Ongoing SCG Chicago Results

[Liam-K]

keys to a "good meta":

1) a deck you like is top tier
2) there's more than one deck you win against
3) there's less than two decks you roll to
4) games tend to be interactive

As far as I can see, the semantics debate about "health" and "diversity" boil down to whether or not the person in question can claim these three things.

As far as I can see re: the metagame, there are enough viable strategies to stress overly focused decks, and most raw matchup percentages make less difference than relative playskill.  I call that not too shabby, but what do I know, I liked the gifts/fish/long meta.


I will say one thing, though.  Duress everywhere is good for Vintage.

[zeus-online]

Hmm i think a healthy meta-game should consist of a good mix of decks, right now drains seems to be absent which has caused me to stop playing vintage...I mostly enjoy playing drain decks...preferably keeper but i'd settle for intuAK, gifts, mono-u, slaver or just about any control strategy.

But, it's really hard to beat ichorid and GAT with drain decks.

/Zeus

[ELD]

Hmm i think a healthy meta-game should consist of a good mix of decks, right now drains seems to be absent which has caused me to stop playing vintage...I mostly enjoy playing drain decks...preferably keeper Razz but i'd settle for intuAK, gifts, mono-u, slaver or just about any control strategy.

But, it's really hard to beat ichorid and GAT with drain decks.

I don't understand this sentiment.  Drain is being underplayed right now, but that doesn't mean drain decks are not good in the current meta.  The fact that Drain is underplayed makes Drain better.  Shop decks used to contort themselves to try and beat Drain.  Now they have changed to try and beat Gush.  This leads to deck designs that walk straight into Mana Drain.  If you're looking for a Drain deck that beats Ichorid, try your hand at Bomberman. 

[OwenTheEnchanter]

If you're looking for a Drain deck that beats Ichorid, try your hand at Bomberman.

If you're looking for a Drain deck that beats Ichorid, try your hand at my Platinum Angel deck from day 2.

- Owen

[ashiXIII]

I have a Drain deck with an excellent Gush matchup.

[islanderboi10]

That would be...?

[v4ino]

On the Dave and ELD debate: Dave, when you quote prior SCGs and Waterburys where Gush dominated, you are ignoring the widespread adoption of Lorwyn, which has done a LOT to help format diversity.

With that said, I think one weekend of clear diversity doesn't wipe away 5-6 months of the same archtype over and over again.  Lorwyn was legal before this tourney and the results before this weekend backed up what I've been saying all along- 4 gush and 4 merchant scroll just give you the clear edge over anyone not running them. 

Out of 4 major tournaments since Gush's unrestriction, it has dominated 1 - SCG INDY. Gencon and the two Chicago events should clearly show that deck is just one of the boys. I still stick to the player being the most important part of the equation.

There will always be a perceived best "engine", it's impossible to restrict them all till fish becomes the best deck 

I call that not too shabby, but what do I know, I liked the gifts/fish/long meta.

Well said, I use to love to fight gifts. It's like going to a neighboring school to beat up their bully however I think the diversity in the modern meta is mostly due to not having gifts around, random decks just couldn't beat it without being overly meta'd which doesn't seems to be the case with gush.

[Dxfiler]

Out of 4 major tournaments since Gush's unrestriction, it has dominated 1 - SCG INDY. Gencon and the two Chicago events should clearly show that deck is just one of the boys. I still stick to the player being the most important part of the equation.

You don't need 100% gush decks in a top 8 for the archtype to just be clearly head above heels better than everything else.  Starting with just your examples:

At Worlds the only 2 gush decks in top 8 met in finals... and I don't buy the 'look at the players' argument because that entire top 8 was stacked.  And when it did completely dominate its next major event after worlds, SCG Indy, neither of the two worlds finalists were part of that top 8 (although one was 9th) where 7 out of 8 players had gush decks.  Oddly enough all pilots minus the ichorid player also had 3-4 merchant scroll :p

I already commented on SCG Chicago's results but just to summarize: Gush was still a huge force at this event.  3 in top 8 (2 in top 4) all with 4 scrolls each.  Day 2's smaller but still significant Mystic Gaming event saw only 1 gush deck with 4 scrolls and 2 other decks using scrolls (both long variants), so I'll grant you that on day 2 it wasn't much of a factor.  Worth noting is that on day 2's people tend to play more fun decks.  The answers to Steve's question on this subject posed earlier in this thread pretty much confirm this.

I think what people are missing is that just because an archtype does not completely thrash a top 8 with 80% playing it like SCG Indy does not mean that the format is 100% healthy.  I mean of the 4 examples you posted the only top 8 where it either a) did not completely lock up the finals or b) comprise of more than 30% of the top 8 was the mystic gaming event... the smallest of the 4 events you cited as examples.  If you looked at just Mystic Gaming's top 8 then yes, you'd get the impression that there's nothing wrong with the format.

