[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays - GroAtog v. The World

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14407.html

Blurb: Last week, Stephen took us through the GroAtog versus Fish matchup, sharing a number of intricate and interesting games and plays, This week, it's the turn of Tendrils, Ichorid, and Flash. Each step into the Vintage ring to battle against the four-Gush behemoth... if you're looking for in-depth play-by-play analysis of the resultant battles, Stephen does not disappoint!

Also: many of these games were against Stephen Houdlette, the Grand Inquisitor, a fact which he doesn't even know, because he didn't know he was playing against me!

Please direct any questions to the SCG forums, per SCG's new policy, but I will read any comments you have and respond there if necessary. 

Enjoy!

Stephen

[B166ER]

May I ask what new policy you speak of?  Or a link to said policy or just something that informs me as to what you're talking about, please?

[meadbert]

Regarding Tormod's Crypt:
You could have activated it during your opponent's upkeep to stop the Ichorids from coming out.

Ichorid's ability triggers (like Oath) but you do not decide whether to bring it out and which creature to RFG till it comes off the stack.

Ichorid remains in the graveyard while the ability is on the stack.

If Crypt or any other cards RFGs Ichorid while its ability is on the stack then its ability will do nothing when it comes off the stack.

[Chiz]

Tormod's Crypt play:

At end of turn, sacrifice Ichorid.

At the beginning of your upkeep, if Ichorid is in your graveyard, you may remove a black creature card in your graveyard other than Ichorid from the game. If you do, return Ichorid to play.

That card, like Oath of Druids, follow that rule:

404.3. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At . . . , if [condition], [effect].” The ability checks for the stated condition to be true when the trigger event occurs. If it is, the ability triggers. On resolution, the ability rechecks the condition. If the condition isn’t true at either of those times, the ability does nothing. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. Note that the word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.

So, the 2 Ichorid triggers will go on the stack at the beggining of the upkeep. He can respond to them (like Tapping Bazaar) or do nothing. If he Tap Bazaar, you are happy. If he don't, just activate Crypt Rigth now.

The 2 Ichorid triggers will resolve and will check the condition on resolution. They will see that Ichorid is not in the graveyard, so the ability will do nothing!

I find it pretty funny that a type1 player - who know perfectly this rule for Oath of Druids - did that play error! It should be obvious!

You said:

The problem is that I'm at 3 life. He no longer needs to “eot” activate the Bazaar.

I Totally Desagree with you! If you crypt him at your end of turn, He will need to “eot” activate the Bazaar to kill you!
He could have been lucky (Or played well keeping those cards in hand to get fuel after the crypt activation) and discard something like:
Ichorid x2
Grave-Troll
And kill you. (Without fetching)
or

Ichorid
Grave-Troll
Whatever

Fecth for Arbor
Dredge upkeep + Bring back Ichorid
Dredge at draw step (Brinning 1-2 Narcomoebas in play)
You Submerge his Ichorid (He still have 2-3 Creatures)
Cast Therapy + Dread Return for Zealot (With 1-2 Bridge in the grave)
Attack for the win.

He still had some odds to kill you the next turn if you crypt him at your end of turn. He had no odds of killing you the next turn if you keep your Crypt for his next turn's upkeep. That's a big mistake that could have give the game.

[pyr0ma5ta]

Unfortunately, there were multiple play errors recorded in your reporting of test games, including plays that are not legal or obviously suboptimal.  Oh well, thanks for your test data.  I've come to many of the same conclusions as you in my testing.

[Smmenen]

May I ask what new policy you speak of?  Or a link to said policy or just something that informs me as to what you're talking about, please?

SCG has requested that I reply to questions or comments in the SCG forums.   But, like I said, I will read what is written here.

As for errors: Grand Inquisitor made several errors including not putting the Submerged card ontop of his library, tapping a summoning sick Arbor Dryad (I cought neither of those), and I misplayed the T. Crypt play.    Blame him for most of those.   And people make mistakes - in fact, virtually every game of magic ever played has hade mistakes made in it.   Regardless, the errors shouldn't affect anything.   The point was to show how GAT operates on the assumption that people enjoy reading about a format they love, not to make any overbroad conclusions from limited testing data.   

