[Article] Getting Vintage Back on Track: The Case Against Ichorid by Cody Vinci

[wiley]

Cody was (note the past tense) willing to metagame correctly by virtue of the fact that he DID do so.

First, Cody was planning on quitting Vintage one way or the other.  His removal from the format has very little to do with Ichorid based on what he has written in the past.

Second, as I already said, he did NOT metagame correctly.  If Ichorid was a match up he was so scared of then he could have also include Tormod's Crypts and extirpates in his sb, he did NOT.  According to his own testing he knew that the plan was unacceptable from the start and yet he still CHOSE to run it.  In no way does that sound like correct metagaming to me.

Except the "chance" element is pushed to an unacceptable extreme by Ichorid; at least that is the argument.

Except that it is the exact opposite.  Ichorid is designed much in the same way that old Sligh decks were.  It is made to get a specific course of actions to be readily repeatable.  The fact that other decks have a "chance factor" on whether or not they find side board cards is irrelevant as the exact same can be said for every deck.

If the solution is to play specific archetypes that beat Ichorid (and there aren't many - in fact, there are none)

This is a false statement.

Decks that have good game against Ichorid:

DeezNoughts
Dark Illusions
Bomberman
Shop Aggro (some builds have an extremely strong match up, some are fairly weak)
URBana Fish
GobLines

There is a pattern here if you look.  Ichorid (my build anyway) is designed to be an aggro control deck.  Indeed it is one of, if not THE, best aggro control decks ever built.  It is perfectly designed to trounce control, as evidenced by the fact that counters are almost useless, and it stops any amount of combo that isn't simply faster than its control (ie fast storm decks).

If you take an objective view of DT and Ichorid and look at their control suite you will not be surprised at why DT has such a bad match up.  It is the exact type of deck Ichorid is supposed to slaughter.  Aggro control typically loses in 1 of 2 ways, either 1)it faces combo that comes in under its control or 2)it faces a better aggro deck.  Ichorid follows these flaws and adds two more, it has specific, easily splashed cards that cause massive road block for it and it has the ~5% probability of simply crapping out.

Just because the field is currently filled with its natural prey does not mean that ichorid deserves restriction.  I have much more to say on the matter but it will wait until tomorrow.

then we're looking at distortion, which is a restriction criterion. Nevertheless, the problem isn't that there are certain decks that cannot beat Ichorid or that struggle to beat Ichorid. That is quite the opposite. In fact, any deck can beat Ichorid via the SB.

It only becomes distortion when you have deck vs. anti-deck.  All of the decks I listed previously are decks that have/had game against their metas, not just Ichorid.  It is also false to claim that "any deck can beat Ichorid via the SB" since this has been proven wrong repeatedly, or else Ichorid would never Top 8.  Unless you mean that any deck has a "chance" to beat Ichorid thanks to certain cards to which I respond that this, again, can be applied to every deck.  If I have 2 pyrostatic pillars in play you can't storm out without killing yourself.  If I have Ankh of Mishra on the board you’re not going to be doing much with gushbond.  If I have ensnaring bridge on the field you aren't going to be attacking with that robot are you?

It is dishonest to claim that this is about "neutering one's bad match-ups". I wonder if you're truly paying attention to the arguments here.

After every other basis has been proven wrong it boils down to "the deck is unfun."  Therefore "nerfing one's bad match ups" is the only leg for this argument to stand on.  This greatly reminds me of this article, specifically:

[Worldgorger] Dragon MUST receive errata; it is currently the single most important thing to the health of the T1 environment. The "infinite loops" it generates are abusable even in the sense that they let you draw the game whenever you want. A deck that abuses the most basic rules of Magic should not exist. Not to many people enjoy having 3 draws in a row followed by an unbeatable turn-1 win, which is exactly what the Dragon is capable of doing if the Dragon player chooses to do so.

[c dizzle]

And if I wanted to play a match where it is pretty  much a toss up with minimal skill I would have gone to a casino and played blackjack instead of going to a magic tournament.

What a great way to illustrate my point. Blackjack is about a 50/50 game for an average player (in Magic terms, the guy who just slaps 4 Needle and 4 Leyline in the deck). For a skilled blackjack player (guys who make the right statistical play (highest EV) every time, in Magic terms, the guy who understands HOW to approach the match-up rather than just mulliganing into hate and crossing his fingers) it goes to 55/45. For the best blackjack players (those who effectively count cards or, in Magic terms, the guys who understand Ichorid's inner workings and who choose the right deck to combat it) it goes to 60/40. While that's not stellar, it is still a significant advantage over a coin flip and a very respectable percentage against a deck that, in my opinion, has the best game 1 win percentage across the board of any Vintage deck ever.

