[Premium Article] Recent Vintage Tech

[Smmenen]

Looking for a cutting edge deck to play? In this article I canvass the Vintage tournament scene and present four decks that I think represent the best Vintage tech from the last month or so. Whether you are a Vintage newbie or an expert, you should take a peek.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11041.html

These lists represent some of the hottest Vintage tech and definitely reflect cutting edge technology you may not have seen. Don't be surprised if you see these decks in future top 8s. As with anything in Vintage, expertise counts for a lot. But I encourage you to play around with these decks. Vintage is alluring because the card pool is totally unique. To have the most fun with these decks, I suggest you plug them into Magic Workstation (you can download them from this website), go online and play some games, and see what you think. Vintage is a great format with a constantly changing metagame. Even if you aren't a big Vintage player, learning these decks will flex your magical muscles and enhance your technical skills. Good luck and remember to have fun!

[Dante]

Good catchup for non-TMD readers, but anyone who's following TMD, none of these were any surprise. 

[nataz]

I'm not sure I liked the oath deck anywhere near as much as you. Oath with null rod is sweet, but they only ran two. Other then that, muddle the mixture has proved lack luster for me anyways. GWS oath never really had a problem finding things, and even though the transmute is uncountable, the oath and the null rod are not.

What I really want to see is an oath deck with Chains, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm still not sold on Brian's deck being the best slaver list out there. I think its a fine deck, and he is obviously a good player, but I really did like the CA build. The return of Bloodmoon to CS is the bestest thing I've seen in a while.

I liked the idea of "meandeck winz", if only because it actualy used vanilla beaters. For that alone, it is different and "special". I don't however like its match-up with oath, and it seems like a pretty glaring hole considering its one of the more popular decks in the format. This combined with complete draw dependency makes me worried about its chances in anything with more then 4 or 5 rounds. Even stax has Bazaar or TFK.

Anyways, it was a fun little read, and it did highlight some interesting stuff. Sometimes it is easy to miss new/interesting ideas in the inter-web clutter.

[Smmenen]

Part of my purpose here is to draw in newer players and stimulate interest in the format.  That's why I like the way SCG has the decklists ready for download.  Creating buzz is often as important as anything else. 

I think Rod is really hot in Oath, regardless of whether Muddle is optimal.  I would probably run 3 rods.

The Fish deck was going to be a surprise, but Rian requested his report go up first. 

[Vander]

Ahh, finally someone notices the power of Null Rod in Oath  Nice article, Steve!

[49 Cents]

It's a pitty you misspelled Daniel Paardekooper's name..

Quote from Daniel: 'Null rod won me the tourney'

[kirdape3]

The Oath matchup is pretty terrible, but there are ways to beat that there deck there.

As for the lack of draw engine, this is the most consistent deck I've ever seen in Vintage.  You're going to see roughly the same opening hands every game - one one-drop, one two-drop, one lock piece, either a Force of Will or a Brainstorm, one random card and two mana sources.  In most cases, that hand is sufficient to at least give you a fighting chance against literally everybody in the format.

As for Null Rod, right now it's the best effect in the format.  Every deck that either has a comparatively low mana curve or some way to break the symmetry should be playing that card.

[Dante]

Part of my purpose here is to draw in newer players and stimulate interest in the format.  That's why I like the way SCG has the decklists ready for download.  Creating buzz is often as important as anything else. 

right, I think in that respect (new players, keep semi-interested players up on some developments), the article does it's job just fine.  I just don't think anyone here will get excited about it.

[Smmenen]

Some paranoid reader from Waterbury was complaining in the scg forum that I write to mislead the metagame.

This is utter nonsense.  I won't be playing in any vintage tournament until March due to my schedule.  Any suggestion that I write to steer the metagame is nonsense

I get paid to write perrtinent material. 