[Grand Inquisitor]

As for errors: Grand Inquisitor made several errors including not putting the Submerged card ontop of his library, tapping a summoning sick Arbor Dryad (I cought neither of those), and I misplayed the T. Crypt play.    Blame him for most of those.

My PM to Smennen:

I don't subscribe to SCG, so I haven't read this article.  If, similarly, the other matches catalogued therein are against unsuspecting MWS'ers, it's hard to believe it has much analytic value.

I'm a pretty mediocre magic player in general, but on MWS I'm usually playing a sub-optimal list (sometimes intentionally), on a medium (MWS) that largely destroys the integrity of magic play anyway, and I'm usually drinking, half-paying attention, tired, or all of the above.  I wouldnt' think that this type of game play would interest your audience if they were aware of its quality.  I certainly wouldn't use it as justification for the potential power of GAT, since that's what the tagline implies.

[Chiz]

As for errors: Grand Inquisitor made several errors including not putting the Submerged card ontop of his library, tapping a summoning sick Arbor Dryad (I cought neither of those), and I misplayed the T. Crypt play.    Blame him for most of those.   And people make mistakes - in fact, virtually every game of magic ever played has hade mistakes made in it.   Regardless, the errors shouldn't affect anything.   

I totally agree that people make play mistakes... But in the other hand, we shouldn't blame only Grand Inquisitor... We should blame you too for these errors! It's both player responsabilities to check if there is some game rules violation. From the DCI™ PENALTY GUIDE AND PROCEDURES, under Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation :

Philosophy
While Game Rule Violations can be attributed to one player, they usually occur publicly and both players are expected to be mindful of what is happening in the game. It is tempting to try and "fix" these errors and reverse actions that have since been taken in the game, but it is important that all judges be able to apply these penalties consistently, regardless of their skill in the game, and thus only errors that are caught immediately should be fixed.

Penalty
All Levels
Warning

If the error was caught immediately, back up the game to the point of the error. If not caught immediately, leave the game state as it is. Additionally, if not caught immediately, opponents and teammates should receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty. 

So, we should blame Grand Inquisitor for making those errors and you to allow them to occur!

And by the way, what upset me the most is not that you make mistakes, but that you wrote:

If I just go to my endstep and he does nothing, we have both passed priority with an empty stack and the turn will end. But my question is: on his upkeep, will I have an opportunity to use the Crypt before he can put the Ichorids into play? I didn't think so. My understanding is that he'll get priority, he can activate the Ichorid and feed it. This trigger will go on the stack, but the Ichorid will no longer be in the graveyard once it's been fed, correct? Someone in the forums can confirm or dispute this.

You know you write a premium article! I’m sorry, but we shouldn’t see that in a premium article! You should have asked before posting that article on SCG and write the answer in your article instead of what I quote. That would have been more professional!
I wouldn’t care reading that quote in a non-premium article, but we shouldn’t see that in a premium article, never.

[Crankster]

I disagree with above poster, it's quite clear that the aim with these articles is to stir discussion and since the mistake had already happened what's the point in correcting it in the article? I personally don't pay for premium to read about flawless games, that's not my kind of magic. Just imagine that GAT could play through nerfmerge, superman arbor and superid. It still won, isn't that in some wierd way a testament to it's power? GAT: "Even if you don't do exactly as the cards say you still lose to me"

[Implacable]

I disagree with above poster, it's quite clear that the aim with these articles is to stir discussion and since the mistake had already happened what's the point in correcting it in the article? I personally don't pay for premium to read about flawless games, that's not my kind of magic. Just imagine that GAT could play through nerfmerge, superman arbor and superid. It still won, isn't that in some wierd way a testament to it's power? GAT: "Even if you don't do exactly as the cards say you still lose to me"

I disagree very strongly with this post.  While Magic is sometimes imperfect, players strive for flawless gameplay.  The only way to analyze a matchup is if both players play perfectly, thus removing the skill factor from the equation and making the only factors the actual cards.  I will say further that testing on MWS does not in any way reflect actual testing, unless both players are playing for the express purpose of testing, are sober, and know each other well.

