[Premium Article] Offshoots and Ladders

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13687.html

In this article I examine recent trends in Grim Tutor and Gifts lists.  I talk about decks like Cross Long, Ritual Gifts and the impact of ETW on Vintage combo. 

This article is, again, very long.  I imagine there will be alot of questions raised.    Please give me time to respond - I probably won't even have a chance to look at them until later tomorrow night, let alone draft adequate responses.

[Moxlotus]

I agree.  While going through the Waterbury decks, I has having a hell of a time just trying to name things.  Since the kills in these decks are pretty much the same, it was the support cards that determined the names.  But there were so many crossovers--that hadn't really happened before.

On Grim Long.  I have been trying to figure out what I think is the best combo deck.  You have 5c manabase to give you access to Xantids and EtW--but then you also lose Brainstorm/fetch and basics.  You really can't run xantid and EtW with fetches--so if you want fetches you have to choose one or the other.  If you choose red, you have to find something else to help out in the control matches.  If you choose green, you have to find something else to help fish and Stax.

Then you have the problem of which spirit guide to run if you want to play with both.  We're about to go to back to the days when arguing over the last 2 cards in Keeper was the cool thing to do--only this time it will be 4 or 5 cards.

I definitely liked this article a lot.  Lots of information, analyzing trends, and using them to predict the future.  These are my favorite articles.

[ErkBek]

That was one of the best articles I've read in a long time. The line between combo and control is drawing so thin now its crazy. I noticed that you didn't address Drain TPS, what are your thoughts on that deck? Do you think the intuition AK engine is just not right in these hybrids?

[monSt4r]

That was one of the best articles I've read in a long time. The line between combo and control is drawing so thin now its crazy. I noticed that you didn't address Drain TPS, what are your thoughts on that deck? Do you think the intuition AK engine is just not right in these hybrids?

While you are intuitioning and setting up some AK's, you can simply cast Gifts and win from there...faster, cleaner, less luck factor combo...

[Gekoratel]

While you are intuitioning and setting up some AK's, you can simply cast Gifts and win from there...faster, cleaner, less luck factor combo...

Personally I disagree with this statement because the Intuition/AK control decks had a very strong showing at Waterbury.  I do agree with your assessment that Gifts can win faster I think that T1T would rather assume the control role on the back of Duress/Force/Drain.  The only decks that I know of that run Intuition and AK are actually more control-centric than combo.

The article was very good, probably one of your best in a while which is saying something.  I am constantly modifying my combo deck and I've tried many iterations with varying degrees of success.  The fragmentation you addressed is something that I knew in the back of my mind but I enjoyed the way that you addressed it.  I think one of the most important things for combo players is choosing a deck that fits your play style.  I tried Cross-Long for a while but the decreased number of threats and slightly slower combo didn't fit my way of playing combo.  Probably my favorite part of the article was the table at the end of the article; I think there is a ton of information in that small portion.

[SadPanda]

That was one of the best articles I've read in a long time. The line between combo and control is drawing so thin now its crazy. I noticed that you didn't address Drain TPS, what are your thoughts on that deck? Do you think the intuition AK engine is just not right in these hybrids?

While you are intuitioning and setting up some AK's, you can simply cast Gifts and win from there...faster, cleaner, less luck factor combo...

In the same respect you rely less on your graveyard and gain card advantage with more reliability than gifts. Gekoratel is correct in the statement that T1T and AK decks take the control roll and combo off when the situation is comfortable for them.

Pretty interesting article too Steve, combo and control have been pushing toward the same goal for some time now. After Waterbury the number of combo/control decks which were viable shot through the roof.

[Scott_Limoges]

Good Article.

With the converging trend of combo and control strategies, do you feel a superior hybrid of strategies will emerge like GAT once did (aggro-control played a better control role and played a better aggro role)?

Just a final note - the article seemed to over-stress the significance of Tormod's Crypt against Ritual Gifts.  At the last Waterbury, the top 16 decks contained only 6 copies of Crypt main, which is a record over the last year.  This may be a rising future trend but it currently doesn't justify addressing as an issue.  Side-boarded games are expected to find Crypts and specific answers can address it.

[monSt4r]

While you are intuitioning and setting up some AK's, you can simply cast Gifts and win from there...faster, cleaner, less luck factor combo...