When you take Mystic Gaming's top 8 and put it side by side with the other major events since Gush's unrestriction and actually look at the numbers and break them down, a different picture is painted.  Now to use an example you left out.  You say there have only been 4 major events since Gush's unrestriction...

Waterbury is not chop liver :p

It's been almost 5 months since the last one but a 130 person tourney coming off the heels of the unrestrictions should most certainly be counted.  For those who have forgotten:

Waterbury Day 1:  20 copies of merchant scroll in top 8 (16 in top 4 and the non-scroll player was a lucksack :p) and 14 more in 9th-16th placing decks.  12 copies of gush in top 8 (8 being in top 4) with another 12 copies in 9th-16th.

There will always be a perceived best "engine", it's impossible to restrict them all till fish becomes the best deck 

There's nothing 'perceived' about the gush engine being the best... the numbers clearly show it being the best.  Rogue stuff can certainly get in there, and you Vincent are great proof of this, but at the end of the day mono black tendrils isn't winning vintage worlds and UWB fish isn't winning Waterbury.  It's the Gush/Scroll based decks (almost always together) that have dictated the format's direction. When it isn't locking up the finals like Vintage Worlds or SCG Indy it's still taking up multiple slots in almost every major top 8.  If that isn't 'domination' then I don't know what is.

Keep in mind I've only gone over major tourneys.  I haven't even scratched the surface on how gush decks have warped the metagame because I've purposely left out all those 30-50 man mox tourneys since this isn't a B&R thread.  Just off the top of my head though, I'll say the last two top 8's of mox tourneys I've been to locally (chester's and ELD's) had 50% or more gush in top 8.  I've also sat back and watched Gush just have a field day at my tournaments (48 people and 30 people respectively).  I could go on and on... but I won't because I talk too much :p

In conclusion, all I want is a healthy metagame.  Anyone who even remotely enjoys playing the format should want the same.  Watching Gush and Scroll wreak havoc over and over again just isn't enjoyable.  Nor is running a deck that's clearly not as powerful just for the sake of breaking the monotony.

Gush or Scroll... One of them has got to go come December 1st.  You can say the format is fine and focus on just one tourney... or you can take data from multiple large events and look at the big picture.  This is not the healthiest vintage could be.  Sure it could be worse... but it could definitely and easily be better if Gush and/or Scroll got the axe December 1st.

- Dave Feinstein

[diopter]

Gush or Scroll... One of them has got to go come December 1st.  You can say the format is fine and focus on just one tourney... or you can take data from multiple large events and look at the big picture.  This is not the healthiest vintage could be.  Sure it could be worse... but it could definitely and easily be better if Gush and/or Scroll got the axe December 1st.

Or, you know, you can think about the fact that the Vintage metagame is settling down and that Gush has taken its place as a leading but not dominant metagame presence. You could also consider that the vast majority of people (i.e. not you) are enjoying this metagame. Finally you could keep in mind that current results are ALWAYS more relevant that past results when we are talking about the health of a metagame that has gone through recent restrictions and/or unrestrictions.

Stop trying to get them to restrict Gush and Scroll, it's a losing battle.
(They should instead ban City in a Bottle et al.)

[Moxlotus]

I'm just curious Dave, have you ever been happy with a Type 1 metagame? 

[v4ino]

Waterbury is not chop liver :p

WOW, huge oversight on my part. Apologies - I believe I was out of the country so I keep overlooking the results. Seems like your more on the hunt to kill merchant scroll than gush?

I think including Waterbury's results furthers the argument that the Meta is evolving, considering the amount of Gush day one. I think there will be spikes of every deck dominating given 9-12 months worth of data, it just needs more time to develop.

and the non-scroll player was a lucksack :p

No arguments here 

Keep in mind I've only gone over major tourneys.

Local tournaments are very meta dependant and are impossible to comment on (IMO), in the one small tournament I've been to since gush's unrestiction it only took 2 top 8 slots and with the highest of them getting 4th place (not to mention two good players - Sean Anthony and Paul Mastiano didn't even T8 with gush decks).

I'm just curious Dave, have you ever been happy with a Type 1 metagame?

In conclusion, all I want is a healthy metagame

Which brings me to the next logical question, what would be the new "in" engine if either gush or scroll was restricted. We would probably have this same discussion in 6-9 months from now to restrict Intuition-AK or something similar. I can hear it now "restrict Standstill"!

[Methuselahn]

Literally EVERYBODY is clamoring for the restriction of Gush and Merchant Scroll.  When will you people open your eyes and see it.  That's reason enough, right Dave?

