[Discussion-Strategy Issues] Meta: Diversifying or Unifying?

[Ric_Flair]

One of the things that GI mentioned was the idea of a core, that is, a set of cards that because of the size of the cardpool and power of certain cards, are necessitated in decks that are parts of certain archetypes.  I laid this out in another post, claiming, that in essence there are only four "cores"--the control core (Force, Drain...), Workshop Core (Workshop, Welder....), combo (detrimental fast mana, storm), and budget core (Null Rod and Force).  Outside of these cores there are a few decks: Dragon and FCG but after that there is really nothing.  I bring this up because I think that unlike in other formats, we KNOW what archetypes will look like for a long time to come.  Control may be MBC in OBC, W/R in OnBC and U/W or U/R in MirBC, and something else entirely different in KBC, but because we KNOW that Mana Drain and Force will never be superceded in terms of power if you plan on playing control you will play blue.  This means two things for diversity--first, truly divergent decks within the given archetypes, such as a truly top shelf Mono White Control deck, will never happen.  Second, because the cores are so good and Moxen and Power are so easily splashable, sometimes sub par strategies can win big and semi-regularly.  I remember reading a quote for Garfield about the testing of Alpha.  He would design a big creature deck and it would win, then he would design a small creature and it would win, so on and so forth.  Then he recognized that Ancestral Recall, as a 4 of no less, was in each winning deck.  The point is that sometimes even crap can win with Walks and Recalls being recurred with Will.  

These two factors--cores and random decks because of power cards--mean that in Vintage we can get away with weird 1 or 2 ofs in decks that other formats with less variation in power among the cards in the cardpool cannot.  So much of winning in Vintage is about overwhelming MASSIVE lopsided wins.  But as the format becomes more competitive and the power cards are used in more decks (thanks to the proxy rule) we start to see the difference between winning deck and losing decks playing out in tier two cards (cards slightly weaker in power).  For example the difference in speed, power, and interaction between AK/Intuition and TFK becomes important.  And the process works all the way down the line until card choices that are marginal in terms of overall power, like the differences between GAT lists and Tog lists become EXTREMELY important.  When this happens, decks win consistently because of minor changes, the metagame is genuinely diverse and not simply "untested" diverse.  And after playing at Waterbury where Rich's deck was only a few cards off from many netdecked decks, I believe we have reached a geniunely diverse metagame.  There is diversity in that the major archetypes are represented, but there is unity in that crap variants have fallen away.  

One final comment.  In a recent PT Boston I was talking with Brian Kibler, who is a very nice and smart guy (seems like he should play Vintage), about a deck list I was writing.  He was really interested and he asked where I had got the list from.  I told him that I drew it up myself.  He was surprised because it was very similar to a deck he was going to play at an upcoming Constructed GP.  After reassuring him that I did not steal the list he told me that he knew I didn't because there were certain cards, 3 or 4 cards overall (MD and SB included) that were different and crucial.  He told me that most of time in Constructed 90% of the decklist can be made by an devised by any savvy player, but that the last 5-10% of the deck, which determines most of the deck's success, is found through playtesting.  I think this logic has finally worked its way into Vintage.  Look at the difference between Gobvantage and FCG to see his point.  We have finally made it to a truly well-developed metagame.  

That said, there are more opportunities out there for some revolutionary discovery in Vintage than anywhere else because of cardpool.  Finding those gems is what we are all looking for.

[Grand Inquisitor]

after playing at Waterbury where Rich's deck was only a few cards off from many netdecked decks, I believe we have reached a geniunely diverse metagame

I don't think you can defensibly argue that the few card difference in Rich's deck had nearly as much to do with it winning than the fact that it was piloted by Rich Shay.  I don't mean to undermine your point, I just think its a misleading example.

That said, there are more opportunities out there for some revolutionary discovery in Vintage than anywhere else because of cardpool. Finding those gems is what we are all looking for.

I agree.  Sure, the bar is set pretty high for the power level of decks/cards.  However, I think there are plenty of extremely powerful synergies that haven't been dug up yet because of institutional 'knowledge' about what is good in this format.

I think we've come a long ways, but I think there's plenty of work left to do.

He told me that most of time in Constructed 90% of the decklist can be made by an devised by any savvy player, but that the last 5-10% of the deck, which determines most of the deck's success, is found through playtesting. I think this logic has finally worked its way into Vintage.

I think this has been true in Vintage for a long time.  I think its becoming clear to more people because of quality articles and things like this site, which spread a better understanding of the metagame and what it takes to win.

However, I think an even larger factor in success, which hasn't 'caught on' in Vintage is a dedication to improving playskill.  It should be obvious why Rich and Carl are always in the top seats at Waterbury (likewise Thorme and Kevin at GenCon).

[Smmenen]

@GI: I think your analysis of the Waterbury is spot on - your post on the previous page is particularly well constructed.  However, I want to take one small issue with you.  I think Rich Shay's success is certainly partly, if not mostly attributable to his play skill, but I think specifically as it relates to his success at Waterbury, I think something that can not be overlooked is the changes he made to his deck.

Every time he sat accross from someone they expected a specific decklist.  Every change that he made upset those expectations.  The result is that he won games that he would not have won either otherwise or as easily.  In either case, they greatly aided him.  Moreover, the changes he made were profound and amazing.  Lava Dart, Old Man, maindeck Blood Moon and even Sideboard SPHERE of Resistence.  All of these changes were truly inspired.  You only have to win 12 games in your first 18 to go 6-0 and make top 8.  If you win 3-4 games alone through upset expectations (Method SBed IN Blood Moon against Rich) that is key.  

This is another reason why I think playing Rogue is becoming more and more important - which, of course, ties into the broader theme of this thread - which is that we are now a PTQ format.

[Ric_Flair]

Oh geez....I totally did not mean to minimize Rich's playskill.  That is certainly the very largest factor determining his success.  What I meant to say, if it did not come across, was that when the metagame is developed, winning becomes based on playskill and correct card choices in "spare" or marginal slots.  That is the main premise.  Rich did well because he is Rich AND because he knew which cards to put into is "open" slots, which is, again, a factor of Rich really knowing his shit.  


My humblest of apologies to Rich and anyone who thought I was taking something away from him.  Rich is an excellent player, among the best I have seen...and quite frankly I have seen them all.  George Baxter, Zak Dolan, and Mark Justice through Kai.