Personally I disagree with this statement because the Intuition/AK control decks had a very strong showing at Waterbury.  I do agree with your assessment that Gifts can win faster I think that T1T would rather assume the control role on the back of Duress/Force/Drain.  The only decks that I know of that run Intuition and AK are actually more control-centric than combo.

The article was very good, probably one of your best in a while which is saying something.  I am constantly modifying my combo deck and I've tried many iterations with varying degrees of success.  The fragmentation you addressed is something that I knew in the back of my mind but I enjoyed the way that you addressed it.  I think one of the most important things for combo players is choosing a deck that fits your play style.  I tried Cross-Long for a while but the decreased number of threats and slightly slower combo didn't fit my way of playing combo.  Probably my favorite part of the article was the table at the end of the article; I think there is a ton of information in that small portion.

Personally, I asked the same question when MDG arrived and got the same answer...now I'm 100 % sure it is the right one...Faster factor is one of the thing that add in the favor of gifts for sure...now intuition AK where I found it's mistakes were right there in the luck % part. I would much rather been playing against combo and have a merchant scroll in my hand then ak for 3(that even need more setup)...maybe situational, but surely you know that with the card you are going to find, you'll be able to stop the combo breathing off slowly as they cannot catch you in the mid late game (not completely true afc)...They have less dead slots, and that duress drain force against force misd drain scrolls plus duress sb are all looking same to me, nothing spectacular to brag on to.

p.s. sometimes you really need to just draw and draw to get your kill online, which is kinda dull, but much more easier than thinking which gifts pile will surely win...well I'll put my money on gifts anyhow

[desolutionist]

Very relevant article.  Nothing to add/criticize.

[dicemanx]

Steve has really been stressing for a while now how attempting to attain the control role = most likely death in the (Gifts) control mirror. This has led to the next step, which is replacing Mana Drain.

This, to me is a very strong contention. We've all read Steve's tourney experiences, but how do others feel about this? Is seeking to take on the control role just not feasible anymore? Is he exaggerating just how quickly and easily control/combo hybrids that pursue aggressive plans can dominate Drain/control strategies?

It just seems like that statement has gone unchallenged. Should it be? Or are we back again succumbing to "the fear" of how a turn 2 gifts = win (this time Ritual assisted)?

[Moxlotus]

With the converging trend of combo and control strategies, do you feel a superior hybrid of strategies will emerge like GAT once did (aggro-control played a better control role and played a better aggro role)?
 

That is a good question.  GAT is a great example of how combo and control merged to be better than both of the other pure options.  On another note, just so there is a counterexample for those who haven't been around as long--anyone remember MadDragon?  It ended up being just a bad mix of aggro and combo. 

We have 2 examples of hybrids--1 was better than both of the pure strategies and 1 was worse than both.  I'm very curious to see where these new Grim Tutor/Merchant Scroll decks fall in.  I predict that it will be the latter, but making predictions in Vintage is more or less throwing dice.

We've all read Steve's tourney experiences, but how do others feel about this? Is seeking to take on the control role just not feasible anymore? Is he exaggerating just how quickly and easily control/combo hybrids that pursue aggressive plans can dominate Drain/control strategies?
 

It's possible that the solution is to simply run more control and less "bomb" cards.  Sure, you won't win out of nowhere as often, but most of the bomby cards also have weaknesses (crypt for Gifts as 1 of many examples). 

[dicemanx]

It's possible that the solution is to simply run more control and less "bomb" cards.  Sure, you won't win out of nowhere as often, but most of the bomby cards also have weaknesses (crypt for Gifts as 1 of many examples).

We're not necessarily at the stage where we might need to look at *solutions* if there really isn't a problem in the first place. That is my question essentially.

[Moxlotus]

It's possible that the solution is to simply run more control and less "bomb" cards.  Sure, you won't win out of nowhere as often, but most of the bomby cards also have weaknesses (crypt for Gifts as 1 of many examples).

We're not necessarily at the stage where we might need to look at *solutions* if there really isn't a problem in the first place. That is my question essentially.

Right.  What I meant was, if Steve is correct in saying he doesn't think that a MDG contorl shell of Drains Forces and a pair of MisDs can control the game--maybe the count needs to go up to 12-16 control spells.