When people present concerns about the health of the format derision is not exactly a great response. Perhaps you enjoy your T1 just fine in your corner of the world, but you have to be a little more sensitive to other people's concerns if you want this format to prosper on a more global scale.

Sensitivity is definitely important and the overall health of the format should be of paramount concern to all of us. But one person writing an article doesn't mean the sky is falling. In fact, two of the people that I respect most in the Vintage community were cited in that article saying that they believe that Ichorid is not unhealthy. The same arguments against Ichorid were made about Stax years ago. It's unfun, it takes away an opponent's ability to interact, it breaks the rules with Welder getting around Chalice and counters, etc. But today, nobody would argue with Stax's presence in the metagame. We adjusted to it. And this was when Stax was winning big tournaments.

Stasis was unfun, too and we adjusted. See where I'm going?

I don't want to sound rude, but if a few people quit, it is what it is. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I don't see the deck as a global Vintage issue.

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Look guys, I'm not claiming I'm that most skilled player or a Vintage master. However, it is useful to use "extremes" in examples to illustrate a point. The only reason I use Drain Tendrils as an example is because that is what I know.

Garrett... I think you should go back and re-read what I wrote and stop putting words in my mouth. I said, "In the end, eight anti-Ichorid cards were not enough to win with." I was referring to our specific match. For that single match, my 8 anti-Ichorid cards were not enough. That is not to say I did not metagame properly or would not beat you the next time we played. Also, I planned on getting out of Vintage regardless of Ichrorid, true. I also planned on keeping my staples, but now I am not sure if I want to do that. I'd rather just have the cash

Also, I don't believe that every other argument is nullified. I still think the debate for if Ichorid is healthy for the format is valid. If more people are not playing than playing as a result of Ichorid, over time, this will be unhealthy for Vintage. That remains to be seen.

Also, speaking to you at the tournament and reading your report, you seemed to be very supportive that the deck was a problem for the format. What's up with the complete turn around?

[slyfer]

I agree with Smmenen to a certain extent.
The fact that one can loose after siding 8 cards does mean nothing, because the opponent also sided in about 10 cards. Many people thinks that game2 and game3 are "adjusted" or "enhanced" by the sideboard.

The Manaless ichorid deck doesn't help the "diversity" of the metagame, because since Future Sight the only deck played with bazaar was Ichorid, and many other decks disappeared (of course they were "weak" in a fast metagame with flash and icorid playable).
Dragon disappeared because of flash/icorid deck (bazaar + deep + squee engine)
Madness was slow (bazaar, madness/flashback engine)
Zambo (Control deck with bazaar-squee-infestation-tinker, intuition, accumulated)
Celebral assassin (Bazaar-squee-thirst of knowledge)
Ubazaar (Workshop+bazaar+Uba lock + welder)

LOL, so the it's Ichorid the cause of deck UNdiversity!!! Without Ichorid and without flash + merchant, Vintage metagame would be way MORE diverse!!!

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Garrett.. incase you forgot, this is how you described the deck:

I sold my Soul to the Boogie Man: A story of 1st place at The Cary Cup #2

I got back into Vintage after a fairly long break at the release of Future Sight, this was because I found a deck that was completely unfair, a deck that only allowed one way interaction the vast majority of the time, a deck that abused the minor rules of the game like triggered effects and replacement effects to their breaking point.  This deck, of course, is known as Manaless Ichorid. 

I don't understand how you can talk about the deck like that and then tell me it's healthy and fair.

[Smmenen]

. And honestly, how many times have you ever lost turn 1 to a Long deck in a tournament. I've played in at least 25-30 tournaments and can think of less than 3 times I've ever lost turn 1.

I have beat RICH SHAY in tournament THREE times on TURN ONE with Grim Long in TWO matches THROUGH Force of Wills!  Twice in one round in fact. 
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11616.html  - Round Four

Your match against Shay is similar to your infamous Windfall for 4 into Duress, Lotus, LED, Will.  Using examples with ridiculously low odds of happening don't further your point.