[zeus-online]

Can't think of any other overpowered engines...There's:
IntuAK - Rather slow and pretty easy to stop.
Thirst for knowledge - Hardly unfair, although definetly solid.
Standstill - Urh, not what i'd call broken.
Skeletal scrying - Hardly broken, although pretty good in the right deck.
Dark confidant - Good, but not broken in any way.
Ophidian/Shadowmage infiltrator/Dimir cutpurse - Haven't seen play in ages, although it dosn't take too many hits to win the game.
Bazaar - Pretty good, i'd almost say broken, but i'd hate to see it restricted (Go WGD, Go!)

Did i miss anything remotely playable?

/Zeus

[diopter]

Bazaar - Pretty good, i'd almost say broken, but i'd hate to see it restricted (Go WGD, Go!)

Gush and Merchant Scroll are pretty good, almost broken, but we'd hate to see them restricted.

[zeus-online]

Bazaar - Pretty good, i'd almost say broken, but i'd hate to see it restricted (Go WGD, Go!)

Gush and Merchant Scroll are pretty good, almost broken, but we'd hate to see them restricted.

I wouldn't, and i'd call them broken.

/Zeus

[Methuselahn]

When you take Mystic Gaming's top 8 and put it side by side with the other major events since Gush's unrestriction and actually look at the numbers and break them down, a different picture is painted.  Now to use an example you left out.  You say there have only been 4 major events since Gush's unrestriction...

Alright, I sat down and actually looked at the numbers.  When I did, I saw that there were very few numbers to look at.  I think the powers that be would agree.

Generally, current policy is to watch powerful cards over the course of a year or so and then decide if something should be restricted.  This happened the first time around with Gush (when the format was drastically different) and recently with Gifts.  The right decision, which whaatzee has done, is to do nothing.

Five events is small potatoes.  Heck, even 20 Waterburies would be small potatoes. This is no amount of data.  Taking five events and saying that it is an accurate representation of anything is asinine. With such a thing that has so very many variables, the vintage format requires a much larger collection of results.  These variables include, but are not limited to, player skill, format change (the introduction of new sets), popularity of archetype, popularity of card choices, proxy counts, flawed testing, luck, sideboarding tactics, player population, random matchup pairings (an unusually low or high amount of any given deck facing the mirror),  etc.  I would hope Wizards would wait until June, at the very earliest before considering the restriction of any card.

For the record, I'm not trying to start a fight here with Dave and his quote.  I've always felt that (since Phillip Stanton was doing tourny breakdowns of only 50 or more) players have had too small a sample size to base any kind of decision coming from tournament results.

The format is still settling down.  Lorwyn introduced several format warping cards that have literally redesigned tried and true decks and the way we build them.  And this all JUST HAPPENED.

If you still think something needs to be restricted, then logic dictates that you play the broken card because it makes the most powerful deck available. Also, if you want something restricted, then naturally you'd want that card 'in the numbers' and therefore play the given deck.  Right?  The fact that the metagame appears diverse is clear evidence that people don't think it's broken and thus, restrict-worthy.  Saying good players can win with non gush decks then turning around and demanding (gush) to be restricted doesn't make sense.


Man, all this restriction talk makes me want to cut off the head of an infidel.

[Smmenen]

For the record, I'm not trying to start a fight here with Dave and his quote.  I've always felt that (since Phillip Stanton was doing tourny breakdowns of only 50 or more) players have had too small a sample size to base any kind of decision coming from tournament results.

Just an FYI: I have picked up where Phil left off.   I've been doing quarterly tourney breakdowns, except of 33 players and a top 8 or more instead of 50.   The idea behind 33 is that is where you get 6 rounds of swiss, just like with 50, but 50 is arbitrary whereas 33 is keyed to something relevant.   

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14605.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14972.html

Every two to three months, I will compile the numbers just as Phil did and do the metagame breakdowns.   

[Dxfiler]

Literally EVERYBODY is clamoring for the restriction of Gush and Merchant Scroll.  When will you people open your eyes and see it.  That's reason enough, right Dave?

I never said everyone was clamoring for it.  There are 2 sides to every restriction restriction debate.  Some want a change, others don't.  Regardless of any format, there will always be people who despise any changes at all.  There were plenty of people fine with 4 trinisphere.  That doesn't mean that the format couldn't be obviously healthier.  If you're going to debate me please don't attribute me with things I didn't say.  I'm speaking just for myself and you can disagree with me or agree with me, but if you disagree with me try to actually quote me.

Alright, I sat down and actually looked at the numbers.  When I did, I saw that there were very few numbers to look at.  I think the powers that be would agree.

Oddly enough you left out the actual results of the numbers... I wonder why.  Maybe it's because the actual results support what I've been saying all along :p

Saying good players can win with non gush decks then turning around and demanding (gush) to be restricted doesn't make sense.

