[Article] A Vintage Year in Review - Vintage as a PTQ Format

[Smmenen]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/245

Check it out.

1) What did you learn?

2) Based upon my analysis, what is the "deck to beat" for Waterbury and SCG VA?

Stephen Menendian

[OptimusDeutz]

Well written.

That must have been a pain for you both to research. I suppose though that with even more tournaments taking place this coming year that the 2005 year in review may be even harder to compile.

I'll admit it... I looked through my Champions stuff really quickly to see if there were any hidden gems I, and everyone else for that matter, didn't see yet. So far I haven't found anything.

 :lol:

Thanks,

Stephen

[Smmenen]

I played in most of those tournaments, so it was very real to me.

[Mixing Mike]

Steve, great job.  

You know a writer is good when you feel stupid reading your own articles after reading one of theirs.  

I dobut words can describe how much I liked this one, and I'm not one to just feed you glory.

<MixinMike> omg fine i suck, feel better?

 Keep 'em, coming!!

[Smmenen]

Thanks.  

The goal is to have threaded this whole year into a coherent form that the reader sees before I have to state it.  That way it is more convincing.

SO based upon what I have said, what is the deck to beat for Waterbury based upon my analysis?

[OptimusDeutz]

I call foul.

You never said there would be a QUIZ!

 :shock:

I'll take a stab at it though. I definitely have a feeling that folks will be throwing a lot of attention in the direction of worshop aggro. I would even go so far as to say that it will be among the most played decks at Waterbury. The fact that the NE doesn't have a large number of Workshops will be a non factor considering the number of proxies being allowed.

Everyone NOT playing it will certainly jam in the hate, or at the very least give it more than a passing thought.

Don't beat me up if I'm wrong though. I'm just some guy.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Smmenen]

I'd like to suggest that 5/3 is the new "Fish."  What do you think I mean by that?

[OptimusDeutz]

You stated in your article that FISH made a "meteoric" ascent to the top of the deck pile, and was at the same time unnoticed because noone thought it was as good as it is.

So, would you be suggesting that 5/3 will be dominant and under the radar for a while?

(that sounds like an interesting discussion of cause and effect right there)


Stephen

[BigMac]

You mean it is the deck to beat. So let come out the hate for 5/3.

By the way, very nice article. As a European i have been wondering about some of the answers i get when i post something here or on starcity but your article and the breakdown of the American mate has shedded new light on this. I can now see and understand this 'raging river' in meta better.

For Waterbury i have no real idea as i am not part of that metagame but if i would play there now my choice would probably come down to TPS. It has a very hard matchup against workshop decks but as you almost stated that to be the deck to beat a lot of people will try and hate it out, or any MWS/trini deck possible. TPS has a very good chance of beating those other decks while still not entirely without chance against MWS decks.

So good luck and i hope i am right but i could easilly be wrong.

[Jhaggs]

Steve,

As others have previously mentioned, this was a fantastic article.  Having an article in which a reader can investigate how/why the metagame had shifted so many times over the past 12 months is a very dynamic tutorial and can serve as a great tool for all players despite their skill level.  You really hit a homerun with this latest article and it set a nice tone for the format in '05 as well as the upcoming Waterbury tournament.

To answer your first question, I learned a great deal.  I found it interesting to read how decks gained prominence simply through their positioning in the metagame in addition to new tech added.  A prime example was the resurgence of Oath in it's response to 5/3.  Also, I thought this article was a great complement to an earlier piece that you wrote which desribed the 5 basic elements of the format:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6811

Rereading your older article helped process this newest peice.  Everything seemed to fall into place and it was interesting to piece 04' together using your 5 point diagram.

As for your second question, I'm definitly not a qualified player to answer it.  I have some guesses (combo) but I can't suggest anything with confidence.  To respond to 5/3 being the "new fish" I do think that it is an upgrade for tempo based aggro/control decks.  While the control elements are not the typical FOW/Drain/other counters mechanisms, it does provide newer control elements such as crucible/trini/sibe boarded chalices.  The beats can even drop on turn 1 just like fish was able to in juggy and su-chi.  It's draw isn't see in brainstorms or standstills, but it does pack TFK, jar, wheel, and tinker.  I never made the connection of 5/3 paralleling fish, but your comment put everything in perspective.
As to what will sucessfully beat this aggro-control build, I've looked to your 5 point diagram but really haven't been able to insert a straight aggro build to defeat it.  Perhaps a revision ravager that won't lie down to trini could work, but I think I'm reaching with that one.

I would like to see some sort of combo deck finish in the top 8 at waterbury.  Dragon might be a choice if sideboard selection becomes specific enough against other builds causing Dragon to fly under the radar.

Finally, props to you on the article, Ray and starcitygames for the tournaments, other writters for the format, and of course everyone who maintains this site.

[Razvan]

A nice article, Steve, one of your best yet. I really wish there's more I could say, but I really just enjoyed it a whole lot.

I think the best part was someone finally saying: "The moment a deck is declared the best deck, it is dead." The proof was staggering, yet not one made the semantics work.