[nataz]

As long as you realize what you are getting the majority of time on MWS its fine. Testing against random decks is a great way to learn how your deck works under different kinds of pressure. Its hardly focused, and may have little value to the actaul meta-game, but at the very least you can learn more about how you built your mana base/how you respond to discard/ etc.,.

I have no huge gripe with the testing on MWS persay, but still I would have prefered that you actualy look up your rules questions before you publish rather then just saying fuck it, you don't know. When our own "resident genius" doesn't know how his own decks works, it makes all type 1 players look foolish.

[Implacable]

As long as you realize what you are getting the majority of time on MWS its fine. Testing against random decks is a great way to learn how your deck works under different kinds of pressure. Its hardly focused, and may have little value to the actaul meta-game, but at the very least you can learn more about how you built your mana base/how you respond to discard/ etc.,.

I have no huge gripe with the testing on MWS persay, but still I would have prefered that you actualy look up your rules questions before you publish rather then just saying fuck it, you don't know. When our own "resident genius" doesn't know how his own decks works, it makes all type 1 players look foolish.

In regard to the first point: I think that everyone in the Type 1 community understands that MWS has great value when it comes to the overall task of designing and perfecting decks.  It gives you a good, general experience of how your deck operates against someone else, and it also illustrates vulnerabilities.  That being said, I read Menendian's articles about his play against Joe Bushman because I know from reading about him that Mr. Bushman is an experienced and competent player.  I don't want to read an article featuring highly suboptimal play and rules errors, particularly when coming, as you point out, from our 'Resident Genius'.

[Smmenen]

I think part of the problem is that this article came out AFTER my in depth Fish matchup analysis.

This article was meant to sort of introduce the general GAT game plan to the audience and do some walk throughs. 

The Fish article was meant to be the first IN DEPTH (aka focus on correct play, etc - not just how the deck plays out) article.   However, because of some mixups, the articles were published in reverse order. 

That's producing a justifiable in congruence.   I do this 30 pages exhaustive analysis of a Fish v. GAT match and then do a smattering, shallow presentation of GAT v. Ichorid, Flash, and Drain Tendrils... huh?    It's a publishing order error.   

But:  Let me ask you this: how many of my articles were *ever*[/i] have featured MWS/ apprentice games?   Very few.   

In the five years I've been writing (in fact, this was my 146th article just on SCG!!), the vast majority of my matchup analysis articles were not on MWS/apprentice (in stark contrast to Oscar Tan - but no one complained about that!), but in person matchup analysis played against real players.

Take a look:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14374.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13974.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13516.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13719.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11866.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11761.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/7417.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/6567.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5950.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5856.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5820.html

That's just a sample too. 

When I finish the article on Bomberman v. GAT, it will be VERY in depth.   

Finally, as for the rules question in article.

Let me tell you something: aside from Rizzo, I write the longest articles on SCG.   But I probably put more time into my articles than anyone else.    I mean, it takes me hours and hours and hours to write an average article.    It's embarressing to admit, but I probably spend upwards of 6-8 hours per article anymore.   Some, like the really in depth matchup analysis - like my Ichorid v. Gifts article from Jan probably took even longer after I've played the games, formatted, elaborated, and then edited.   

I put alot of time, energy and effort into these articles.  While I understand the nitpicking, I really think it is misplaced when you consider the broader context.

It's easy to forget this, but one of the reasons I'm the only regular Vintage writer isn't  necessarily because I'm better at Vintage, smarter, more insighful, or even a better writer (although, I'd like to think I am those things), it's because I actually submit a weekly article and can do a weekly column. 

