What would you play at Rochester?

[Evenpence]

I was wondering how long it would take you to put my statement into your signature, Dan. 

I really don't want to play ICBM Oath, as I really don't like it.  I hate playing counterspells, particularly Drain, as it's not the kind of game I like to play.  I want to play something other than Stax, as I expect alot of Slaver at Rochester, but I don't want to play anything controllish, so that pretty much leaves combo varieties.  I could always play Grimlong, but I suspect that will be hated against too.

My options, as I see it, are the following:

Ubastax - This is the most fun deck to play for me.  I love playing this deck, but it's just not going to win at Rochester.  I could play it just to have a good time and hope I make it far, much like Richmond (which I didn't expect to Top 8 in either day).  I could also keep a policy of only playing one deck at big tournaments, which would be really fun to see how long I could keep it up.
ICBM Oath - This would be the deck least fun to play for me, however, I would be able to win with it.  A few guys on my team have been telling me that I should play something other than Shops just so people would see that I'm a diverse player, but that reason doesn't hold alot of water with me.  If I played this deck, it would be to win because of the metagame that will be present at Rochester.  It would suck if I chose this deck and didn't Top 8, because I would have forfeited having fun for winning, which I didn't accomplish.
Grimlong - This deck is almost as fun as Stax to play, and it also has more capability to do well at Rochester, but I want to do one or the other.  I suppose maybe going down the middle road would be best, as I could have fun with the deck, but I would also have fun with losing.

I'm really not interested in playing anything other than these three decks, and while I've told my team I'm probably going to play one of these, I'm really not completely decided yet.

[policehq]

I try to hate-out Oath before it gets triggered. Duress, Cabal Therapy, Meddling Mage are good options, and in the limitations of U/R, Annuls and Goblin Bombardment with man-lands.

The Oath + Null Rod decks are great because they get rid of Spawning Pit in the sideboard pre-emptively.

Would an Aggro MWS deck with Eon Hub sideboard do well?
4 Mishra's Workshop
4 Juggernaut
4 Metalworker
3 Razormane Masticore
1 Sundering Titan
4 Sphere of Resistance
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Tangle Wire
Would be the start of such a deck, and where you go from there, with colors and all, depends a lot on whether you will play Null Rod or not.

U/W Fish decks will get torn to pieces, in my opinion, by Oath, Stax, and Ichorid. The combo decks will be able to play around Meddling Mage and Chalice.

This would be my feeble attempt at taking Oath, Ichorid, Stax, and combo:
Creatures:
4 Gorilla Shaman
3 Ninja of the Deep Hours
4 Waterfront Bouncer

Draw:
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
4 Standstill
1 Time Walk

Counter:
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Force of Will
1 Misdirection
1 Stifle

Accel:
4 Aether Vial
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire

Burn:
1 Fire/Ice
1 Flames of the Blood Hand*

Lands:
2 Faerie Conclave
2 Flooded Strand
2 Island
4 Mishra's Factory
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
4 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
3 Annul
2 Shattering Spree
2 Goblin Bombardment
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
4 Tormod's Crypt

Is gold against the common mini-Tendrils to keep you in the game play. I'm not sure if it warrants a slot maindeck, but aggro needs finishers, too, and burn speeds up a clock pretty well.

I think I would play a U/B fish deck with MaskNought. Illusionary Mask helps trillions against Spheres, and Dark Confidant puts the clock on them. Phyrexian Dreadnought can race Oath, and anti-combo cards like Tormod's Crypt and Arcane Laboratory can go in the sideboard. It would look like my Judo-Top deck post-sideboard.

4 Phyrexian Dreadnought
4 Illusionary Mask
4 Trinket Mage
2 Artificer's Intuition
(14)
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Burning Wish
(3)
1 Echoing Truth
1 Rebuild
2 Duress
4 Force of Will
3 Remand
(11)
3 Diabolic Intent
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Tinker
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Sensei's Divining Top
(8)
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Chromatic Sphere
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mana Vault
(11)
2 Gorilla Shaman
1 Xantid Swarm
(3)
4 City of Brass
2 Gemstone Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Polluted Delta
2 Underground Sea
(11)
Sideboard:
1 Echoing Ruin
1 Pyroclasm
2 Massacre
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Morningtide
3 Arcane Laboratory
3 Tormod's Crypt
1 Pithing Needle
1 Darkblast
1 Darksteel Colossus

Un-tested, and the sideboard would need work, but this is what I hope to play at SCG NC.

-hq

[M.Solymossy]

I would play my new slaver varient or oath.  PRobobly oath, if I were to go.

[dicemanx]

This would be my feeble attempt at taking Oath, Ichorid, Stax, and combo:

Why wouldn't you take your Judo Top deck into Rochester? You've done the work for it, why not try to prove the deck in a prestigious event?