My general MO is as follows;

1) develop a deck
2) win power
3) write a primer on it

I did that alot in 2004 and I did it a couple of times this year,  Unfortunately with Cron Stax, I only got 9th place at SCG and with meandeck tendrils I won nothing.  I did win power with Gifts and Grim Long.  I wrote a primer on Suicide Virus without ever playing it only becuase it was in my development box, but I never got a chance to play it.

My favorite article I wrote this year was Rehearsing the Doomsday piles becuase it was so comprehensive. 

But I do not write articles to mislead.

Since I've taken over Dr. Sylvan's responsibilities, the type of article I write will greatly expand.  This article was a result of my metagame analysis efforts.  Since I have all of the top 8 data at my fingertips and since I closely analyze it, I will be doing a "recent vintage tech article" probably every other month.  It will just be an article to direct people's attention to hot decks so that they'll download them and play them. 

But I do not write articles to mislead to take advantage of the metagame.

I don't know why, but a number of northeastern players are paranoid about meandeck and myself in general.  It's bizaare. 

[Whatever Works]

I really wish the article was premium. However, I am pretty sure I will be able to get lists anyway. i would be fairly suprised I saw something new.

Most people dont think you try to "fix" the metagame. There is absolutely no benefit to do that at the moment. AND if people are dumb ennough to follow your ideas blindly (or ANYONES ideas blindly) just because they are a big name player then they are idiots who wouldnt succeed in the tournement regardless of what they play.

However, I still believe that you might of tweeked the metagame just a little bit at gencon 2 years ago when you played mono blue, but that really wasnt as much you misleading people (since fish was the best deck) as it was you taking advantage of the metagame that you you (and mainly PTW) helped to create.

Kyle

[Juggernaut GO]

i gave up on being paranoid, I just play the game now instead

[Smmenen]

I never understood your comments before when you accused me of targeting you or ignoring you or whatever.

To the extent that I tweak the metagame, it is by trying to write about Vintage in a coherent way.

I think Vintage was at its best in the last six months of 2004 (obviously when I was doing my best) in that:

1) at any given time there were only a couple of best decks
2) those best decks kept changing with no deck staying in there for very long
3) new decks came out regularly

all three factors intertwined. 

I wrote a piece for MTG.com saying that Workshop Aggro, 4cc and Fish were the three best decks.  I think they were.  Sure enough, I played each one at least once at Gencon.  That's the best metagame, imo becauase when you have basically three or four best decks and then a number of decks you can expect to see, you can metagame with a new deck and go X-1-1 and make top 8 seeing a bad match.  I played mono blue and went 6-0, but my deck was  immediately obsolete by the printing of Forbidden Orchard. 

I was going to play oath anyway before I saw orchard becuase it beat Fish, WOrkshop aggro, and mono blue and six decks in the top 8 had Goblin welder.  Then when everyone played Oath, I played Doomsday. 

I think the metagame right now is too fractured and inbred - characterized by tweaking of old decks rather than new decks.  That's a problem because it doesn't permit new decks to get a foothold very easily. 

Instead, there are three oath builds, three stax builds, and three gifts builds with at least two maybe three control slaver and three fish decks. 

How the hell do you metagame against those decks when any metagame tweak you make will be effective against only certain builds of those decks?   

[Vegeta2711]

Make a better deck. Otherwise it's sour grapes and you accept you can't beat the entire metagame and accept losses to whichever is least prevelant in your metagame.

[M.Solymossy]

I'm curious Smemmen as to which of each of the oath and stax lists you find to be the best of those varients.

[The Atog Lord]

I think the metagame right now is too fractured and inbred - characterized by tweaking of old decks rather than new decks.  That's a problem because it doesn't permit new decks to get a foothold very easily... How the hell do you metagame against those decks when any metagame tweak you make will be effective against only certain builds of those decks?   

(note: commenting yet didn't read article)

It seems to me, Steve, that you are upset because the metagame is, well, diverse. Much of your past success has been from creating decks which exploit specific and discrete inefficiencies in a metagame. You have in the past spotted holes in deck design and deckbuilding, and exploited them. The ability of anyone to do this is a vital and important skill, and can lead to victory.