There used to be alot of Vintage writers: JP, Carl, Zherbus, etc, etc, but writing a GOOD weekly column is actually harder than most people think.    I put alot of effort into attracting not just Vintage players, but other players as well. 

Rizzo seems to think I'm worth reading: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14189.html

I hope you do as well.   I put alot of effort into these articles because I love Vintage.   But it sure as hell isn't for the money.    It isn't even that I write a weekly column - that's not the hard part.   I try and never "phone in" articles.    In the 146 articles I've written for SCG and the 4-5 I've written for MTG.com, I can say that I only have "phoned-in" less than a handful.   

A little appreciation would go a long way to making this seem like a fun way to help support the hobby I love instead of being nitpicked for things that aren't really that important or critical....

[diopter]

Smennen:

I currently don't have premium, but am considering it based solely on your articles. Your articles are the only premium articles I consistently read once they become free.

P.S. 6-8 hours ain't embarassing.

[desolutionist]

Smmenen, I don't think many people disregard what you do for the Vintage community.  No one else really deserves the TMDXI plaque of recognition honestly.

Will the bomberman matchup analysis be out before Waterbury?

[Addolorisi]

Stephen, I think the critiscisms stem from the fact that people are parting with their hard earned money to read these articles - and when money is involved people get really touchy.

There have been multiple people to come forward and say they subscribe to premium based solely on your articles. While I can understand the way you feel to be greeted with a lot of negative comments, I think you should just take it with a grain of salt. People are disappointed by simple mistakes not simply because they want to nitpick with you, but because they've come to expect a lot of great content from your articles. At this point, I think a lot of people simply take for granted the work you put in and so it's easy to forget a "thank you" when your articles are a smash, because they're so used to your high quality writing, while in contrast they don't really have a problem with "hey that's below your normal caliber" particularly if your articles get published out of order (like these 2 weeks have been).

The longer you continue to write, the more the maxim "no news is good news" will start to apply to your articles as people start to expect your articles to continually raise the bar, but will be harsh when articles fail to live up to their expectations. It may seem daunting, but if you look at it from the perspective that people are so negative at times because you've shown them just how much high quality content you're capable of producing, it really puts a different spin on it imho.

[ErkBek]

Smmenen, I don't think many people disregard what you do for the Vintage community.  No one else really deserves the TMDXI plaque of recognition honestly.

Agreed. I've even heard a number of people even say that if you quit power will drop in value. That's quite a presence.

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be when 80% of your responses on an article have to do with a rules interaction, rather than the article's content itself.

[Kieranwolf]

While the game play mistakes might have been somewhat embarrassing, I don't think they destroyed the usefulness of the article. I think that folks are complaining solely because this is the first time many of us have seen a Smennen article that revealed such mistakes in any number. Usually, the 'mistakes' are in-game choices that turned out to be suboptimal in a high-stakes tournament setting.

This will in no way make me want to read this column any less. This article, if anything, was just a small departure from the tournament reports and in-depth test games that many have grown used to. Those, I might add, represent a considerable investment of time. If the article seems to be of lesser quality compared to many of Smennen's other ones, that's just because those articles have been setting the bar extremely high.

[kombat]

I put alot of time, energy and effort into these articles.  While I understand the nitpicking, I really think it is misplaced when you consider the broader context.

Stephen, don't let it get to you.  Personally, I think a large part of the reason for the nitpicking is the desire of some people to be able to say to themselves, "I found a mistake Stephen Menendian missed."  There's a little bit of hero-worship at play here.  You're pretty much the closest thing to a celebrity that Vintage can boast, so naturally you're going to attract all sorts of attention and criticism.

A little appreciation would go a long way to making this seem like a fun way to help support the hobby I love instead of being nitpicked for things that aren't really that important or critical....

Well, you can add my name to the list of people who subscribed to premium solely to read your articles.  And like I said, maybe you should try looking at the nitpicking as a compliment.  People hold you in such high regard that finding your mistakes actually boosts their own self-esteem.