Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other

[Smmenen]

Scott Van Pelt is an idiot.   Vince Young looked UNREAL today.   That last play was magnificent. 

[Smmenen]

The zero-proxy experiment.

Europe is moving to fewer proxies.    There were movements, tentative, this year, towards lower proxies.   Colorado made the radical shift to zero proxies.   RIW in MI did as well.  Did it work?  Did it not work?   What's the future? 

[nataz]

Needs more reggresion analysis.

if you have raw attendence + # of proxies, you could control for population density, prize factors, whatever, using mutli var reg. It's totally doable. 

[Smmenen]

This coming year will be the biggest year of Legacy tournaments thus far, and perhaps ever.   It's hard to imagine that Legacy will ever have a bigger tournament scene.

There will be fifteen SCG $5K Legacy tournaments, for $75,000.    On Top of that, Wizards will shell out $60,000 for two Legacy Grand Prix's.   

That's $135,000 in Legacy money prize payout.  And that doesn't even count all of the local tournament prizes NOR the monetary value of Pro Tour invites or SCG Invitational Invites that accompany success at those tournaments.   

That's insane.   To put that in perspective, the best year for Vintage was 2005.  http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/8516_Star_City_Power_Nine_Tournament_Series_Comes_To_Rochester_NY.html  In 2005, SCG Held 9 Power Nine tournaments that year. 

Here's what's even more insane.   There were four SCG $5K events this year, and a Legacy Grand Prix in Chicago in the Spring.

The Four SCG $5K's were held in Boston, Charlotte, Philly, and St. Louis, and garnered 185, 109, 147, and 128 players respectively.    What's most interesting is that I observed that out of the 147 players in Philly and the 128 players in St. Louis, there were only two who competed in both tournaments.   Only TWO.   

SCG has really gone out on a limb.  They are holding Legacy events in locales where nothing like this has ever been done -- like LA and Texas.   

What's interesting is that if Philly to St. Louis is an indicator, Legacy players do not travel.   

This is in marked contrast to the Vintage community.    I estimate that 30-40 players or so attended two of these three events this year:  Vintage Champs, ICBM Open, and the Steel City Open.   Granted, that travel triangle is Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis, but that's still a 9 hour spread between them.   

That's a big difference between Vintage and Legacy.   The Vintage crowd traveled to all of the pitstops, or most of them.   During the P9 series, we traveled from Chicago to Syracuse to Richmond.   

I doubt anything like what SCG is doing for Legacy now will be repeated the next year.   It's not that I think that SCG won't continue to support Legacy, but 15 stops, giving away $5K each time, is just too much.    I think that a couple of the stops will barely crack 100 players. 

That said, it makes me pine for the good ole days when there were more great Vintage tournaments than could possibly be attended.   

It might strike some as Orweallian, but it might be interesting to create a large scale database of Vintage players.   We have lists of every player from some of the 2006 era SCG tournaments and Waterburies, where Pete was paying Phil to compile decklists.  I posted the decklist from every waterbury player in this blog earlier in the year.    It would be interesting to see how many active Vintage players there are in the US by keeping this kind of data, and tracking to see how long people play, where they play and how far they will travel.   This could serve a number of purposes. 

First, it could give us some idea of exactly how many Vintage players there are out there in the US.  This has been a matter of debate, particularly on the proxy question.  We know how much power is out there, but I supposed that there were, at most 1000 active Vintage players in the US, and likely far less.   

Second, it could inform where large scale tournaments are held.  One thing that SCG has to notice is that the Chicago events were always successful, as were the Syracuse events.   The Richmond events, EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST, were always much smaller by comparison. 

Third, it could tell us really important information about player turnover.   

For example, suppose there is a Waterbury this Spring.   And suppose it has roughly the same number of people.   One really important question is: how many of those people are the same people who played in the Waterbury this past Spring?   If its high, like 70%, than that tells something different than if its low, like 30%.   If its closer to 30%, then a big question is why? Where did all the other players go? And where did the new players come from?   This could also help us find ways to not only grow Vintage, but to better retain players.   This is information we frankly just don't know.   

Fourth, and most importantly, as suggested by what I just said, it could tell us really important information about how to grow Vintage.   In this thread I've suggested multiple times that we really don't know the best way to grow Vintage, but that I strongly suspect that player retention is the key.   This information could tell us how to do that better, or motivate us to do that better by having the data to prove the need for this. 

[Smmenen]

On a completely unrelated note, what are the biggest storylines for 2009 Vintage (aside from the restriction of Thirst)?   Relatedly, what were the hottest new decks of 2009?

[Twaun007]

On a completely unrelated note, what are the biggest storylines for 2009 Vintage (aside from the restriction of Thirst)?   Relatedly, what were the hottest new decks of 2009?