First of all, I have no idea what you are even talking about with that example.  if its so infamous, one would think I would have heard of it.  Second of all, my point was to answer Cody's claim that no one has really lost to Grim Long on turn one in tourmament.  Third, winning on turn one in tournmaents is not something that has ridiculously low odds.   In the same tournament in which I faced Shay, I did the EXACT Same thing to Vinnie Forino: winning on turn one BOTH games in our match. 

In fact, as I look back on my three SCG tournament top 8 reports with Grim Long, and other tournaments in which I've played Grim Long or Pitch Long, I generally win a good number of the tournament games on turn one - often as high as 20% or higher.   To say that winning on turn one with Grim Long is ridiculously low odds is factually untrue.   I mean, I didn't even count and already we know of 4 turn one wins in *one* tournament report in two matches.   As I recall, Pitch Long had about the same number of turn one wins as well. 

I do believe Steve has adequately proven that Ichorid is in fact performing rather poorly in comparison to other archetypes, consistent with my own observations. Case closed.

We both know that there are many other factors that are considered besides performance.  Dismissing one factor does not close the case.

There are many other factors.  But NEVER before have we been asked to simply  and completely ignored ability to win tournaments.   Both Flash and Trinisphere decks not only won tournaments, then won LOTS of tournaments.   Even Long.dec had demonstrated its capacity to win tournaments (I won multiple tournaments) before LED and B. Wish were restricted.   Ichorid: it has placed in top 8s all over the world over the last year yet NEVER won a tournamant of decent size with the two exceptions of two 40 person tournaments in Spain during that 12 month period.   

If a deck is pretty much prohibited from winning tournaments, and honestly, almost never makes up more than 10% of Vintage top 8s, that pretty much demonstrates that the deck is not unfair.  It is one thing to say, well, this deck is unfun, and unhealthy, and since it wins a decent number of tournaments, let's restrict it: see Flash and Trinisphere.  It is altogether another thing to say: this deck NEVER wins tournaments, etc, let's restrict it. 

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Steve, I think where we completely disagree is that you believe that Ichorid should be treated like every card/decks that have been problems in the past where winning many tournaments was a good indication of problem. The fact is that Ichorid is not even close to any deck we've ever seen in the past, so you have nothing similar to compare it to. I recently asked Erik Lauer what the DCI looks at when deciding which cards are restricted. His response was that they look at tournaments results (and also the sideboards those decks use), player's opinions and "other factors." So, just because Ichorid is not winning all the time does not mean that it could not be a serious problem for Vintage. The deck can fall into the DCI's category of "player opinions" if enough peole have a problem with the deck or also "other factors," which could be turning people off from playing Vintage or the level of fun people have while playing the game. As you should know by now, there is no definite system the DCI uses in deciding what is a problem, so I think it is unfair to only look at tournament results and say Ichorid is not a problem. If I and other people think it's a problem, it's a problem to some extent. If enough people are happy with the format and with Ichorid, then I'm not going to press the issue any further. For now, we are just discussing and voicing opinions, and it's not fair to dismiss my points because Ichorid has not won enough tournaments.

[wiley]

You have certainly beaten Ichorid before with 8 sideboard cards, however by your own admission they are not readily available in time to turn the match.  I see the fact that you have run a deck that is of the exact type Ichorid is there to take advantage of as harming to your argument.  You spent 0 time in your article about what strategies are already there to defeat Ichorid.  In my opinion the way you have gone about the argument was largely incorrect and would have improved greatly from A) presenting more information on the deck in question and B) not being dismissive of differing opinions in the article.

I agree with the thought that many people find the deck an eyesore to play against.  I also find that the majority of these people are greatly misinformed as to the strengths and weaknesses of the archetype and so should have limited voice on whether or not something needs to be "fixed."  I have played the deck for more than a year now, I know its ins and outs better than almost any other currently viable archetype.  I know how many minor, seemingly insignificant plays happen on average in any match containing Ichorid and another deck.  The fact is that general first impressions with the deck are very misleading; there are no insignificant plays unless one player is completely locked out of the game, Ichorid cannot do this.  As an Ichorid player I typically have 2-3 routes of victory planned out after seeing my opening hand, these include looking in to the next 4 turns and figuring out what the opponent’s deck can/most likely will do.  

