[Article] SCG Daily - Love/Hate

[Vegeta2711]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10198.html

[Dozer]

Sweet! I'm looking forward to the rest of them, because this Daily was like a good chocolate bar: Gone too fast, but enjoyable to the last crumb.

One thing made me laugh:

There are a lot of good people around in the Vintage community (when they aren't busy playing WoW anyway), to interact with and that's my favorite part of Vintage. Lots of love guys.

First turn Land, Mox, Mox -> Tinker? Wow, sucks to be you.

On a more serious note, I agree with everything Josh stated.

[Smmenen]

One of the amazing things about Vintage is that while it can seem extremely swingy to the untrained eye -  a very, very small play difference with a little bit more knowledge makes the difference between winning and losing.

So I obvoiusly disagree.  And I've said why many times.  The focus is on games.  When you look at a match, the story changes.  We should NOT be caring about swingy games since, as Rich Shay once told me, games don't matter. 

Even if there is a swingy uncontrollable game in any given match, if the players and the decks are strong enough, each player takes one of those games and the real fight is over an intense and memorable deciding game (that can be game one, two, or three). And in some non-silly way, it's honestly better that way becuase playing three intense games would take two hours.

I have never seen nor do I beleive that a match in Vintage with so many complexities such as player skill, deck choice, mulligan decisions the like can ever be truly decided just by the goldfish/luck.  I think it very often appears that way to the uninformed - but the reality is that the outcome of a match is always within one's control.  It just comes down to being good and having the RIGHT deck.  Not a good deck, but the correct deck. 

Bottom line: Sure games are won by stupid brokeness, but not matches.  If you lose the match, it's your own fault.   Either because you 1) made mistakes 2) played the wrong deck 3) failed to mulligan correctly or 4) have a proper sb and proper sb plan. 

The two assumptions that underlie the claims that Vintage is bad from the swingy perspective is that games matter and that deck choice is constant.  Neither of those is true. 

[Machinus]

Bottom line: Sure games are won by stupid brokeness, but not matches.  If you lose the match, it's your own fault.

I think part of what Josh is trying to say is that the traditional characterization of Vintage matches as "lose 1 game to brokenness, win 1 game because of brokenness, play 1 fair game" can occasionally go a little differently, in that someone might get the nuts twice. I tend to agree with you that with the huge number of decisions that a good player makes before the game is over (starting with deck choice, fine tuning construction, sideboard choices, playtesting, then actually playing at the tournament which is another large set of important decisions like mulliganing, reading your opponent, sideboarding, play mistakes/choices, etc.) tend to give the better players higher and more consistent finishes, but it's possible to get "blown out" like he says, and I am sure it has happened to everyone who has played in a few large tournaments.

[Vegeta2711]

I wrote a number of articles specfically mentioning skill (my first article, my last article, etc.) and constantly explaining that skill matters.

What I'm saying is that Vintage, moreso than any other format, allows you to simply blow the opponent out of the water sometimes. And it's not just one game. It's two (Or if your testing, sometimes more). Clearly not every match is like this, but the fact is it DOES happen. I think everyone, once you play enough games of this format, ends up recognizing that 'hey, it can happen'.

Look at the example in the article. Those are the kinds of matches that happen on occassion that piss me off. It's the part of the format I dislike and I know and accept you can't get rid of them. I just wish that sometimes there were more ways than just Force of Will (As it's becoming increasingly harder to stop dedicated decks) and Chalice of the Void (A must-needed evil). That was my point.

Thanks Dozer.  That part you brought up made me laugh a bit. I didn't think about it like that when I wrote it. 

[jpmeyer]

Mana Drain and Crucible of Worlds?

[prosbloom225]

Does he say restrict chalice?  Or am I misreading?

[Smmenen]

Clearly not every match is like this, but the fact is it DOES happen. I think everyone, once you play enough games of this format, ends up recognizing that 'hey, it can happen'.