Good players can win with multiple archtypes.  The entire point of of a healthy format is being able to give those players a multitude of competitive decks that they can choose and feel like they have a shot with.  WOTC doesn't want unbalanced formats from a business standpoint either.  If you look at Affinity's standard reign of terror for over a year, FNM attendance was down drastically over that period and that greatly hurts WOTC's bottom line.

Now Vintage is a different ballgame because WOTC doesn't make a ton off a proxied format but they still would like it to thrive to some degree.  It lets them tap into another core audience of players and give it much deserved attention.  They want to try and make the format as competitive as it can possibly be, but the power level of vintage is higher than any other format and that can create unique problems of where to draw the line on powerful cards/interactions.

The case of gush seems to be an easy and obvious fix.  Either gank scroll or gank gush and suddenly you have alot of top tier decks that are all close in power level.  Some people don't want equal power level decks and that's fine, but don't tell me stuff like this:

Five events is small potatoes.  Heck, even 20 Waterburies would be small potatoes. This is no amount of data.  Taking five events and saying that it is an accurate representation of anything is asinine.

Four events of over 100 people each having VERY similar reults is NOT SMALL POTATOES.  Gencon, Waterbury, SCG Indy and SCG chicago ALL had either A) 3 or more gush based decks in top 8 or B) 2 gush decks meeting in the finals.  That is dominance no matter how you slice it.  People are telling me that the format's evolving and that my examples are outdated... Day 1 of Chicago supports my stance.  Day 2 does not support it.  They're only one day apart people :p

People point to Chicago for all this format diversity yet there are still three gush decks plain as day in that top 8 on day 1... two of them in top 4.  RG beats wins and suddenly it's a fantastic format.

There's not much more I can really add to this as I've laid it all out there and it's frustrating to have to keep pointing out things I've said because people have either missed them or ignored them.  I just wanted to present my case and I think I've done that.  Maybe WOTC will do something about gush or scroll, maybe they won't.  The format will go on either way. 

As for which card I would prefer to see go, I'm actually leaning towards scroll.  I think 5 Gush (4 and a scroll) is a whole hell of alot more manageable than 8 gush.  Also, if they restrict gush and do not touch scroll, it's just a matter of time before something else becomes a degenerate card interaction with scroll.  This was proof with gifts getting restricted, because even though 8 gifts was pretty insane, they turned around and unrestricted gush so now you have 8 gush.  Scroll is simply too good to be a 4 of and there are far worse tutors on the restricted list (personal tutor anyone? :p). 

Personally I'd like to see them both go, but given that gush was the one unrestricted and that 4 scroll appear in many decks besides just GAT, I would say come December 1st they either touch scroll or nothing.

 
- Dave

[Moxlotus]

Four events of over 100 people each having VERY similar reults is NOT SMALL POTATOES.  Gencon, Waterbury, SCG Indy and SCG chicago ALL had either A) 3 or more gush based decks in top 8 or B) 2 gush decks meeting in the finals.  That is dominance no matter how you slice it.  People are telling me that the format's evolving and that my examples are outdated... Day 1 of Chicago supports my stance.  Day 2 does not support it.  They're only one day apart people :p
 

Because these things have never happened before with Control Slaver or Stax or Dark Ritual Combo or......Gay/r!

[Smmenen]

Literally EVERYBODY is clamoring for the restriction of Gush and Merchant Scroll.  When will you people open your eyes and see it.  That's reason enough, right Dave?

I never said everyone was clamoring for it.  There are 2 sides to every restriction restriction debate.  Some want a change, others don't.  Regardless of any format, there will always be people who despise any changes at all.  There were plenty of people fine with 4 trinisphere.  That doesn't mean that the format couldn't be obviously healthier. 

That's true, but it's also true that perhaps the only constant in Vintage, aside from the presence of power nine, has been the call to restrict.

It's not new.  But its wrong, 99% of the time.   

In 2002, Darren Di Battista, after convincing Mark Rosewater to restrict Fact or Fiction on virtually his word alone, argued strenuously that Back to Basics should be restricted.  Aaron Forsythe wrote Oscar Tan asking, genuinely, if back to basics was a real problem.

In that same year, many Vintage players vehemently complained about Illusionary Mask and Back to Basics. Many Vintage players were furious that Illusionary Mask was so strangely errated, upending their format.

Then in 2003, after Gush was restricted, the recently printed Cabal Therapy saw savage use with Academy Rector. The push to restrict Rector was strong. Randy Buehler talked to a number of players at GenCon who all complained about the card. It was a tutor that put Yawgmoth's Bargain directly into play! When Psychatog won the GenCon Championship with two Mask decks in the Top 8, and two Workshop decks, Academy Rector seemed to be non-threatening. Nonetheless, I did a poll of the Vintage community, and whopping 20% felt that Rector should still be restricted: In the fall of 2003, exactly 20% of the community thought Rector should be restricted (33 out of 165 votes). It may not have had the tournament results to support it, but people were up in arms nonetheless.

