[Article] Randy Buehler Interview/Tournament Report

[Jacob Orlove]

Randy Buehler Rides Again!

TONS of interesting stuff there. Go read it.

[erictehfatz0r]

That article was amazing. It's great to see new reactions to Type I, and even though that was his first tournament, he echoed many statements that many of the brightest on here have said. I find that to be interesting and cool.

[IShHmokeDaNKs]

I found the end of the article the most interesting, when Randy talks about type one construction through card innovation/creation and player interaction. I thought the line of questions JP had were very sufficient, covering both Randy success with Control Slaver in the tournament and his experience with utility through card interaction, from a more standardized point of view.

I read all my PMs. Message to me deleted.
-Jacob

[Machinus]

It's definitely a decision intensive format, but I didn't find it any more complicated than Constructed normally is. It's just swingy-er.
...
The format is clearly flawed and games are decided faster than I would describe as "healthy" for Magic.
...
My boss calls it "The Abomination" and I wouldn't go that far, but I do understand his point.

Very interesting interview. Maybe its better that SCG stays away from california - R&D doesn't need any more lotuses.

[nataz]

the most interesting stuff for me

JP: How does R&D get their information on Vintage?

Randy: Mostly by reading articles and analysis on the 'Net, though we also put together playtests decks from time to time.

and

JP: Another issue in Vintage right now is whether or not the games are over too quickly. Was this a problem at your tourney or were the games suitably long?

Randy: The format is clearly flawed and games are decided faster than I would describe as "healthy" for Magic. That said, I found that the games took more turns, in general, than I was expecting going in.

and finally

JP: How much consideration is given to Vintage when designing cards?

Randy: We design the occasional card specifically for it, and we usually notice when one of our cards is likely to be particularly relevant to it; but mostly we ignore it. The format is so huge and the power level is so ridiculously high that we can't actually impact it all that much. My boss calls it "The Abomination" and I wouldn't go that far, but I do understand his point.

[kalkhasse]

This statement was what caught my eye.

Randy Buehler wrote:

Thirst also seems like a pretty weak card compared to the other options available in Type 1.

What other cards is he talking about?

[Toad]

Trinisphere only resolved on turn 1 once, and that was out of an Affinity deck that didn't do anything else. I looked at my land-heavy draw and had no problem with this...
I didn't have the Force but I probably wouldn't have used it even if I did.

[dandan]

Let's not get hung up on some of what he said. If I were designing a 2/2 for 2W I wouldn't think about it's impact on Vintage either.

Toad - Affinity decks with 3sphere are not what got it restricted, particularly ones that did nothing to fall it up.

Good to see Randy's playing skills apply to Vintage, it means that we are playing the game not just flipping coins.

[Freelancer]

While reading the interview/report I got the feeling that Randy did not think that trinisphere is that dangerous or 'unfun'...Now I don't know if Randy was in the chopping block team but could this mean that there was not consensus about this issue in R&D? (Toad made the qoute I'm referring to)

This was a amazing article good work...

[DavidHernandez]

I think that's the best and most informative interview I've read in a long while.

Good job J.P., and congrats Randy.

Dave.

[CHA1N5]

I think this was a very interesting read, but I must equate it more to a train wreck than an informative article.  

Randy is clearly very intelligent and skilled, which means that he has strong experience and intuition about all things Magic.  Unfortunately, he also is a bit out of date with regard to T1.  I read his comments as usually demonstrating these two poles, sometimes simultaneously.  Any examples I would give have already been referenced in this thread, so I'll just say that it's interesting that he concludes that he could have won all but one of the games he lost if he had played better but he still believes that the format is flawed that the format is decided too fast.  What criteria is he using for the format being flawed such that it allows such a high percentage of his games to be decided by skill?  Am I misreading his intent?


I hated reading his bit about proxies being bad.  Thanks for setting us back 2 years, Randy    


I think the biggest lesson that we as a community can learn from this article and Aaron's re: B/R changes is that public opinion/perception is still more powerful than all other data sources regarding T1 Policy.  R&D doesn't care about the format except when opinion/perception threatens the player base.

[Triple_S]

Cron said:

I think the biggest lesson that we as a community can learn from this article and Aaron's re: B/R changes is that public opinion/perception is still more powerful than all other data sources regarding T1 Policy. R&D doesn't care about the format except when opinion/perception threatens the player base.

I agree with that 100%...while the average Vintage player does not buy a lot of cards we do buy cards on occasion (Mirrodin block for example) and we do tend to be the most loyal to the game since we have such a large monetary long term investment.  A card such as Trinisphere that stifles the fun factor of the format (with even needed a U open) should go for general principles.

[andrewpate]

I agree with that, and I also think that it is sensible.  We don't win piles of money like in other constructed formats, and our format is also much less dynamic (in that half our card base doesn't rotate out every year).  We play because it is fun, and once we get a good card it stays around for a long time.  This gives us very different criteria for DCI rulings than other formats have.

Imagine a card that is extremely skill-intensive to use, like Cabal Therapy.  Imagine that when used perfectly it's a bit broken, like Fact or Fiction power level or so.  That would probably need to be banned in Standard, but I don't think we would complain about it.  People complained about Trinisphere because it came down on turn 1 and a monkey could beat you with a good Stax draw.  If it had been equally good but only if Carl or Kevin or Steve was behind it, it would have been a different story.  We value "skill-intensive" more than we value "not overpowered."

I'm glad to hear that R&D recognizes this distinction.

[Corndog]

I was the "affinity" player in top 8. I got screwed against him, i had to mull both games, he had welder out like turn 2/whatever turn he got outa trinisphere's grip both games. Also after mulling and going first, i put my faith in trinisphere's hands. Now, keep in mind after trinisphere hit, i also wastelanded him twice, and stripmined.. and a few turns later when i actually died, he was at 6 lands again. His heavy land draw won him the game by far. When trinisphere hit, he asked to make sure it effected force of will and such.

As far as the affinity goes, not a single card in my deck has affinity. I was playing Crusher. The next day with the same deck i won a mox emerald. CS is the worst matchup for this deck, because any slaver activation usually loses you the game. Not to mention that welder is bad news also.

What I learned from that top8 against randy.. Trini +3 strip effects doesnt always win you the game...

[Dr. Sylvan]

JP, since this event was six rounds, and the top prize was a Lotus, why didn't you ask the most important question: "Where can I find the decklists?" ;-)

Are there any plans for more interviews in the future?

[ruken]

I was Randy's first round opponent, who disgruntledly conceded game two with a flourish - no red or blue mana sources in play except for a topdecked Island on the last turn I survived, having run an active Library for 4 or 5 turns.  Randy's a good player and would have probably rolled me anyway, but I would have at least liked to have put up a fight.  The mull-to-a-bad-six-card-hand in game one didn't help either.

After the game I broke out my Navia Dratp set and asked him to keep an eye on the game and bend some ears at WotC in case Bandai decides to dump it due to poor sales.  There's a game where zero luck is involved, which was very pertinent after my miserable draws which were rampant at the tournament.  Those of you who haven't played this game yet, DO IT.  It's the best game of 2004 by a country mile.

But congratulations to Randy, who managed to apply his legendary skill to a flawed, broken environment and win first place out of 54.  Does this seem odd?

[jcb193]

Awesome interview.  I found it incredibly interesting how much attention is paid to the Vintage media!

jb