I was actually trying to make a stronger statement what my post seemed to be saying.  I am actually saying that that does not happen.  Do people get blown out?  Yes.  But I am saying that there are decisions that could have been made which could have prevented that.   I do not think it is practically possible to get stomped unstoppably two games in a row in Vintage.  It is certainly theoretically possible - i.e. I could mulligan 6 times into hands with no mana or FOW whatsoever despite having 30 mana sources in a deck.   Let's speak theroetically that combo gets a completely unstoppable draw on the play like:
Mox Jet, Duress, Gemstone Mine, Dark Ritual, Black Lotus, Mana Crypt, Mind's Desire.  That hasn't isn't beatable on the play, but that deck could get that same hand on the draw and if you lose to it, well you should have been running Chalice, Sphere of Resistence, Duress, Stifle, etc SOMETHING that can handle it.  I readily admit that games are won or lost by explosiveness - and I readily supported it.  That was one reason I wanted Trinisphere to stay unrestricted.  But I do not have to concede that matches are given away that same way.  I think it is necessary in the format to have the swingyness for practical reasons.  When I'm playing Fish, I readily admit that Stax can steal two games from you by sheer brokeness no matter HOW you mulligan or Wasteland them.  But what that tells me is not to play Fish.  Not that it's the formats fault or that the format is "random."

I guess what I'm saying is that I do not beleive "hey it can happen."  I can't think of the last time I lost two consecutive tournament games and I didn't see multiple ways in which I could have prevented it.   

[xrizzo]

Does he say restrict chalice? 

No. I thought he was careful to not call for it, but from reading it I see how you got that impression.

My guess:
Goblin Welder
Mana Drain

[Vegeta2711]

Close guys. Goblin Welder and Crucible of Worlds are on my top 15.

Mana Drain was correct and Chalice of the Void was the 2nd card.

[Elric]

One of the amazing things about Vintage is that while it can seem extremely swingy to the untrained eye -  a very, very small play difference with a little bit more knowledge makes the difference between winning and losing.

So I obvoiusly disagree.  And I've said why many times.  The focus is on games.  When you look at a match, the story changes.  We should NOT be caring about swingy games since, as Rich Shay once told me, games don't matter. 

Even if there is a swingy uncontrollable game in any given match, if the players and the decks are strong enough, each player takes one of those games and the real fight is over an intense and memorable deciding game (that can be game one, two, or three). And in some non-silly way, it's honestly better that way becuase playing three intense games would take two hours.

I have never seen nor do I beleive that a match in Vintage with so many complexities such as player skill, deck choice, mulligan decisions the like can ever be truly decided just by the goldfish/luck.  I think it very often appears that way to the uninformed - but the reality is that the outcome of a match is always within one's control.  It just comes down to being good and having the RIGHT deck.  Not a good deck, but the correct deck. 

Bottom line: Sure games are won by stupid brokeness, but not matches.  If you lose the match, it's your own fault.   Either because you 1) made mistakes 2) played the wrong deck 3) failed to mulligan correctly or 4) have a proper sb and proper sb plan. 

The two assumptions that underlie the claims that Vintage is bad from the swingy perspective is that games matter and that deck choice is constant.  Neither of those is true. 

Come on.  Unless going first is required to win with a broken hand (it helps but it isn't necessary) or sideboards can erase the possibility of an opponent going broken on you (rarely the case) then simple independence of brokenness across games means that matches are obviously going to be decided by brokenness. 

I agree that luck doesn't play as big of a role as some people say- at the same time, let's keep things in perspective: if single game can be won with brokenness, so can a match.  It's less likely than winning a game due to brokenness game, but isn’t so unlikely that it never happens.

[Smmenen]

I think what that ignores is the huge difference sbing makes.  Game one is not the same as game two.  If you have nothing to say game two, who's fault is that when there are a billion 1cc bombs (REB, BEB, Needle, Furnace, Tormod's Crypt, Duress, Xantid Swarm, Stifle, etc) that hose every major archetype?

[b-tings]

You gave an example of a hand that is unstoppable if your opponent is on the play.

What if your opponent is on the play in games one and three? Clearly, if this sort of hand is possible once in a match, it is possible twice in a match.

[Dozer]

Mox Jet, Duress, Gemstone Mine, Dark Ritual, Black Lotus, Mana Crypt, Mind's Desire.  That hand isn't beatable on the play, but that deck could get that same hand on the draw and if you lose to it, well you should have been running Chalice, Sphere of Resistence, Duress, Stifle, etc SOMETHING that can handle it.