However, the effectiveness of this strategy depends on there being a metagame narrow enough for those holes and exploits to exist. Given a diverse enough field, a "metagame" deck becomes a difficult thing to create, because the decks in a diverse metagame tend not to have common weaknesses.

Therefore, I wonder if the reason you dislike the current metagame is that it isn't optimal for your strategy of gameplay, that of metagame analysis. You point out that the current metagame does not permit new decks to get a foothold easily; yet, you are assuming that new decks gain a foothold by having some ability to exploit common themes and weaknesses among existent decks. Rather, there may perhaps be a new deck which can gain a foothold not because of some weakness among existing decks, but rather because it itself is a strong and viable strategy.

So, yes, this metagame isn't great for metagaming and playing metagame decks. That alone, however, doesn't mean that its a bad metagame.

[Smmenen]

I think it is far more complicated than that.  The dynamics of the vintage metagame are not unlike the complicated dynamics of an economy.  There are many actors and many different institutional structures that form and direct the current metagame.  Moreover, these concepts that we are bandying about are multifaceted.  You differentiate between a metagame deck and an objectively powerful new strategy.  Why can't a deck be both at the same time?  I think meandeck Oath was such a deck, as were many of the decks I innovate and pilot. 

I have taken up the work of Dr. Sylvan not so much to create a metagame as to make the one we have coherent.  Coherence is as much information and conceptual as it is actual.  I think it helps everyone out, not just "arbiters" who exploit metagame gaps as people engaged in arbitrage exploit price gaps in markets. 

[Smmenen]

I'm curious Smemmen as to which of each of the oath and stax lists you find to be the best of those varients.

I think one of the points I was trying to make is that there isn't a best variant of these decks.  They each do different things in different circumstances.  I think there may be a better or a worse list, but I would hesitate to come out and say Oath X is best. 

[Whatever Works]

I think the general message is that type 1 has currently trapped itself in an odd situation that will last to the release of the new set.

The problem is that there are soooo many variations of the same deck for every single major archtype, and nobody is even close to agreement on which deck is the best, or which deck could potentially be the best. All these variations of decks show innovation (which is good), but they also show the lack of efficiency within the metagame. All these slight variations of decks play slightly differently, and thus there matchups are varied as well. Thus, it makes it almost impossible to find an effective hole in the metagame for any changes or new ideas. To create a powerful new deck list and find your matchup vs. stax requires testing vs. 3 different variations, and completely different strategies... All at the same time dealing with completly different forms of disruption that do not exist in many formats.

Kyle

[Juggernaut GO]

memnarch is the answer to the metagame.  Just steal your opponents board and you win.  G G.

[49 Cents]

memnarch is the answer to the metagame.  Just steal your opponents board and you win.  G G.

I dare you to play Mycosynth Lattice / Memnarch / Metalworker.dec..

[Buttons]

Null Rod, and not Uba Mask is the reason Ubastax wins.  (against decks like Fish, obviously Uba is better, but that's not what I'm saying)

Anyway, I don't know if you all were talking about Null Rod in Oath, but ever since the Chalice of the Void thread, and before that, I've been saying that Null Rod should be in Oath.  Why would Oath run Chalice over it?

Anyway, cheerio, smmenen.  Play me on MWS with something sometime.

[Jacob Orlove]

Discussion of SCG premium moved to this thread. From now on, that is the only place where discussion of SCG Premium will be acceptable.

[forests failed you]

Null Rod and Uba Mask are both really powerful cards.

But, I think the reason that Uba Stax is such a good deck is that, as a whole, it is a huge pile of synergy.  Every card in the deck has a place, and every interaction is savage.  Not to mention the deck plays with answers to pretty much every threat and problem that can present itself over the course of a seven round tourney,.