[Article] Vintage. Something. Just read it.

[Vegeta2711]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13809.html

Best title of the year I say.

EDIT: If you want to know what the piece is about before you read it, just read Rich's little stuff below this post. It's solid.

[The Atog Lord]

Josh,

What you are doing here is vital to creating a good "solution" deck. You are finding the key assumptions made by the top tier of decks in the format, and then you proceed to find ways to make decks suffer for making those assumptions. In your case, those assumptions are given at the top of the article. You then discuss how one might attack those assumptions. The general framework you have set forth here is a powerful way to envision solutions to the metagame which exists at present.

This thread could, in theory transform into a discussion of how best to build Ichorid and Threshold/Fish decks. However, those discussions already exist on TMD. There is a lot of value, however, in discussing the assumptions being made by Gifts and Long decks, and how those assumptions can be translated into a defeat. Ichorid does an excellent job of harnessing the assumptions of Tier One and making those decks regret those assumptions. As decks get more and more streamlined, it seems they become more and more narrow, and thereby more and more vulnerable to this sort of thinking.

[orgcandman]

I'm not sure I agree with your implicit statement that simply loading a deck with chalices / null rods / crypts will auto-win against gifts and long. In fact, if this were the case, many of the fish decks would be doing much better, and stax would be at the top tables moreso than gifts or long. I think that the issues with designing hate come from a few different fronts:

1) Resiliance exhibited by top decks

2) Effectiveness of hate at different points in the game

3) The 'luck/unlucky' factor

To break down each of these, lets look at resiliance as it relates to hate:
   - The great thing about storm is that traditional counters suck
     - meaning you need a lot of counters that are gonna do jack while the top decks are busy assembling their pieces
   - The other thing is that because the top decks are relying on storm, they can play a slightly slower game and hold back moxes and just drop them in the face of null rod / chalice and watch the storm count soar.
     - This means that the hate of chalice / null rod may not even have an effect on these decks. Even further, because moxes are online first turn, they may come up before you've had a chance to drop your null rod, meaning
       that your chalice might be the only thing to save you.
       - Don't think, however, that I'm saying null rod is anything less than a beast. Null Rod is amazing. However, the existence of repeal & wipe away means that null rod is slightly more vulnerable than it has been in the past.
   - The most important thing is that this article is really only considering the game 1 versions of these decks. Many of the top tier decks will board into tinker->colossus or some other man plan. In that case, much of the hate that
     has been maindecked isn't as effective (but it is still somewhat effective).
I could probably continue even more on the resiliance point, but I'm not writing an article, nor am I writing a rebuttal. I'm merely pointing out that your analysis fails to address this.

Then there's the issue of effectiveness at different points of the game. The effectiveness of chalice is, in general, not as good after the first few turns have gone by. To the contrary, Null Rod is better in the early-mid game. Tormods Crypt, therefore, is the one we hope to be a catch all. The problem comes when you're running some combination of the three of these hate pieces together. One of the reasons that TMWA wasn't running a huge Rod
count, but WAS running a huge crypt count was due to the over-reliance on the graveyard that many of the top tier decks were exhibiting. Null Rod, and Chalice, run counter to Tormod's Crypt. Again, I could write more on the subject, but I'm merely trying to show that your analysis is incomplete.

The luck/unlucky factor boils down to the fact that many of the top tier decks can win regardless of the hate. I'm not trying to imply that they always will, but it does happen a certain percentage of the time, and that percentage is not trivial, nor insignificant. While it may be anecdotal, the last times I played vintage in a tournament, I was combo'd out on turn 1 thrice, despite having an active tormod's crypt, AND force of will in one game. The combination of these two cards _should_ have allowed me at least a few turns. However, the randomness of the format basically took a crap on my head. I'm not saying that this is the norm, or that it will happen every game. But it does happen enough that it should be mentioned or included in some way, as an example of why just piling on the hate isn't always going to work.