Even if you run it, that doesn't mean you draw it. And a mulligan is not a guarantee for a hate card, either. SB space is limited, and you (almost) never bring in enough cards to guarantee one in your opening hand. Sure, you can always say "if I had drawn Duress", but fact is that sometimes you just don't. Even if you come prepared, sometimes decks just crap out.

Also, nobody plays/ builds/ mulligans flawlessly. You say that a situation is never unstoppable, but you don't ask if it is realistically stoppable. When you build a deck and a sideboard, you can never cover all possible situations. If you decide not to include a certain card, it may turn out to be a mistake afterwards, but while testing and deckbuilding, it might have been correct. If all the information you have in preparation is ultimately different from the real situation, you cannot avoid making "mistakes", i.e. not being prepared 100% correctly. A mistake or wrong decision pointed out in hindsight is not a mistake if at the time it was made, it was the correct derivation from the then-current information.

What I'm saying is that you can only guess which situations you will face in a tournament, and so you always come with a less-than-optimal deck. Even the best prepared player will eventually encounter a situation he cannot handle, regardless of playskill and the strength of the deck. The better he prepares, the lower the chances of that get, but they never disappear.

It would be illustrating to discuss this with a concrete example at hand, and Josh provides: How do you think Brad Granberry could have turned the Chicago quarterfinals around? Or did he not get blown out in that match?

Dozer

[dandan]

Way back when everyone was bad at Vintage I had a bad RGb Sedge Troll, Erg Raider deck. In my sideboard I had stuff like 2 Mishra's Factories (replaced the 2 maindeck Strips vs monocolour decks and came in vs Control and LD) plus 1 Gloom. In a local store final I won games 2 and 3 with turn 1 Gloom. I'm pretty sure more broken stuff than that happens.

[Smmenen]

You gave an example of a hand that is unstoppable if your opponent is on the play.

What if your opponent is on the play in games one and three? Clearly, if this sort of hand is possible once in a match, it is possible twice in a match.

Yes, it is theoretically possible - but in my experience of vintage tournaments it doesn't happen.  Esp. with Combo (remember I basically designed Meandeath - one of the most aggressive combo decks in the format and I never blew out an opponent two games - even with Long - it was always a battle).   

The closest thing to that actually happening was Mishra's Workshop + Trinisphere on the play two games in a match - but in my opinion, if you didn't have a Wasteland or a Force of Will or sufficient basic land that you could then drop something like Rack and Ruin then that was your fault.

[
It would be illustrating to discuss this with a concrete example at hand, and Josh provides: How do you think Brad Granberry could have turned the Chicago quarterfinals around? Or did he not get blown out in that match?

Dozer

Been playing mono blue with Back to Basics and Energy Flux   In game one, it was a blow out.  But as for the second game, Brad had a million opportunities to break out - he just didn't have an answer for Roland's Welder.  Roland made a huge play mistake.  He played the second smokestack.  He should have held the second smokestack in his hand to see if Brad had Rack and Ruin.  Roland's mistake could have been capitalized on, but Brad's SB was full of anti-control cards instead of ways to deal with opposing Welders.  He had a single Lava Dart.

Way back when everyone was bad at Vintage I had a bad RGb Sedge Troll, Erg Raider deck. In my sideboard I had stuff like 2 Mishra's Factories (replaced the 2 maindeck Strips vs monocolour decks and came in vs Control and LD) plus 1 Gloom. In a local store final I won games 2 and 3 with turn 1 Gloom. I'm pretty sure more broken stuff than that happens.

I don't think you read what I was saying....

[MuzzonoAmi]

[
It would be illustrating to discuss this with a concrete example at hand, and Josh provides: How do you think Brad Granberry could have turned the Chicago quarterfinals around? Or did he not get blown out in that match?

Dozer

Been playing mono blue with Back to Basics and Energy Flux   In game one, it was a blow out.  But as for the second game, Brad had a million opportunities to break out - he just didn't have an answer for Roland's Welder.  Roland made a huge play mistake.  He played the second smokestack.  He should have held the second smokestack in his hand to see if Brad had Rack and Ruin.  Roland's mistake could have been capitalized on, but Brad's SB was full of anti-control cards instead of ways to deal with opposing Welders.  He had a single Lava Dart.