[Smmenen]

Steve has really been stressing for a while now how attempting to attain the control role = most likely death in the (Gifts) control mirror. This has led to the next step, which is replacing Mana Drain.

This, to me is a very strong contention. We've all read Steve's tourney experiences, but how do others feel about this? Is seeking to take on the control role just not feasible anymore? Is he exaggerating just how quickly and easily control/combo hybrids that pursue aggressive plans can dominate Drain/control strategies?

The answer, oddly enough coming from me, is yes. 

I don’t want to come off as making a stronger statement than I intend to make.  I don’t think that the control/combo hybrids “dominate” the Drain/control strategies.  I think that they merely have a thin advantage simply because of how powerful Gifts and Scroll are (let alone Yawg Will), if little else. 

I also don’t think that the control role is infeasible.   

1) My experience at Roanoke did suggest that the control role was, more often than I had initially thought, flawed.   However, I probably should have pointed out that there were arguably play mistakes and other bad decisions in my very close matches against Pitch Long.  I lost two very, very close matches to Pitch Long (one was against Gerkataal – Jeff Folinas).   I think the problem was that I was trying too rigidly to pursue the control role.   When I beat Jdizzle at Gencon with MDG in 2005 I played more aggressively – I tried to mix both the control role and the aggressive role (as Zvi calls it in Who’s The Beatdown II? – “seizing both roles.”)  I lost, arguably, both of those matches to Pitch Long because I too rigidly tried to play the control role.   I could have tried to play more aggressively in my gifts and gotten a mix of both control and aggressive components instead of just more control cards.   (Perhaps the big mistake was sbing out Recoup one of those matches). 

2) Remember  I’m not arguing for cutting Drain.   As I said in my article, I am too timid to take that step.   All I did was present some testing I did in which I had, for the purposes of testing, made that step.   My win ratios barely changed at all.   That tells me that Duress is not necessarily better – I just said that it “felt” more synergistic.   

I am going to remain agnostic on this question and let others decide for themselves.   All I have done is present two lists: one with Duress and one with Mana Drains so that people can decide for themselves which they want to play. 

Also, lest this point gets lost in the shuffle: I’m not arguing that the hybrid lists are better.   Empty the Warrens arguably makes the hybrid lists the wrong way to go.  For example, Grim Long with ETW may be better than moving to the center to gain resilience.  Then again, it may not be.    I may not have been clear on that point.   

[Smmenen]

I understand part of the confusion: A paragraph that Scott wrote in his PM to me was not properly italicized by the editor and thus looks like I wrote it.   That may have led to some confusion.   The paragraph underneath the heading: Adding Tempo pre and post Y. Will in Gifts (removing Mana Drain)  is all Scott Limoges, not me.   

[Machinus]

I have some brief experience that me be relevant to this topic.

For about two years I played unconventional Gifts lists, and I had success in NC but I repeatedly failed to make top8 at StarCity due to the mirror match being either a draw or a blowout. This recurring theme of the reactivity of mana drain made me sick of the card after many years of playing with it.

A few months ago I actually unsleeved my Mana Drains and focused mainly on playing Long. Besides the higher power and lower consistency of the deck, the most obvious and important change was that of role - more than anything, playing aggressively as soon as the game begins has made all the difference. I have found that while Mana Drain is a very powerful card when it is used, the costs of reactivity and uncertainty are sometimes too great in a format which has become adept at preventing it's use. It may be that my personal playstyle has changed from an affinity for control, but I think the evolution of Vintage has contributed as well.

[ErkBek]

Steve, would you ever consider running 2 or 3 mana drains in gifts? In my later builds of IT I ran 2 Drains, and they were great. The reason they were so good was if people played around them they would punished by me comboing them out while they wasted time doing so, but if they cast a relevant or large spell into drain then I comboed them out. It turned out to be a really effective plan.

One of the major weaknesses of drain is that people play around it. Usually I find 2 situations occur when I play against decks with mana drain.

1) I play around drain the entire game. If I'm playing a threat I either I lead with bait, have protection for it. Doing this can cause me to jump through hoops, slowing me down and effecting my strategy.