[policehq]

This would be my feeble attempt at taking Oath, Ichorid, Stax, and combo:

Why wouldn't you take your Judo Top deck into Rochester? You've done the work for it, why not try to prove the deck in a prestigious event?

I'm personally not going to Rochester, but I will be taking the MaskNought list above or Judo Top to North Carolina.

Exciting times. That'll be my first SCG.

-hq

[Smmenen]

My honest to god advice is that the deck you play is less relevant than playing a deck you can play expertly with a plan to beat the major archetypes. 

[CrashTest]

I don't think Gifts is as weak as some make it out to be. It is still a very strong deck, even with the absence of Time Vault. In fact, the new lists may prove to be even better because they have less dead cards. (Time Vault kill was good, but most of the time I'd win via Tinker/DSC anyway.)

[Shock Wave]

My honest to god advice is that the deck you play is less relevant than playing a deck you can play expertly with a plan to beat the major archetypes. 

This quote should be added to the gospel of T1 strategy. It seems like such common sense, but apparently not, seeing as how every other thread I open has comments like "OMG! Rochester is coming! What's the best deck to play!?".

[Juggernaut GO]

seeing as how every other thread I open has comments like "OMG! Rochester is coming! What's the best deck to play!?".

Well, its not like anyone else writes anything constructive on these forums any longer, if all you want to do is complain about threads I start that get moved to the improvement forum, don't bother replying at all.  Or better yet, why don't you come up with something relevant to say about vintage.

[Shock Wave]

seeing as how every other thread I open has comments like "OMG! Rochester is coming! What's the best deck to play!?".

Well, its not like anyone else writes anything constructive on these forums any longer, if all you want to do is complain about threads I start that get moved to the improvement forum, don't bother replying at all.  Or better yet, why don't you come up with something relevant to say about vintage.

On the contrary, there's plenty of constructive discussion on the forums, if you're willing to look for it. I could probably find 5-6 threads right now that contain what I would consider good food for thought. The title of this thread was: "What would you play at Rochester?" not "What's the best deck to play?". My comment was not a complaint, nor was it directed at you so I'm not quite sure why you took offence.

If you feel there is a best deck to play, I would have to disagree. I think that discussion itself raises a lot of interesting issues.

[Smmenen]

seeing as how every other thread I open has comments like "OMG! Rochester is coming! What's the best deck to play!?".

Well, its not like anyone else writes anything constructive on these forums any longer, if all you want to do is complain about threads I start that get moved to the improvement forum, don't bother replying at all.  Or better yet, why don't you come up with something relevant to say about vintage.

I think part of the problem is that too often  people assume that they have the requisite playskill when they in fact do not.  As a consequence, they think that the only thing that matters is deck choice.  This is an illusion.  What matters is how well you play and plan for each match.  Skill is more critical to victory than pure deck design.  I have no quarrel with a thread that seeks to direct attention to deck sthat might be better in the metagame, but it obscures the reality that skill plays a larger role than deck choice alone.  This fact needs to be kept in view. 

[Evenpence]

What matters is how well you play and plan for each match.  Skill is more critical to victory than pure deck design.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  I actually wrote a post earlier that I deleted because it brought up other arguments you have made in the past towards playskill (which I'm assuming is what you mean when you say "Skill" in the second sentence I quoted) being a stronger asset than deckbuilding.  I deleted it because I felt it was actually unfair towards you.

Deckbuilding is just as much a needed wisdom as Playskill.

Obviously, you need both to be able to compete.  I'm not arguing that, and I would doubt you would disagree with me there.

However, I actually believe that Deckbuilding is a more important wisdom to have, rather than Playskill.  You know this fact well, because you've created deck concepts (however different they first appeared than their optimal versions, such as Oath), which have singlehandedly made people (primarily your team) place well in tournaments (like Richmond).  I don't believe you could say that everyone who has ever T8ed has "deserved" (as in, playskilled his way into it) to be there at a major venue.

I made numerous play mistakes on several of my matches on my way to a Richmond T8 on Saturday and Sunday.  So did you.  Was it our playskill that made us win against our opponents?  Maybe.  I doubt that it was solely, or even primarily or majorily that which allowed us to T8.

My playset of Tormod's Crypts in my board allowed me to beat your Ichorid deck.  If I would not have had them, I would not have won that match, and I wouldn't have Top 8ed Day 1.  That's only one example, not to even mention Jester's Cap.

I agree with you when you say:

I think part of the problem is that too often people assume that they have the requisite playskill when they in fact do not.

However, your tournament reports (and my own) have expressed that we made mistakes which cost us games.

We did well, but it wasn't because we made really good plays.  We probably, on average, made less mistakes than our opponents, sure.  However, we had good decks that were geared to beat the metagame and we're competent players.  That's why we did well.