Despite a very vocal and sizable minority calling for its restriction, the DCI did not pull the plug.

That same year, Oscar Tan ran a poll of the major Vintage players (including myself and Brian Weissman), asking what should be restricted.

Take a look at the chart here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5980.html

Look how many of the Vintage regulars wanted Mishra's Workshop and Dark Ritual restricted.

Most interestingly, although LED and Chrome Mox got the most votes for restriction (14 votes out of 17 possible in both instances – with three “watch” for the latter), look how many people voted for the restriction of Spoils of the Vault: a majority of the people voting.

Spoils of the Vault sees no play in Vintage right now.

Look how many votes Intuition and even Chalice of the Void got. In his article explaining the restriction of Lion's Eye Diamond, Burning Wish, and Chrome Mox, Randy Buehler notes that they seriously discussed the restriction of Cunning Wish, Chalice of the Void, and Bazaar of Baghdad. I recommend you read the entire article because it's fascinating and because it provides insight into their thought process.

In 2004, Trinisphere was printed and players began to call for the restriction of Mishra's Workshop. This time, Crucible of Worlds was the target of derision. People compared Crucible to Library of Alexandria and completely distorted the format. In addition, by the end of the year people were calling for the restriction of Oath of Druids or Forbidden Orchard and then Dark Ritual.

By 2005, the calls to restrict Dark Ritual and Mishra's Workshop intensified.

In 2006, with Mishra's Workshop and Dark Ritual seemingly staying around, the argument shifted to Gifts Ungiven and Grim Tutor. By the end of 2006, both cards were called to be axed.

Consider this list of cards that have, at one time or another, been part of a push for restriction:

Illusionary Mask
Mishra's Workshop
Spoils of the Vault
Intuition
Cunning Wish
Thirst for Knowledge
Back to Basics
Chalice of the Void
Goblin Welder
Academy Rector
Crucible of Worlds
Grim Tutor
Bazaar of Baghdad

And that's the short list.

Part of the reason that the call or general movement to restrict a card eventually subsides is because the metagame adjusts to it. Rather than actually let the metagame adjust, the Vintage player's first instinct is to ask the DCI to do something about it. Just witness the reaction to Flash and Ichorid right now.

Now, I'm not saying that Gush isn't re-restrictable.  I think it was a mistake from an objective point of view unrestricting it.

My point, however, is that the calls to restrict are frequent and have been in the history of Vintage.    While any restriction suggestion may sound reasonable, how are we to know that it is one of the very, very few times that it has turned out to be right or one of the Illusionary Mask, Bazaar of Baghdad, Back to Basics instances?

[Dxfiler]

Because these things have never happened before with Control Slaver or Stax or Dark Ritual Combo or......Gay/r!

At least we're in agreement on something.

4 Gush and 4 scroll showing up over and over in top 8's IN TWO DIFFERENT DECKS over the past 6 months is not the same thing as these other decks that you're trying to pass off as having the same dominance.  The only deck you listed on there that has come close to Gush's dominance is slaver... and as I already said that was a very manageable deck because it took setup time and didn't have anywhere near the access to draw spells that Gush currently does.  Night's whisper is no gush.    

Maybe I'm just living in crazy-viille, but I find it hard to believe that no one finds it shocking that you have two very different decks built around 4 gush and 4 scroll and they both have had tremendous impact in big events recently.  It's not like it's just GAT or just Empty gush tearing up tourneys... they're taking turns.

I correct my earlier statement: there were not 2 gush based decks in the top 4 of Chicago... there were actually 3.  GAT was in second and fourth, Empty Gush in third.  The fourth deck didn't have Gush or scroll and ended up winning.  That fourth deck also had not ever put up a major top 8 previously in the past 2 years (Although I know someone who has done well with it before Jamison ;p).  It just boggles my mind that people try and pass that off as not dominating a tourney.

If that isn't clear evidence of dominating, we could go to the SCG prior to that.  7 out of the top 8 were gush.  Seven.  4 GAT and 3 empty gush, with a gat and empty gush splitting in finals.

It's hard to ignore those numbers.  People told me that waterbury and gencon were too old to look at.  Even though I disagree with that, just for those critics I took the last two SCG run events that both had over 100 people.  One was two weeks ago and one was a little over two months ago.  Total them together and out of a possible 16 top 8 spots you're looking at 10 being gush based decks.  That's crazy :p 

I mean I don't know what else to say at this point.  No one has actually been able to give me a solid argument based on the numbers.  I can't really debate stuff like 'UR fish was just as dominant.'  I put out my numbers and how I feel and you can make your own judgment.  If you feel the format is healthy then that's cool with me.  My numbers point otherwise but numbers aren't everything.  People are still going to play regardless because this isn't standard era affinity level dominance.  I just want a healthier format and that was the point of my posts.