2) I have no other option put play into a drain and cast a spell into an opposing UU that's there. 60-70% of the time they have it, but I had no choice. You just have to they don't have drain + draw spell. I really try to avoid this, as any good vintage player does.

I really think playing 2 or 3 drains will give you the best of both worlds, especially in the fish and stax matchups. Sitting across from UU is really scary knowing my opponent plays some quantity of mana drains in there deck, and its going to result in different plays for the most part. If you're not holding a drain and I just wasted my time playing around it, then you considerably benefit.

If I play gifts I'd probably go with the MDG 2K7 list form the article, but -2 Drains -1 Repeal/Ritual +3 Duress.

[Smmenen]

Steve, would you ever consider running 2 or 3 mana drains in gifts?

I actually had had that thought and I did think of you.  Buehler also would sb out 2-3 Drains.   I also remembered that you ran two Repeal in your first IT and yes, the two Drains in IT v. 2.   

Yes, that is a good thought.   Figuring out the correct list would take quite a bit of work for minimal reward.   Almost any one of these lists you play will perform roughly the same as another. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

replacing Mana Drain...Is seeking to take on the control role just not feasible

The answer, oddly enough coming from me, is yes.

I think finding the answer to the 2nd part of the first quote requires a great deal of nuance.  However, assuming that Steve was responding to the whole part of Peter's statement, I think we have evidence that mana drain may be here for a while still.

If mana drain is dropped from the format's flagship Tendrils based deck then it is almost certain that rituals will be necessary to accelerate out the hefty threats (increasingly this is Gifts Ungiven).  However, the current incarnations of this strategy are not on the same level as drain based 'control' decks.

Ritual-based combo deck finishes in recent events:

Waterbury Day 1, 2/top 20
Waterbury Day 2, 3/top 20
LCV III (68 players), 0/top 8
LCV II (35 players), 2/top 8
Myriad (46 players), 0/top 8
ELD, 1/top 8
Chicago, 1-3/top 8
Charleston, 0/top 8

Maybe some people have found reports that I've missed, but I'm actually trying to cherry-pick to find some events where ritual combo does well.  I'll give you a hint, too, the other 70 or so top slots above aren't all stax, fish and oath.  In general over the last four years of tracking T1 tournaments, the frequency of drain based decks in T8 slots has remained pretty close to 45-55%.

This is not to say that ritual-based combo hasn't come a long way, or that innovations such as pitchlong and gifts-TPS haven't made the strategy definitively viable.  In fact, the slight changes in meta composition over the last year have shown drain based decks conceding ground, however slightly, to ritual decks.

However, I don't think we're in trouble of ritual saturation for a few reasons (all of which have explanatory power relating to the aforementioned tournament data):

1) People in this format play the same deck (archetype) more often than they change to the 'best deck'.
2) Ritual decks (in general) are difficult to pilot and our format lacks the player skill base or players with enough time to test.
3) Ritual decks are both more susceptible to pro-active hate and less adept in circumventing it.
4) While ritual combo may be underestimated, so is the subtlety of the tempo gain (and therefore) card advantage awarded by a resolved mana drain.

If anything, I think the change in focus is this: instead of 'control' players first focusing on using mana drain to set up their win/momentum, they now need something else to survive until mana drain is available.  This so far has been merchant scroll>fow, misd, tormod's crypt, duress, etc.  Ritual combo may force the drain players further to consider things like maindeck envelop, disrupt, chalice, and others.  The game theoretic behind this (and behind deciding which drain deck to play) is obviously a lot more complicated, but the point remains that mana drain is still the fulcrum of the format.

[Vegeta2711]

Mana Drain gets worse as other decks get better. The fact is none of the current 'control' decks are really control anymore. They're just combo that run Mana Drain, because it may or may not be ok as a blue ritual. Even Brassy and Shay's Gifts versions are basically just combo at this point, they may run 1-2 more control cards than a normal Gifts deck, but it's the same really.

The key with Drain is, all the former control archetypes, including Gifts really don't want to be holding UU open. They rather be doing stuff that matters. At this point in time I pretty much just equate all combo with Necro-Trix at this point. Add a better kill and sub in a search engine over the most retarded draw engine ever made and it's really the same. You don't care about stopping your opponent unless he might win first, then you care for a turn, then you just kill him.