[Tin_Mox5831]

Fair enough, but in a tight spot, would you rather rely on 60 randomized cards or the ability to keep your wits about you and make the right call? I certainly see your point, I just feel that skill is the one part of the game that you can rely on most. It has far less inherent risk than even the most consistent decklist. 

[policehq]

Fair enough, but in a tight spot, would you rather rely on 60 randomized cards or the ability to keep your wits about you and make the right call? I certainly see your point, I just feel that skill is the one part of the game that you can rely on most. It has far less inherent risk than even the most consistent decklist. 

But you have to put what he said in context with his last quote too, that piloting the deck you can play expertly with a plan to beat the top decks is better than playing a deck that you know to be good with cards that can beat the top decks.

The right cards without the knowledge of how to play them correctly might as well be randomized.

-hq

[Disburden]

Meandeck Gifts. Because it's my favorite Drain deck.

[Smmenen]

What matters is how well you play and plan for each match.  Skill is more critical to victory than pure deck design.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  I actually wrote a post earlier that I deleted because it brought up other arguments you have made in the past towards playskill (which I'm assuming is what you mean when you say "Skill" in the second sentence I quoted) being a stronger asset than deckbuilding.  I deleted it because I felt it was actually unfair towards you.

Deckbuilding is just as much a needed wisdom as Playskill.

Obviously, you need both to be able to compete.  I'm not arguing that, and I would doubt you would disagree with me there.

However, I actually believe that Deckbuilding is a more important wisdom to have, rather than Playskill.  You know this fact well, because you've created deck concepts (however different they first appeared than their optimal versions, such as Oath), which have singlehandedly made people (primarily your team) place well in tournaments (like Richmond).  I don't believe you could say that everyone who has ever T8ed has "deserved" (as in, playskilled his way into it) to be there at a major venue.

I made numerous play mistakes on several of my matches on my way to a Richmond T8 on Saturday and Sunday.  So did you.  Was it our playskill that made us win against our opponents?  Maybe.  I doubt that it was solely, or even primarily or majorily that which allowed us to T8.

My playset of Tormod's Crypts in my board allowed me to beat your Ichorid deck.  If I would not have had them, I would not have won that match, and I wouldn't have Top 8ed Day 1.  That's only one example, not to even mention Jester's Cap.

I agree with you when you say:

I think part of the problem is that too often people assume that they have the requisite playskill when they in fact do not.

However, your tournament reports (and my own) have expressed that we made mistakes which cost us games.

We did well, but it wasn't because we made really good plays.  We probably, on average, made less mistakes than our opponents, sure.  However, we had good decks that were geared to beat the metagame and we're competent players.  That's why we did well.

This actually leads to a rather complicated explanation of my view.   I'll explain it further to you in Rochester, if you are there. but the basic idea is that skill here is not merely playskill - but understanding - knowledge - experience. 

If you read my article on skill, you'll see that I think there are two components to it: forward thinking and pattern recognition.  Both of those elements combine and lead to design changes.

In my opinion, ALMOST any deck relying on some of the key bombs in vintage; Drains, Workshops, Rituals, etc can actually beat ANY OTHER deck in Vintage.  It requires alot of testing so that you can learn the matchup, know how it plays out, and then test and tune to beat the other deck. 

Tweaks are evidence of skill - your knowledge of the match parlays into design changes.  That is part of what I mean by play skill.  You can't make those tweaks or play the deck at a top level without a certain amount of skill FIRST.

The skill comes FIRST.  Skill begets proper design.

I should mention that in the past I've always downplayed skill.  I used to be on the other side of the argument. 
I'll explain further in Rochester if you wish.

[policehq]

Is anyone here also planning on attending the North Carolina event, since I won't be able to attend Rochester?

-hq

[Evenpence]

This actually leads to a rather complicated explanation of my view.   I'll explain it further to you in Rochester, if you are there. but the basic idea is that skill here is not merely playskill - but understanding - knowledge - experience. 

If you read my article on skill, you'll see that I think there are two components to it: forward thinking and pattern recognition.  Both of those elements combine and lead to design changes.

In my opinion, ALMOST any deck relying on some of the key bombs in vintage; Drains, Workshops, Rituals, etc can actually beat ANY OTHER deck in Vintage.  It requires alot of testing so that you can learn the matchup, know how it plays out, and then test and tune to beat the other deck. 

Tweaks are evidence of skill - your knowledge of the match parlays into design changes.  That is part of what I mean by play skill.  You can't make those tweaks or play the deck at a top level without a certain amount of skill FIRST.

The skill comes FIRST.  Skill begets proper design.

I should mention that in the past I've always downplayed skill.  I used to be on the other side of the argument. 
I'll explain further in Rochester if you wish.