But this goes back to what Dozer said earlier about information. There has been some talk about the number of Welders in Stax, and since Stax and CS are the two decks that run Welder most effectively and  Granberry had anti-control cards to fight CS mirrors that could work in other matchups, he probably felt (and had testing experience to suggest) that the R&Rs and the additional Echoing Truth in his sideboard were a sufficent answer to Stax.

[Rico Suave]

Been playing mono blue with Back to Basics and Energy Flux   In game one, it was a blow out.  But as for the second game, Brad had a million opportunities to break out - he just didn't have an answer for Roland's Welder.  Roland made a huge play mistake.  He played the second smokestack.  He should have held the second smokestack in his hand to see if Brad had Rack and Ruin.  Roland's mistake could have been capitalized on, but Brad's SB was full of anti-control cards instead of ways to deal with opposing Welders.  He had a single Lava Dart.

If I had been playing mono blue, then 2 things would have happened:
1) I would never have gotten where I did.
2) I would have still lost to Roland.  I never even got 3 mainphase mana against Roland at anypoint during our match.

Anyway, the 2nd game had my opening hand looking like this: 3x land, Goblin Welder, Mana Drain, RnR, TFK.  If I made a mistake, it was not mulliganing that.  I have a hard time throwing that back, especially on the play, but whatever. 

The series of plays that happened was I played land, Welder.  He played Tangle Wire, shutting down my Drain.  I drew a land.  His 2nd turn he tapped for Wire and played Smokestack.  I drew Force and played a 3rd land, preparing to RnR his things my next upkeep.  Unfortunately for me he Strip Mined delaying my RnR another turn, and then played a 2nd Smokestack, which I Forced.  That strip gave him time to ramp the Smokestack on the board and by the time I could RnR I had lost too many perms. 

Had I drawn a single piece of acceleration, I would've been able to RnR a turn earlier and that would've been enough to keep me in the game.  Him following up with Welder and Shaman would just be merely annoying.  Welders are not my primary concern, and in fact I didn't even board in Lava Dart.  It should be noted that I already maindeck Welder hate in the form of Trisk and Tormod's Crypt too.  Anyway, the reason I wouldn't have cared about Welder was because I had my own out to play with his lock pieces.  This would delay things long enough for me to cast my draw spells, which would then catapult me into control of the game.  Their artifacts are dangerous, however, which is why I boarded in RnRs.

At anyrate, I consider Stax a good match for Slaver, but like any good T1 deck Stax can 2-0 an opponent with strong draws, especially if the opponent's draw is mediocre.  Losing the die roll never helps either, which is the reason you cited for Roland losing later in the elimination rounds. 

[forests failed you]

I agree with Steve 100% that although individual games can be swingy, entire matches are consistently won via playskill and metagaming.  Even if one gets destroyed with a decent hand, there was always the option of tossing it back and taking one less card. 

In my opinion knowing when to mull is the most important skill in a Vintage player's aresenal of abilities and game based knowledge.  Players, who with any kind of frequency, whine about getting wrecked because an opponent had 'the nut draw' are usually bad at knowing when to put back seven bad cards. 

[dandan]

Way back when everyone was bad at Vintage I had a bad RGb Sedge Troll, Erg Raider deck. In my sideboard I had stuff like 2 Mishra's Factories (replaced the 2 maindeck Strips vs monocolour decks and came in vs Control and LD) plus 1 Gloom. In a local store final I won games 2 and 3 with turn 1 Gloom. I'm pretty sure more broken stuff than that happens.

I don't think you read what I was saying....

You are saying that although broken stuff happens in Vintage, it happens so infrequently that it is very rare that matches are decided by 2 broken games. You say that many people blame loses on broken plays rather than incorrect mulliganing or poor SBing.

Whilst I agree with that to an extent, I do feel that it is not at all uncommon to lose (or indeed win) games due to the brokenness inherent in our format. I gave an example of how one random SB card came out twice (due to fast mana) against a hapless opponent. It happened, it happens, it will happen.

Having said that I think we need to recognise that the amount of tutoring/card manipulation in Vintage means that although some opening hands can lead to broken wins (usually a bit of a gamble to try a fast broken win), the opening hand is LESS important than in other formats as each top deck is so much less swingy and there is far less chance to go find an answer. However few people whine about losing a Standard game on turn 6 despite the result being pretty firmly fixed once those opening hands were drawn.