[The Atog Lord]

Steve, you've outdone yourself this time. Great article. You really highlighted the health and diversity of the Type One metagame, and showed that it isn't just a format of mindless turn one kills.

To answer your question:

5/3 is like Fish in that both are land destruction decks. A land destruction deck is a deck that generates card advantage by rendering the cards in an opponent's hand unable to be used. Card advantage is a measure not of the total number of cards one has available, but rather the number of useful cards one has available.

Fish employs "land destruction" techniques through Waste Lands, as well as through Null Rod and even Spiketails. All of these cards combine to render an opponent's available mana at much lower than it otherwise would be, thereby decreasing the number of spells that player has available.

5/3 uses Waste Land like Fish does, and it also uses Trinisphere, one of the most powerful land destruction spells printed in a long time. Trinisphere also makes cards in opponents' hands uncastable, thereby generating card advantage for 5/3.

So, 5/3 and Fish are both land destruction decks. Steve, I'm glad you saw that, too.

[Covetous]

It is very interesting to look at Fish and 5/3 as Land-D decks.  I agree that it is fundamentally correct--these decks seek to minimize an opponent's resources in such a way as to prevent them from resolving spells.  My first question is this--why are these two decks, above all the other decks packing the same strategy (4cC and Stax come to mind) the ones which have succeeded?  

I think one similarity of these decks is that they have a strong potential to be hated out--we have seen it happen to Fish and I expect that we will see it happen with 5/3, even if people need to start packing 3 MD Rack and Ruins.  As I see it, both of these decks basically get destroyed if someone can overcome their LD strategy (like all LD decks).  

My second question is this--what deck beats 5/3 soundly?  I would expect Control Slaver/EnSlaver to fill this position above all others, with welders of its own, counterspells, access to effective removal, and a stable manabase with access to its own CoW (the best anti-Cow strategy IMHO).  With Fish supposedly on the downswing, can we expect Control Slaver to see more success than it did at SCG III?  Or, will the threat of Oath (a hard but not unwinnable matchup) keep Slaver down?

[Smmenen]

I guess there are lots of things 5/3 and Fish have in common. I was thinking that perhaps both fish and 5/3 are underrated decks that perform well becuase they are underestimated.

[Triple_S]

Great article Steve.  I may have misread but I think you stated Clamp came out in Mirrodin but it was actually in Darksteel.  Great over view of the year though, and I can see where you are coming from w/ the fish and 5/3 issue.  After all, they are both amazing Shortbus decks!

[serracollector]

WOW.  Very keen observations and a great article altogether Steve.  I can't wait until the 2005 article is written where Suicide Black, White Weenie and Parfait are the tier 1 decks. (LOL).  Seriously though, it is amazing how much diversity there actually was despite the unholy trio and unrestriction of workshop.  Also, you did however forget to mention my R/G beatz deck owning the t1 fish meta in Columbus and Findlay ( http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18970&highlight= )   It may not be the best deck, but it was the best deck at the time  

Once again, great article Steve (but next time gimme my recognition for my R/G beatz, geez you jerk)

Serracollector

[Sean Ryan]

5/3 is the new Fish!  I've been saying that for months now but the differences in surface structure of the two decks make that observation difficult.  The core strategy or deep structure of both decks revovles around tempo more than any other deck in Vintage.  What distinguishes 5/3 from the straight Prison starategy and from many other decks is it doesn't need to have complete control of the gamestate to win.  It slows the oppenent down just long enough to cruise in with the juggies & here I echo the earlier comments of Atog Lord on "land destruction".  This also opens up a lot of space in the deck for meta-hate since you don't need to devote a third of your deck to lock peices or counterspells.  In this sense 5/3 can adopt an almost "Keeperesque" nature with its 5c mana base giving it answers to any paticular threat.  Finally, what Steve said earlier about the deck being underestimated has been true up till now but no longer.  The other apsect no one has addressed yet is how easey the deck is to play - literally mind numbing in play skill required, although it does have nuances and requires good strategic design.    

That being said, I proablly wouldn't currently play "yesterdays"  deck in our PTQ style format.  Having played 5/3 since I saw "The Man Show" the most difficult match has been against profecient TPS players.  The combination  of basics, bounce, and brokeness is simply to much in the hands of good player.   Also, with manabases being streamlined for consistency, Crucible loses much of its power and with it possibly 5/3.  Tog decks with enough basics have also proved to be a difficult match...hint, hint;)  

What I loved about the article (Steves best yet) is how it illuminates the cyclical nature of open formats like Vinatge.  Each deck can only be evaluated within the structure of its metagame where different strategys hold each other together in a series of opposing tensions.

Good work!
Sean

[JACO]

As usual, another good article. I thought it was very well laid out, and written for many of the visitors to Wizards' web site who are not acclimated to Vintage.