Thanks to those who read them with an open mind.

- Dave =)


P.S. at Steve- if there weren't ever calls for restrictions then you wouldn't have anywhere near the audience that you do.  No one would want to read the same articles about decks with 4 trinsphere battling 4 gifts battling 8 gush.  It would be strategy articles based on a format with little to no strategy.  I don't think anyone truly wants a format like that.

[Moxlotus]

  4 Gush and 4 scroll showing up over and over in top 8's IN TWO DIFFERENT DECKS over the past 6 months is not the same thing as these other decks that you're trying to pass off as having the same dominance.

Goblin Welder was in Slaver, Stax, and Belcher at the time.  Welder was a 4-of in combo, control and prison!  I'm not sure any card has ever had that kind of impact across archetypes.

Dark Ritual fueled Belcher and storm decks.

Shops have fueled Shop aggro and Stax decks.

Mana Drain has fueled control decks and combo decks.

Oh, and don't forget about Brainstorm.  Essential to combo and control and played in some aggro-control too.  With a fetchland (and who doesn't have llike 6 in their decks) you  not only draw 3, but you can shuffle away stuff you dont want like Angels or DSC.  Plus, you can hide cards from Duress.  And to say "Brainstorm isn't a key card in those decks" I'd dare you or anybody to make a storm deck that is halfway decent without Brainstorm.  ok, so Vincent Forino did.  But that's it, and going by the number of people who play that and the number of people who put brianstorm in there storm decks--I'd have to say Brainstorm is absolutely  key for storm combo to function.

Just because cards are good in TWO different decks, doesn't mean they are too good.

Again, I must ask--has there ever been a metagame where you were happy Dave?  I guess I'm not sure what your ideal metagame looks like.  There has to be SOME deck that puts up numbers.  3 gush decks, in different archetypes, in a top 8 is dominance????

That fourth deck also had not ever put up a major top 8 previously in the past 2 years 

As you should know, Jamison took 10th on tiebreakers at Indy and took home a sapphire/recall/walk (one of those) at the only other tournament he played R/G.  While your statement is still true, I don't want anybody to think that Jamison's R/G showing was a fluke.  It wasn't.

  No one has actually been able to give me a solid argument based on the numbers.  I can't really debate stuff like 'UR fish was just as dominant.' 

UR fish put 3 people into the ECC.  It was a UR fish finals.  That is as "dominant" as Gush was at chicago.  Those are the numbers.  I might also point out that Gush is so strong that only 4 of the 16 invitationalists chose to play it, and no offense, but one of those was Evan Erwin.

One.  One was two weeks ago and one was a little over two months ago.  Total them together and out of a possible 16 top 8 spots you're looking at 10 being gush based decks

I see you have conveniently ignored the tournament that doesn't fit your point: day 2 of Chicago.  Maybe that is why you continue to get "your numbers" to equal dominance.  Gush dominated 1 tournament.  It was good but not dominant both days at chicago.  I haven't seen any smaller tournaments get dominated by Gush.  Europe is having big tournaments and none of them are dominated by Gush.  There has been exactly 1 tournament that Gush dominated.

[Prometheon]

Dave: I don't consider 3/8 to be "dominance," especially if they are different archetypes. Sure, the SCG with 7 Gush decks was ridiculous, but statistical anomolies happen.

The criteria I use (and I may be in the minority) is if I am seriously afraid of facing Gush decks at tournaments. I've placed well at the last two T1 events I've played in (1st and 3rd) playing non-Gush decks (Landstill and Oath, respectively), and I 2-0ed GAT both times I played it. Gush is very strong, but like many people are saying, it is beatable. When Affinity was in T2, I could have been running hate.dec and still gotten owned by turn 3. This is very rare for GAT to accomplish. In any given metagame there is going to be a best deck, and that deck is going to place multiple people in top 8s from time to time. It's just an inevitability in magic.

Edit: I guess what I'm getting at is that when I sit down against a Gush deck, I don't think "shit, I better have luck on my side," I prepare myself for an interesting and (usually) skill testing match. MUCH more than if I were against, say, Ichorid.

[oneofchaos]

In general I find most gat/empty gush to be a lot less skill insensitive then gifts.  Was Trinisphere restricted based on power?  No, it was restricted to maintain interest in the format.  I feel (myself and hopefully a few more) that gush is becoming Trinisphere 2.0, and I don't like the current direction the format is going.  I don't quite care about specifically gush, but maintaining a fun format is something that needs to be done.  Gifts, in my opinion was a fairly good era.  Very few top 8's were stupidly lopsided, with most being a balance of gifts/shop/fish/combo/random.  I was not a good enough player to play gifts, until right about the end of it's dominance.  However, I did respect the good players that were consistent in winning with it.  However gush is making me cringe when I see a terrible player just go off, sometimes not even optimally.  I personally don't care if what the hell you restrict (scrolls, gushes, whatever), but I'm tired of playing gush decks (against, and using).  They matches are generally one sided with GAT being able to "end" the game early, by ripping your hand apart and reinforcing it's own to the point scooping is time saving.  Or your opponent will find some way to deny you that tempo advantage provided by gush, and the deck will collapse on its 13-14 land manabase, with Lotus+3 Moxen.  I find that gush not only ruins part of the fun of the game for me, but I just can't catch a break from it.