[Smmenen]

The opening of your article explains why I really don't like "Ritual Gifts" - it's the epitome of these weaknesses and plays, more so than any other deck, into the T. Crypt countertactic.   Nice Ichorid list also.  I hadn't thought of those options.  They make sense as another avenue of attack. 

[policehq]

I'm really curious to know how you sideboard in the Dread Return disruption combo, if there is a consistent pattern you use.

You mentioned running it against Dry Slaver, I believe, which also runs 2 Tormod's Crypt main and possibly more (?) in the side, so Pithing Needle would also be needed, but in the combo/Stax match-up, what is a general strategy you use?

My initial goal when testing Man-Lands and Baubles was to achieve a second-turn kill, but that quickly turned into a second-turn Dread Return as a means of disruption with Sundering Titan (and later Petradon) since a lethal Sutured Ghoul was hard to achieve reliably.

However, since Dread Return -> Petradon is not dependent on being in your opening hand, I think it is a more consistent piece of disruption than Unmask. It is just a matter of sacrificing turn 1 disruption for a better turn 2 play.

-hq

[Grand Inquisitor]

I agree with Orgcandman.  This article feels like you didn't look deep enough.  You talk about the format's over-focus on the early game creating weaknesses and then you present a deck with 21 slots that have 1cc.

[Myriad Games]

I enjoyed this article, Josh. Thank you for writing it. Excellent title.

I concur that properly applied disruption (or "hate" as it is known colloquially) is very potent. That being said, given the volatility of the Vintage format, there will always be a percentage of games that explosive decks will win by drawing a better combination of cards (e.g. winning through disruption or protection, also known as "the nuts"). I'm not certain that this aspect of the format needs to be thoroughly addressed, since it applies to most decks, but it's certainly worth considering when taking testing results into account. As the format accelerates and refines card choices, the power level of the format will continue to rise causing the metagame to shift to compensate and making initial plays even more crucial. While the discussion could certainly be more detailed, I enjoyed the point that proper determination of role and attention to your opponent's current game plan is a key component of victory.

[Vegeta2711]

I'm not sure I agree with your implicit statement that simply loading a deck with chalices / null rods / crypts will auto-win against gifts and long.

My statement was that they help and 'answer' many decks main forms of attack. However these crop of Vintage decks are much more resilient than the older models, hence your deck either needs a great deal of power or synergy to back that up. That's why I state I'd probably just play Ichorid if I was taking an aggro deck to a tourney.

You are correct though, I didn't go much into how the decks change post-board and how your strategy may need to adapt. The problem is there are a number of different plans to consider and trying to list counter-tactics against each of them in a general sense would probably be an article in itself. If you want to list a singular archetype, I'd be happy to discuss tactics with you.

I'm not saying that this is the norm, or that it will happen every game. But it does happen enough that it should be mentioned or included in some way, as an example of why just piling on the hate isn't always going to work.

I thought this was just a given to everyone, whoops. 

You talk about the format's over-focus on the early game creating weaknesses and then you present a deck with 21 slots that have 1cc.

Why is that an issue exactly? If the cards at 1cc get the job done as well as more expensive cards; why would I play the more expensive ones? It's not as if this model if trying to abuse Chalice @ 1 or something. Stifle, Crypt and Force of Will take shots at these weaknesses as well as anything else I can think of.

The main problem with trying to attack opponent's weaknesses caused by an over reliance on the early game is in essence surviving the early game to take advantage of it. All the cute tricks, amusing ability creatures and card-draw you run is useless if you can't stop the other guy. That's the reason I'd never play Stax in the current format, I don't think it can consistently survive the early game to where it can gain an actual advantage.

All that said, point taken, I could've gone over the fundamental points to hit a bit more and maybe listed a few more specific subtle weaknesses I've noted before.

@policehq

Good question, I'll list my boarding plan against Drains and combos later tonight, unfortunately I now have to suffer at class.