Vroman's Oath deck was defiantly hot at the end of this year.

I also remember that your boy Paul Mastriano made quite a splash with Remora and Dark Confidants in a Tez shell. He also played Dark Rits in Tez instead of Drains I believe.

Rich Shay blasted his way top 1st place with his Remora Meditation deck.

Brian Demars made a splash with the Steel City Vault Deck.

BUG Fish came in at the end of 08, but it was still seeing mass amounts of play in 2009. I also believe that BUG fish is Jimmy McCarthy's favorite deck.

The Innovator made a splash at the end of 2009 with The Deck.

What wasn't around.

Painter was non existent

Thoughtcast Tez wasn't played in the states

TPS hit the back burner. Personalbackfire and Markse are the only people I know who play it.

[voltron00x]

The zero-proxy experiment.

Europe is moving to fewer proxies.    There were movements, tentative, this year, towards lower proxies.   Colorado made the radical shift to zero proxies.   RIW in MI did as well.  Did it work?  Did it not work?   What's the future? 

Nick Coss is trying to push Blue Bell to 10 proxies, now that he's the TO for those going forward, but got some resistance from the player base.  He's going to run it at 10 with a cap at 15 for $1 per extra beyond 10, and see if that's an acceptable compromise to start.  We've also discussed running sanctioned Vintage as a side event at some point, or setting it up as a smaller event, just as a test.  I'm optimistic this will happen some time in 2010.

[voltron00x]

I'm not going to quote your post above due to length, but I like a lot of what you said.  I'm just not sure, logisitically / realistically, if any type of player list is feasible, but it would certainly be revealing.

Re: SCG and Legacy, it's hard to gauge the success of the events just based on attendance.  Certainly if it dips down past 150 significantly, I would imagine that's going to be a problem, but I wonder if it remains viable at 125-150 players based on purchases at the event and sales through the website generated by extra interest in the format.  Further, this year's events are hard to gauge, because now they have added the invite-only event, and that may push standard players to play the 2nd day for Legacy, and gives Legacy players some incentive to travel at the back-end of the season to reach enouh points for the invitational piece.  The whole thing is really quite well-planned if you ask me.

As far as storylines go, I think there are some interesting ones:

-Diversification of Dredge decks post-Zendikar

-Disappearance of Workshop Aggro from Vintage

-Noble Fish and Selkie Strike's continuing viability, Selkie in particular which seems to be very popular in some areas

-Diversification and viability of Null Rod strategies:  BUG Fish, Noble Fish, G/W, Meandeck Beats, B/R Stax

-Return of Oath of Druids as one of the top-tier decks

-The rise of Dark Confidant post-TFK

-Overall reduction in the amount of combo seen in Vintage (due to a variety of interlocking factors)

On balance, if anyone did a better job asserting himself as the Vintage player to beat than Paul Mastriano, it'd be news to me.

[Smmenen]

wow, Paul would take that as a great complement

it's possible that, overall, paul had a better year this year than last, which is pretty impressive!  

Who else would make the honor roll for 2009?   I would rule myself out, as my only notable big tournament performance was 3rd at the march Waterbury.   I scrubbed both ICBM open days, couldn't attend the Champs, and finished 9th at the Steel City event.   I hope to do better in 2010

I'm putting together an outline for the 2009 year in review, and I want to make sure I'm hitting all the right dramatic notes for the big 'stories' of the year.   

Certainly, Qasali Pridemage was a big printing, and I'll make sure to include that as well. 

[voltron00x]

I don't have much of a National perspective as far as players, because I missed almost all the biggest Vintage events this year (something that won't happen next year), but as far as in the NY/PA/NJ area (and people who travel in to compete at our events), these are the players I think had the best years:

P. Mas had an insane year.  1st at the Philly Open in May with a very cool Tezz deck with 4x Confidant and 4x Remora and 0 TFK and 0 Mana Drain (which is in my article that should go up Monday), and then 2nd place a month later at the 64-player Dan Herd Memorial.  He also went undefeated in the Swiss in Dec 08 at the last Blue Bell for 40 Duals, went undefeated in the Swiss at the Philly Open IV (losing both times to Mykie Noble playing Shops in the elim rounds), and made the semis at the NYSE III (losing only to Jeff Folinus, in both the Swiss and the elim rounds).  Come to think of it, his only loss at the Philly Open III was to me in Rd 1.  I'm pretty sure that only Nick Detwiler and D3G team members beat the guy ALL YEAR in tournaments in our area, and I know he won some power elsewhere also.   Like I said - insane.

Speaking of Nick Detwiler, he hasn't played as much at the back-end of 2009 (he's busy single-handedly bringing Vintage back to NY...), but he started off the year on an amazing hot streak.  He has to be considered one of the best Shop players in the US.  He's pretty much the sole reason why 5C Stax is so popular on the east coast - so many people copied his list from May & June.  I also love the way he tutors some of the newer / younger players.

