report for uba stax you mentioned

The gifts stack is [mana drain, force, merchant scroll, brainstorm]. With 3 Fows accounted for, the odds of him holding the 4th are low

The math here is wrong.... the force of will in the gifts stack has no real bearing on the probability of him holding a force of will in his hand.... it simply eliminates the odds of him having two force of wills.  It's like that gameshow problem where the host opens the wrong door, and you have to switch which one you pick

[dicemanx]

With the idiot-proof manaless Ichorid decks out now, skill being a factor for success may have significantly decreased.  A monkey could play that deck and win tournaments.  When an entire deck can use next to no skill and win (and have no real way to use skill and outplay anything), it can be hard to see how skill is necessary for success.

Come on man, I know you read the article.

Two huge elements still are majorly in play with Ichorid: design and sideboarding.    And then, post board, Ichorid cannot win unless it exercises excellent in game decisionmaking.

This is another thread, but I think Ichorid is the best thing this format has seen in a very long time.   Alot of "skilled" players are going to be pissed because they are losing.   Sore losers

Given that all decks require various types of skills to win (playskill, deck construction, and metagaming), and given that Ichorid has arguably one of the lowest playskill requirements, and provided that you're piloting a proven viable top tier archetype that can succeed in a variety of metagames, Moxlotus is right - there is a huge decrease in the skill involved in piloting this thing to victory.

[Implacable]

I really find anyone contesting that skill has little impact on your plays, or that playing suboptimally has little impact on the outcome of the game, somewhat incredulous ridiculous.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that skill as a whole has been reduced in value.  100s of hours of testing with Gifts are required to even approach a level of competency significant enough to perform well in tournaments.  What people are saying is that, regardless of skill, playing against Manaless Ichorid takes no skill, and that playing Manaless Ichorid, provided that you can memorize sideboarding schemes (easy), also takes no skill.  A match without skill is not a match of Magic; it's a game of War between three-year olds.

[madmanmike25]

Is Ichorid really that simple to play?  It seems like its goal is to disrupt (if you can) then swing.  Isnt that a tiny bit similar to the fish gameplan?  Someone without ANY skill will name the wrong card off a therapy, probably will panic at the mere sight of tormods crypt, and over-mulligan.  I guess what i mean to ask is "How bad can your down syndrome be while you continue to win with ichorid?"  I have never actually played with the deck though i own all the cards needed.  But in all honesty, if it brings more players into the vintage scene, kudos.

btw i consider myself somewhat skilled, but you can still lose first turn on the draw, and have to mull to 4.  Thats why i like this format though.

Oh, and I enjoyed the article.  I cant believe someone mulled to one card because of a fake godhand!  One question, In what order of importance (in regards to just winning) would you rank your 4 basic categories of skill?  And just for fun: If you HAD to guess a ratio of luck vs. skill that determines a match win for Gifts would would you estimate it to be?  What are the 'luckiest' decks, and what are the most skill intensive?

[Moxlotus]

What are the 'luckiest' decks, and what are the most skill intensive?

I believe that Stax is by far the hardest deck to master.  Combo and Stax both have small margins of error, but if you screw up with combo you can still randomly topdeck the absolute nuts and win.  Stax doesn't have that. 

I'd say that Combo decks are the "luckiest" and Ichorid (followed by Oath) being the least skill intensive.

Note that this is coming from a combo and stax player who never plays Drains.

[JR]

What are the 'luckiest' decks, and what are the most skill intensive?

I believe that Stax is by far the hardest deck to master. Combo and Stax both have small margins of error, but if you screw up with combo you can still randomly topdeck the absolute nuts and win. Stax doesn't have that.

I'd say that Combo decks are the "luckiest" and Ichorid (followed by Oath) being the least skill intensive.

Note that this is coming from a combo and stax player who never plays Drains.

While stax and combo both have small margins of error, I think that drains have one extremely skill intensive matchup: the mirror. The difference between mediocre drain players and drain players who consistently top 8 is the better ones know how to play the mirror exceptionally well. This has to be yet another skill in vintage which ties into sideboarding, in game work and sideboarding: matchup knowledge and play.