@Steve

Thanks. Glad I gave you an idea or two to try out.

[Vegeta2711]

My general boarding plan with the list board is this:

Normal Long builds (Usually I do this game 2 unless my opponent seems to not have a clue)
-4 Unmask
-1 Urza's Bauble

+Nexus
+2 Dread Return
+2 Petradon

Dry / Control Slaver (Depends on variant)
-3 Urza's Bauble
-1 Sutured Ghoul
-1 Shambling Shell

+4 Pithing Needle
+1 Nexus

Against ETW Gifts
-4 Unmask
-3 Urza's Bauble

+5 package deal
+2 Tabernacle

Against Ritual Gifts
-4 Unmask

+4 Leyline of the Void

Other than that simple swap, I find it easier to win normally than do a full board into the combo. Although you could max out by replacing a bunch of the baubles, you 'slow the deck', but you'll have 16 disruption spells and a full 4 Dread Return to combo out on turn 3 with. I'd need to test it further before recommending it though.

Those are the more consistent boarding patterns I have, otherwise I play a lot of it by ear.

I also should note my old board was:

4 Pithing Needle
3 Riftstone Portal
3 Ancient Grudge
2 Petradon
2 Dread Return
1 Blinkmoth Nexus

Which is appropriate if your meta runs a lot of gifts decks with multiple maindeck Pithing Needle.

[Aardshark]

My general boarding plan with the list board is this:

Normal Long builds (Usually I do this game 2 unless my opponent seems to not have a clue)
-4 Unmask
-1 Urza's Bauble

+Nexus
+2 Dread Return
+2 Petradon

I'm having a hard time with your plan versus long.  I like Petradon, but banking on blowing up their lands on your turn two seems suboptimal. You only have two cards that can disrupt turn 1 (chalice and unmask).  Removing unmask g2 on the draw means your long opponent will more likely than not have an undisrupted turn 2, on which they will probably win the game.  (Even turn 1 chalice will often not prevent the turn 2 win on its own.) 

For g2 on the draw I'd prefer something like:
-2 bauble; -1 shell
+ 1 dread return; + 2 Petradon

g2/g3 on the play your plan seems better (since unmask is slightly worse, and can petradon earlier), but losing umask still seems risky.

Am I missing something?

[Vegeta2711]

Unmask isn't that good against combo; unless they kept a medicore hand. That's my main contention with boarding out Unmask for a disruption method that will pretty much hit them hard every-time unless they kept an all artifact hand, in which case GG and all that.

If the player is awake, he's not going to keep a hand of 5-6 mana and a buisness card. Usually these are the hands Unmask are going to beat, because you're not necessarily going to even target buisness on your first Therapy, since nearly all of it is singletons. In addition, Brainstorm makes Unmask so much worse when your on the draw it's not even funny.

That said, if I had to win a game on the draw, I'd seriously consider stuffing the maximum amount of disruption I could into the deck and hoping for the best. Most of my board plans are based around the fact that you win game 1 a lot of the time. Hence I can afford to 'give one away' in the match. With a deck like long, I figure as long as you can drag it out to 3 games, you have an advantage, because they'll typically have to mull at least once or twice in one game just because the disruption package you run targets all points of the deck; they also have no idea if you're going to be using Leyline or not, etc.

Boarding with this deck is a bit more flexible than most, because your preying on the opponent's sensibilites and deck processes. You pick a certain option, go with it, and even if it fails they have to worry about if you'll switch it up for the next game or keep it the same.

[rvs]

Interesting article, well written. I don't play as much vintage anymore as I used to, but I like the threshold deck, and will certainly try it out

[disrupting specter]

Any reason why Shambling Shell (Dredge 3) instead of Golgari Thug (Dredge 4)?

[InfinityCircuit]

You need as much power as you can to feed Sutured Ghoul and Shambling Shell is a 3/1.