A few minor nitpicks though, are as follows:
1) You referred to Seth Levy's EBA deck as 'T1 Dumptruck' (presumably so most Pro players or wannabes can associate it with the Extended deck that is similar), but you then go on to say 'GroAtog and EBA were good choices because they beat both archetypes.' There is no connection or reference for non T1 players that 'T1 Dumptruck' is actually 'EBA,' as you referred to it a couple of sentences later.
2) You stated 'Over 140 players showed up to Chicago, Illinois for the first major Vintage tournament in the area for years.' CrazyCon1, organized by Mike somethingorother, was actually the 'first major Vintage tournament in the area for years,' and pretty much served as a springboard for all serious Type 1 activity that would follow in Chicago. That tournament was 95+ people, and more than anything else in the area, helped revitalize tournament Type 1 Magic in Chicagoland.
3) You stated '...Oath dominated Star City Games P9 II, but got utterly destroyed at Star City Games P9 III.' While it did not Top 8 at that tournament, it was certainly hanging around the top tables all day in the main event. In the $500 side event it literally dominated, where something like 5 of the top 8 decks were Oath, including BHWC Oath, which went undefeated in that tournament.

I'd like to suggest that 5/3 is the new "Fish."  What do you think I mean by that?

The only way 5/3 is like Fish is that they have both gone largely ignored as top tier decks for an extended period of time. That is where the comparisons should end. Fish is harder to correctly pilot, but much easier and cheaper to build, puffing up its prevalance. 5/3 is easier to play, but is not available to any budget players, as it is one of the most expensive decks in the format, in terms of real-life cost of cards.

Fish and 5/3, however, are not land destruction decks, as some have suggested. They are tempo decks. Some people might be wondering how any Workshop deck could be considered a tempo deck, but if you really understand how tempo works, then you will understand that this is a crystal clear fact. Sure, they both attack an opponent's mana base, but that is part of helping them establish tempo.

[Methuselahn]

First, nice article!  

1.)  I'm not sure I learned a whole lot.  The article was clearly aimed at neophytes of Vintage, on Wizards' site.

I'm going to agree with part of what JACO said, 5/3 is an expensive deck while fish is not.  This is critically important.  I bring this up because it really affects your view of Vintage as a PTQ type format.  Card collectability is really an issue in Vintage whereas it is not in typical PTQ competition.  Surprise is important, but often it is dwarfed by brokeness and better players.

2.)  What is the deck to beat at Waterbury?? I'll take the safe answer and say 'a Workshop deck.'  

What is the deck to play?  Either a deck with lots of basics, COMBO, or skullclamp.dec.  If fish has lost it's popularity, then there are less Null Rods about.  Here is the crucial part of determining the metagame--Null Rod.  If there will be relatively few Rods, then Clamp/Ravager will wreck everything.

[Covetous]

With more serious players owning power and more 5 to 10 proxy events, the prohibitive cost of playing in Vintage tourneys is reduced and the "I have more power than you" aspect is reduced.  In non-proxy events, this can be a serious issue (see: local store "metagames"), but with 10 proxies, players who have most of the good cards other than power can still build good decks.  Yes, the need for about $4000 of cards to build non-proxy 5/3 can make it hard to build, but you really only need about $300 worth of cards if you can use 10 proxies (i.e. 1 workshop plus the rest of the deck with 7 power proxies and 3 workshop proxies).  So, someone with one mox can build the deck with 10 proxies if they can get the rest of the cards, most of which are saga block or more recent.  Fish had the advantage of requiring 2-3 power cards (for UR versions) and a lot of commons and uncommons, allowing people to build the deck for 10 proxies using about $20.  

In all fairness, most good Standard decks traditionally require abiout $200-300 of cards to build, which isn't much less than 10-proxy 5/3.  So, the allowance of 10 proxies has been a huge step toward turning Vintage into a "PTQ format."  Players who have, for example, a playset of Mana Drains and sufficient dual lands can build most any deck using 10 proxies if they have reasonable access to the specific lesser cards they need.  Of course, if you are a Standard player trying to break into Vintage, you will probably have to drop some cash and/or do some heavy trading for older staples.  But, that's the collectability thing coming back.

On the Fish vs. 5/3 issue, I think the point that the decks are/were successful because they were underrated is important.  But, it's also important to note that when people were prepared for Fish, it didn't do as well.  It is very hate-susceptible, and I think that 5/3 is the same way.  When people under-rate, and thus don't prepare for, 5/3, it owns them.  But, once people start packing effective hate against 5/3, it will have trouble.  Sure, it will always pull out those random turn 1 Trinisphere plays to win, but you can't rely on that to win tourneys in the face of substantial hate.  In fact, I personally hope that 5/3 will come under control so that the DCI doesn't restrict MWS because that would piss me off.

[thorme]

1) What did you learn?

2) Based upon my analysis, what is the "deck to beat" for Waterbury and SCG VA?

Great review of the year.

1.  Not sure how much I really learned, but it was really a great read and jogged my memory on several events.

2.  I may have a bit of a bias, but I still think 5/3 is the deck to beat for Waterbury - man I wish I could be there!  The deck to beat for SCG:VA remains to be seen, as it will be highly dependant on Waterbury's result.