Jeff Folinus actually might be the guy I would most dread playing.  He's like a robot from the future that's come back in time to win Vintage tournaments.  He hardly ever makes any mistakes, and has an amazing grasp on the format and the potential / capability of all of the decks.  His ability to quickly look several turns into the future in a format as complex as Vintage really blows my mind.  I give any credit for my modest improvements in play skill this year to testing with Jeff and Chas Hinkle.

Finally, Steve Nowakowski was on one hell of a streak at the end of the year, at one point making T8 of 5 of 6 events.  He's one of the only people putting up results with TPS in the US, and he does just as well with Tezz.  I actually love testing with Steve because his play style is similar to mine (very fast and very aggressive).

For me, that's the four guys from tournaments in my area.  Honorable mention to Eric Markowicz, the guy seems to top 8 every single event he plays, but unfortunately didn't reach the finals at all this year.

[Anusien]

Some very high profile players have been talking about Mana Drain as being slow, and replacing it entirely with things like Spell Pierce.  There's definitely a story there, although I think it's several years in the making (this happened during Gush era too with Duress).

[Smmenen]

Categories are inherently slippery.   They are constructs that we use to demarcate difference.   However false they may be as a reflection of reality, they are useful if not vitally important.   

Consider Fish.    BUG Fish decks run Bobs, Duress effects, and black tutors.   Compare that with UGW FIsh, which run Noble Hierarch, Qasali Pridemage, and often Cold Eyed Selkie or Meddling Mage.  They share Null Rod, Goyf, Force, Wasteland, and an mix of Daze/Stifle/Spell Pierce.   The similarities are profound and meaningful, but the difference are just as distinct.   Yet, we lump them both as "Fish" despite the fact that both decks may share fewer than 30 cards.    That's possibly fewer cards than Control Slaver and Gifts, or Control Slaver and Tezzeret share(d), although someone can fact check me on that.   

Yet, because the strategies are so close, the only difference being colors, few argue that both BUG and UGW "Selkie Slam" are Fish decks.   

A far more difficult question, and one categorical distinction I've struggled with the most over the last two years has been how to define various Workshop decks.   Those of you who pay close attention may notice that I've used several different approaches, but definitions that are incommensurable.    Assistance, or thoughts from you all, would be greatly appreciated.

The easiest distinction to make is between:

Stax
Workshop Aggro

The Stax deck typically has 4 Smokestacks, a few win conditions, like a Karn and a Trike, and is mostly lock parts.   The Stax deck can be 5c, 2-3c, or mono color like Uba Stax or the mono-red Stax deck fizix wrote about in the Advanced Vintage forum.   

The Workshop Aggro deck, on the other hand, looks very different.  It typically has a bunch of creatures, beyond the singleton Karn, Trike, and sometimes Titan and quad-laser Welder or pair of SHamans.    It typically runs some combination of Juggernauts and Solemn Simulacrum.   It also tends to run Sword of Fire and Ice.   And the mono-red versions run Magus of the Moon, even when mono red Stax decks don't. 

The problem is that things are rarely that simple.   What if the deck has both Juggernauts and Smokestack, for example?   What I've done in the past is make a judgment as to whether the deck is more Controlish or more Aggro-Control/Aggro.   

I've also used a third category: MUD.   The problem, again, is that MUD has two modes.   One is the super controlish MUD with Metalworkers and a host of lock parts.   The other also has Metalworker, but it is more like affinity with Arcbound Ravager * 3.    For example, look at the third place deck here: http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1171

Given how we categorize Fish, should I make such a distinction?  Should MUD decks be counted as either Workshop Aggro or Stax?  MUD decks are often very different, since they don't run Welder at all and have Metalworker.   Or should I make even finer distinctions? 

Thoughts?   

[Mantis]

Shop decks are found in two distinct directions. The classical Stax focuses on locking the opponent out of the game and then worries about lifetotals, it uses its lockpieces to eliminate the opponent from making any relevant play at all. Thorn, Sphere and Wire are not figurants but are critical in establishing this goal. Shop Aggro and MUD on the other hand use their Sphere effects and Tangle Wires as virtual Time Walks, in the way Jacob Orlove described it in his classical masterpiece. Their only purpose is to buy a couple attack phases, this is the reason for Gorilla Shaman in the deck as well.

Basically I think the simplest and most correct solution to see if a deck belongs in either the MUD or the Stax category is to check if it aims to win through the attack phase or through the scoop phase. I personally think MUD decks can be placed amongst the Shop Aggro decks even if they run Smokestack as they still use that Smokestack to gain additional attack phases.

EDIT: cleared up the grammar.

