[Premium Article] Win Win Lorywn - A Vintage Set Review

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14817.html

FYI.

Here's the blurb:

When a new set hits the shelves, Magic players the world over clamor for information on the strengths and weaknesses of the fresh cards. The Vintage crowd, of course, is no exception... except that their standards for possible playability are considerably higher. Today, Vintage World Champion Stephen Menendian takes a look at the highlights that Lorwyn has to offer our game’s most broken format...

[amidtownrocker]

I noticed in your suggestion of a deck using the Thorn of Amethyst you included a fishesque deck which included Gaddock Teeg in addition too Chalice of the Void, just thought I would point out, once Gaddock is in play you would no longer be able to play any Chalices as their CMC will include an X.

[Smmenen]

I appreciate the response.  I am aware of that interaction.  My assumption is that I'll be using Chalices on turn one to prevent Moxen from coming down, as is often typical in Vintage.  And so that won't interfere with Teeg.   However, maybe only 3 Chalices should be in the deck I was suggesting. 

[amidtownrocker]

I am not so sure you noticed this interaction.  Earlier in your article you discuss disruption decks not wanting dead draws and any Chalices drawn after Gaddock has hit the board would certainly qualify as dead draws.  Changing your Chalice count to 3 would not solve this interaction either.  You just said you would include Chalice so you could cut off opposing moxen on turn 1, well you would want maximum chance to do so, so 4 is the correct number.

[GUnit]

If the only criterion for a card's inclusion in the deck is how frequently you see it in your opening hand then you're absolutely correct. My guess is, though, that the deck-making process that most people go though is moderately more complicated than that.

From my experience, chalice often gets played almost as if it were legendary, because you're not normally very happy to see it in multiples. Chalice for zero +gorilla shaman is the mana denial gameplan. To this end, redundant chalices and shammies are pretty useless.

I've played an awful lot of aggro control and I've never been happy with four chalices as part of a mana denial strategy. Sometimes 3 almost feels like too much.

If I was going to argue that four chalices should be in this deck (and I think maybe they should) it would be on the basis that chalice for 1 seems very strong here because it hardly touches you, but totally hoses a lot of decks.

[Smmenen]

I am not so sure you noticed this interaction.  Earlier in your article you discuss disruption decks not wanting dead draws and any Chalices drawn after Gaddock has hit the board would certainly qualify as dead draws.  Changing your Chalice count to 3 would not solve this interaction either.  You just said you would include Chalice so you could cut off opposing moxen on turn 1, well you would want maximum chance to do so, so 4 is the correct number.

When I was talking about dead draws, I was talking about the fact that Gaddock is a legend.

Cron Stax ran only 3 Chalices and it's primary purpose was to play Chalice for zero.   3 Chalice even if you only want to hit moxen is not necessarily wrong, as you think.   You are balancing the fact that you want to see Chalice against the fact that you really don't want to see a second. 

[Purple Hat]

as a general rule for deck building I tend to use this guidline:

4: I want to see this card early and am always happy to see the second copy.
3: I generally want to see 1 but I don't want to see 2
2: I'm never really unhappy to see the card but I'm never too excited about it either.
1: I plan to tutor for this card or it's restricted

both chalice and gaddok teague would pretty clearly qualify as a 3 of for my initial list by this.  I can vary up or down on this obviously but this is kinda how I initally sketch things out.  Then I try things and see how much I like them and adjust the numbers.