[ErkBek]

Dave: I don't consider 3/8 to be "dominance," especially if they are different archetypes. Sure, the SCG with 7 Gush decks was ridiculous, but statistical anomolies happen.

I totally agree. 3 of 8 is not dominance especially when you consider that Gush makes up usually 20-33% of a given metagame.

Rituals performance at the Mystic Gaming event (day 2 of Chicago) wasn't dominance by any means, though it was very impressive. Probably 6-10 people in the room of +90 people played rituals yet 3 made top 8.

I personally don't mind playing against Gush decks for reasons already stated, you've usually got real games (baring turn 1 fastbond hands). That's what I want when I play magic, real games that are interactive. There are a couple decks in this format that are pretty non interactive, I'd much rather see those go.

I was pro-rerestrict Gush or restrict Scroll for about 2 weeks until Lorwyn came out.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

I wish I had more to contribute to this discussion than what I'm about to, but I feel that Smenenen and Becker have just had amazing responses which both encompass and dwarf what I was going to say. I'm not going to lie, this is going to be a narrative adventure of sorts, so if you want something a little more... well... professional, skip this post

A couple months ago, I was afraid. Unrestrictions were announced and an old enemy returned not only to life, but to full power once again. Suddenly, my bizarre and quirky ability to create and pilot unique aggro decks with success was in jeopardy. I immediately rose up from my chair and paced around. How could they do this to the format? It seemed to be balancing out and yet now darkness was moving in and preparing to engulf my deranged aggro control world. I tore apart my Fishy deck and began building other decks. Everything I put together ran into the same theoretical problem- "even if I get this out, they have all this and this and this" etc etc. I was ready to take a break from Vintage just based on all the theoretical hype. Ready to just abandon all I've enjoyed over the last decade... over GUSH.

Then I actually played against it.

It was... slow. Not in the sense of something like Stasis/ Landstill/ I'll kill you on turn 20, but compared to pitch/ grim long/ belcher decks... It was slow. Very efficient and certainly powerful, but slow enough to be disrupted. I took a step back, took in a deep breath, and went back to the drawing board. Not only did I just completely blow the entire situation out of proportion, but I had underestimated what it meant for the metagame. It didn't, as Mr F suggests, warp and distort the meta. Gush was fertilizer and good ol fashioned sunshine- it allowed the meta to prosper and bloom. I could play random aggro like Dawn of the Dead and win. My old decks were viable again (as we saw Day 2 of SC Chitown)!

The point of this entire bizarre insight into the mind of an aggro control player with a seemingly overwhelming desire to only play decks with Dark Confidant? A format of four Gush is not only extremely healthy for the format, but is also amazingly encouraging. Yes, they can go broken like mad- but this is f'ing vintage. If Mr F/ other advocates of restricting Gush/ Scroll have not come to this realization... Then it might be time to take up a new hobby. Or a new format.


-Nicolae

PS- If there is something that needs to be restricted, its Flash. It allows bad players to knock good players out of contention with seemingly stupid t1 uber protected wins frequently enough to constantly be a threat, yet not frequently enough to actually win anything. End rant/ story mode

[Polynomial P]

Prior to the SCG chicago, if someone were to ask me what changes I would make to the Restricted list, I would have said to restrict Gush and Merchant Scroll. My feelings have changed a bit after playing in Chicago. There were such a variety of decks in the field and the Top 8's were filled with different decks (my count is 11 "sufficiently different" decks filling out 16 spots). In my opinion, the metagame is still wide open right now and adjusting to the unrestriction of Gush. Therefore, if the DCI was to take no action this cycle, I would not be disappointed.

However, if it is going to restrict a card, it should be Merchant Scroll. Merchant scroll has been very dominant, if not overpowering, ever since Meandeck Gifts took off. It has fueled several different decks and falls into the category of 'cheap tutors', which is often restricted on principle alone. While I couldn't find the article I wanted to quote from (the article that someone broke down the restricted list into different categories and tried to place all the cards into those categories), its clear that Merchant scroll is better than several of the restricted tutors, specifically Gifts Ungiven, Personal tutor, Burning wish, and Enlightened tutor.