[Smmenen]

What if it's a MUD deck that really has almost no creatures except for perhaps Mishra's Factories and Metalworkers?  What if its just a hyper control MUD deck? Like the one that won an SCG a few years back?   

[Mantis]

I'd be interested to see that list, could you or anyone else link me up?

[Smmenen]

I'd be interested to see that list, could you or anyone else link me up?

It's near the end of this article: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/435

Jared Rocha's decklist.   

[Smmenen]

QUICK WHAT DOES THIS SAY:





Yeah, fooled me too. 

[Smmenen]

One of the things that really irritates me is how difficult it is for me to remember opening hands with Legacy.

Writing a Vintage report is a cinch for me.  I can remember after the tournamnet, even days after, with perfect clarity EVERY SINGLE Hand I opened with during the course of a tournament, and most, if not all, of the plays made in each game in a Vintage tournament.   

Yet, with Legacy, I can barely remember my opening hands moments after the match is over.   I just don't understand why!

Sure, one could argue that Vintage is easier to remember because there are far more singletons.  Yet the argument cuts the other way.    There may be as few as 15 unique cards in a Legacy deck, and likely around 20ish.    Compare that to the typical Vintage deck which often has 40+ unique cards, even heavily redundant decks like Mono Red Stax have 25 unique cards.   

Wouldn't that make Legacy hands EASIER to remember?  You just have to remember the mix of Brainstorm/Ponder/Counterbalance/Top/Force/Daze/Goyf/Plow and Lands? 

My legacy reports would kick so much ass if I could remember them like I remember Vintage games.   

[SpencerForHire]

I would hazard a guess that it is due to the fact that a given hand with your deck is less unique in a given Legacy deck.  That being said, you always seem to remember the most "sick" or unique hands in vintage most vividly.

[Matt]

A lot of the cards do roughly the same thing. I know I had some kind of cantrip (but can't remember which one) that I played on turn 1, and some kind of counter...and a beater...

That, or I blame Tarmogoyf. (j/k)

[Troy_Costisick]

Given how we categorize Fish, should I make such a distinction?  Should MUD decks be counted as either Workshop Aggro or Stax?  MUD decks are often very different, since they don't run Welder at all and have Metalworker.   Or should I make even finer distinctions? 

Thoughts?

I'm coming in late to this.  Sorry about that.  To me, MUD means mono-brown decks.  Stax and Workshop Aggro don't carry that connotation for me.  I almost always assume they're playing at least one color.  I like keeping MUD distinct from them for that reason.  Also, by now, there is a lot of weight of history on the side of segragating them.  When doing historical research (usually concerning the B/R List) it's good to be able to note trends over long periods.  Changing now would throw a hiccup in that.  My preference is to keep them separate for clarity's sake.

Peace,

-Troy

[Smmenen]

Troy,

Historical consistency is a good reason to keep our terms consistent, but I can (and have) gone back and redefined older terms in this case. 

Also, the new Golem printing may bring this crisis to a head.   I'm not sure what to do.   

[TopSecret]

Yet, with Legacy, I can barely remember my opening hands moments after the match is over.   I just don't understand why!

Maybe you're just more used to Vintage cards, lines of play, and interactions?
Or perhaps Vintage just interests you more?

[Smmenen]

http://twitter.com/NorrYtt

Great to meet Stephen, Ben, and Eric! Bleiweiss drafted some Nagle Worldwake specials; Menendian loves a certain WWK legendary Merfolk...

Indeed...

[Smmenen]

http://twitter.com/NorrYtt

Great to meet Stephen, Ben, and Eric! Bleiweiss drafted some Nagle Worldwake specials; Menendian loves a certain WWK legendary Merfolk...

Indeed...

Hehe!!!!

[Smmenen]

I’ve been doing Metagame reports on a bimonthly basis since 2007 now, but from now on thinking about shifting to a quarterly schedule. 

The difference is that I’ll be adding merely one more month into each data set.   There are a few disadvantages.  First, it will be harder to see distinct trends if we are looking at a quarterly basis.   Second, it will be more difficult to inform DCI policy since this quarterly information will come after DCI decisions have been made.    However, there are two major upsides.   First, it will mean one less article like this per year.   Second, it means I can model my articles on financial quarterly statements. 

What do you think? 

[Marske]

I think it's a good idea, would you still include European events, as I think those weren't included last time.

[Smmenen]

I always include European events.  In fact, most of the tournaments are European. 

[Yare]

Could you structure the metagame reports a certain time before the B/R announcement (say, 2 weeks?) prior to the announcement so they have the most up to date information but enough time to evaluate it? Otherwise, I think it's ok since Vintage is a slow, lumbering beast in terms of metagame evolution.

[Marske]

@Steve,
My bad I think I missed some of the Breda events in your evaluation last time. I could very well be wrong obviously.