I would actually really like that.  Yeah, I would read your article if I had premium access.  I just lost it like three days ago or something and haven't taken the time to get an annual subscription.

I'll almost certainly be at Rochester, although I might not be.  If I am, I'll see you there.

[TopSecret]

     I would play Mono Blue Fish, with four Grayscaled Gharials main, and no Force of Will.
And if not that, then something with four Repeals maindeck.

[EnialisLiadon]

@playskill vs deck choice:  I agree with Smennen.  When Josh Meckes(sp?) won Waterbury with GAT, everyone was like, "OMG gat wonzors" but then...he's been playing it since...forever.  I'm sure that the level of expertise with the deck and the time he must spend testing against "main-stream" usually outweighs his opponent's netdeck that was chosen because he thought the meta was right for said netdeck.

Personally, playing something that isn't my forte or something I don't like just makes me uncomfortable, especially during tournament rounds.  As such, I would take a drain deck to Richmond, but not a list anyone else has.

[Purple Hat]

anyone not playing kokusho kombo should be taken out back and shot....it's the best deck EVAR well...with the exception of my panoptic mirror Shaharzzad deck, that thing was sick, it forced the draw on like turn 5

[Vegeta2711]

Deck design only doesn't matter, because the majority of players aren't putting in the requisite time / gaining skill to make it an issue.

[Dxfiler]

Hi -_-  I'm David.  Nice to meet you all.  I'm going to play RG beats, it seems like a real good deck.  Here's my list!

3 Hidden Gibbons (They don't stay hidden for long!)
4 Pyrostatic Pillar (They usually take more damage!!!)
4 Grim Lavamancer (More Damage!  And it can be aimed at creatures too!)
4 Lightning Bolt (OMG the damage!)
4 Null Rod (It can be damaging to heavy artifact decks!)
3 Artifact Mutation (It mutates their artifacts into powerful allies!)
4 River Boa (Pow!)
4 Tin Street Hooligan (Wam!)
3 Gorilla Shaman (Can't stop a Mishra's, but that's ok!)
4 Kird Ape (OMG!)

1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald

3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Tagia
4 Stomping Ground (if you're playing this deck, u gotta go all out!)
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Forest
2 Mountain

SIDEBOARD!
3 Root Maze (It's a green Time Walk!)
3 Red Elemental Blast (Red isn't supposed to have countermagic!)
4 Mogg Fanatic (Here Fishy Fishy Fishy!)
3 Blood Moon (Now your mana sux!)
1 Artifact Mutation (More Allies!)

Why do people never mention this archtype?!  It seems really powerful!  You've got the Kird Apes, and the Bolts... and the Pokemon.

Don't miss the boat!  All aboard the RG Train!  The Kird Apes are coming to GETCHA!

Nice 2 meet u all.  Any feedback's appreciated.  K! Thx! bye! <3

- David, Longtime TMD Fan

[zeus-online]

Was that a serious post? I found it hilarios, though not exactly all that serious....!

/Zeus

[The Atog Lord]

Was that a serious post? I found it hilarios, though not exactly all that serious....!

Don't laugh. Dave Feinstein has won multiple pieces of power with Red/Green Aggro decks. This is in no way a joke. To Dave Feinstein!

I could also keep a policy of only playing one deck at big tournaments, which would be really fun to see how long I could keep it up.

Evenpence, you have many years ahead of you if you want to take the title of longest-actively-playing-the-same-deck from me.

If I go, I'll be packing Mindslavers and Mana Drains.

[T00L]

Dave Feinstein is pretty much my hero forever. If i were to end up in rochester i'd probably play ichorid or the GGs newest deck.

[Ben Kossman]

R/G is amazing  in an environment that has a bunch of Workshops but I'd really hate to get matched up vs. Tendrils or Gifts.
Do the Pyrostatic Pillars actually help that matchup at all?

[Disburden]

Hi -_-  I'm David.  Nice to meet you all.  I'm going to play RG beats, it seems like a real good deck.  Here's my list!

This is friggin awesome. I couldn't believe you playing R/G beats would get cooler. Now you're using Stomping Grounds and going to Tin street. I might have to adjust my girlfriends R/G beats deck to something like this (Yeah, she plays R/G Beats).

To Dave Feinstein!

[zeus-online]

Sorry, its just a bit hard for me to belive that a Type 1 deck with kird ape's can "good"... Sure in a heavy, heavy, heavy stax field i could see it being good....but still, its using kird ape?


/Zeus

[T00L]

Don't question the ways of the great Feinstein.

Once Dave Feinstein showed up for a Type 1 tournament without a deck so he purchased a deck of playing cards. He later won 3 moxes and the tournament organizers wife.

TO DAVE FEINSTEIN!