[feyd]

You guys are a bunch of loosers!  stop whinning! right now!  If you think gush is stupid try trix, academy (pre-ban), or rector flash!  quit your idiotic whing.  I swear to god if a bunch of whiny little b**ches stop me from playing gush, or GAT, or anything containing merchant scroll I will serioulsy put a jihad out on your asses.  Vintage is a cheap ass format where broken things happen, regardless of the deck you are playing. 

THINK ABOUT THIS! : a 4/5 goyf and a 2/3 kird ape starring you down from the other end of the field!  kill yourself restrict gush/merchant scroll!  If you think you can win in 2-4 turns with gush then go for it baby!  you are gonna have to deal with a crap load of hate/aggro that will beat your face in pre-turn-3/control anyways.  Anything is possible, everything is equally broken/stupid.  PIPE DOWN YOUR STUPID RESTRICTION LIPS AND PLAY THE GAME FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.....ya bitches!  If you want a format that's fair play your type 2/1.5/1.x .  People knoe it's Russian roulette in vintage nowadays and forever so quit your lips!  If you wanna keep talkin lips come pay me a visit in Jersey and I will show you how it's done.  You don't like gush?  play some stax/SS, but please...dear god..if another card is restricted because of whinny T1 players then this whole system is really F'ed up. 
     
     Vintage players, as a whole, should decide what is restricteded.  But people really need to get with it.  I have been beaten with my T1 gush tendrils by a T1.x non-gush kobold tendrils deck.  CHAOS THEORY PREVAILS!  Talk your probabilities till you are blue in the face.  Skill is involved in MTG but so is chance!  Some underdog goblin deck straight from a decklist from 1.x can take it down any day so, for chrisake, stop this baby-lips.  Gush has put up some numbers, so what?  Everyone wants to be en vogue right now so they run gush...until sometyhing that beasts gush comes along.  Gush hasn't held all 8 places in a top 8 since its revival so please...stop saying it's the best deck in the format.  Until I see T8 all gush will I believe that gush/merchant scroll needs restriction.  You wanna flame?  I think not.  This is no flame post.  Would you mind if I decided that? - Bram This is a post to slap some sense into people.  I play U/G squirrel prison in T1 so don't think I'm some pampered gush player.  I own the face off gush 24/7 just like stax, just like the rest of ya.  Don't complain about any card in vinatge.  If you want to complain about something comapin about the government...and then go google ron paul...he'll answer all your questions about god, abortion, vintage, and anything else you have doubts about. 

    This rant brought to you by:  Feyd Rautha Heir to house Hrkonnen.

P.S:  Stop yer B**chin!

This is a very, very bad seventh post. While you may consider your post a "wake up call", I consider this an inflammatory post, displaying poor writing skills and unnecessary whining. And while we're considering: consider this an official warning. Good day, sir.
- Bram

[EnialisLiadon]

I think Feyd addresses all our concerns in very coherent and concise post.  Well said, Feyd.  Well said.

...but in all seriousness, I can see the arguments for restricting Merchant Scroll, but I would be a bit miffed to see it restricted.  This comes from my own personal bias; it fueled MDG, ritual Gifts, 1-gifts Gifts (guess what this poster wants unrestricted!), and other lesser decks I enjoy playing.  Scroll enabling Gush decks and Flash (moreso the former, due to popularity) is a trade-off for me, since it also enables many decks I like playing.  But I also understand that it is a very strong card...among the strongest unrestricted cards available to us currently.

So I would understand the restriction of Scroll, but I would not like it.

Also, Chicago was an excellent and fun field, but not necessarily indicative of the direction vintage is heading, I don't think.  I want to see the results of more tournaments before I'm convinced were out of the stagnation.

[LotusHead]

????

Seriously, what were you saying?

An old (young) teammate of mine finally got over his crack addiction (actual crack, not a metaphore.) and wants to play vintage again.

He didn't know what to play (Oath was his main vehicle, but he has been out of the loop since, say, Extripate got printed...).

I told him that any deck he builds, as long as it doesn't completely suck, has a chance to win in our NorCal Meta (and the SCGish meta).

I feel that that last sentence is true at the moment, and that fullfills my definition of a Healthy Meta: There is no deck so broken and busted that it completely warps every tourney it can show up at and while good, that best deck can be beaten by other decks. Luck happens, but skill still matters.

I have T2 Affinity as my only concrete example of this (T1 is broken every which way but loose), but Oath, Slaver, Goblins, Stax, Shop Aggro, Flash, Ichorid/Dredge, Fishishness, TMWA, Doomsday, Storm.dec, Storm.Gush.dec, Storm.Warrens.Gush.dec, and GAT all have a chance at bringing home the prize/power. 

Vintage is as Healthy as it ever has been.

Gush? Scroll? Even Brainstorm? They are just blue spellls. They can be hated out.

Thoughtseize? Paleeze. (it rhymed.)