To me the entire game of magic simplifies down to repeatable plays of any given archetype, it is the knowledge of these archetypes that instructs you on how to play out any given game.  I apply this to every deck that I pilot, including "tricky" decks like blue based combo.  Blind match up percentages are an eyesore to me.  Many people throw them out without ever explaining what the crucial plays are, this immediately makes me question the validity of any "testing" that backs up said percentages.  I know exactly why Ichorid beats Drain Tendrils the majority of the time; it comes down to a difference in control packages, especially since DT has a combo finish:

2 Sundering Titan
4 Leyline of the Void
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Unmask
4 Chalice of the Void

1 Chain of Vapor
1 Echoing Truth
2 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Rebuild
4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
1 Time Walk
and sometimes it includes
1 Tinker
1 Darksteel Colossus

In this match up Ichorid has 16 pieces of relevant disruption, Drain Tendrils has upt to 5 if you count tinker and time walk.  Do you understand why the match is so lopsided? (general "you" not directed at Cody specifically)
For the sideboard you have:

4 Chain of Vapor
4 Emerald Charm
3 Wispmare

4 Leyline of the Void
3 Pithing Needle

(For reference, I have pulled these off the first post in Drain Tendrils thread and off my own tournament report)
Ichorid has 8 relevant pieces of disruption as wispmare is useless against you since your strategy doesn't use enchantments (unlike oath).  In addition to this Emerald Charm adds a combo element to Ichorid, speeding up the deck an entire turn (I used this exact play in our game 3).  Drain Tendrils has 7 relevant sideboard cards, according to your most current list you had a fourth needle so 8 sideboard cards.  This particular pundit of Ichorid has repeatedly put forth to the community that Leyline is never really a problem; any time in which Ichorid loses to leyline it would have lost to whatever clock killed them in the first place.  So in my opinion Drain Tendrils has ~4 relevant sideboard cards against Ichorid.  This again should shed some light on why Ichorid is a bad match up for Drain Tendrils.  Again, I am disturbed that such explanations were not in the article given that I believe you have this information and kept it from your readers (whether this was intentional or by mistake does not sway my opinion, though I certainly believe it was the latter).  Not only this, but you didn't include any match ups that are in favor of the non-Ichorid pilot such as DeezNoughts: (taken from here)

1 Phyrexian Dreadnought
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Trinket Mage
4 Force Of Will
4 Stifle
2 Duress
2 Thoughtseize
1 Time Walk
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Tormod's Crypt

Putting men in the way is automatically a road block for Ichorid because you don't want your bridges removed, the creatures in this deck are a)extremely large, b)draw into more disruption, c)fetch specific disruption.  Force is a mostly dead card, it can still hit a dread return but past that is largely useless.  Stifle is huge against Ichorid, often claiming tempo gains in all 3 games by preventing activations from bazaar.  Duress and Thoughsieze can snag unmask, past that it is largely useless.  Time Walk + huge creature is pretty good I hear.  EE is perfect for getting rid of a horde of zombie grunts at 0 cost, add to that that it is fetchable by 5 different tutors and it becomes a pretty good piece of disruption.  Tormod's Crypt is also fetchable and easily slows down ichorid at no extra cost.

1 Aether Spellbomb
1 Pithing Needle
4 Leyline Of The Void
3 Threads Of Disloyalty
2 Duress

Aether spellbomb can answer a troll that was big enough to block nought but is ultimately unneeded, needle can shut Ichorid's draw engine down (considering that it was the best "draw" engine even when gush was around this is an accomplishment, with gush you saw ~15 cards in a turn, with dredge you see ~15-18 new cards a turn).  I have already put my thoughts forth on leyline, DeezNoughts has a good enough clock to win with or without it.  Threads and duress are largely pointless, though duress becomes better in games 2-3 as Ichorid has more reactive spells that it want to cast then.  Even with ~1 relevant sideboard card it still has more overall relevant disruption and a quicker clock than Drain Tendrils.  It all adds up to the point that DeezNoughts has a sizable advantage versus Ichorid.

In reference to how I see the deck:
I also see storm decks as largely unfair and non-interactive as they do not even abuse rules the majority of the time, simply overpowered cards.  The fact that Drain Tendrils running a large counter suite does not change this.  My complaints against Ichorid are that it is capable of running such an efficient disruption package and still be so consistent in what it does.  It throws out more disruption in quantity and quality than any other currently available deck in the format and on a quicker timetable.  I argue that wizards has produced disruption pieces that are unfair, not an engine that is unfair.

I greatly enjoy anything that abuses basic concepts of anything, especially games.  This is something that is seen as "unfun" by some; however it attracted me to come back into the format.  I find it hard to believe that I am alone in this sentiment.  Unfortunately, thanks to human nature we typically only voice our opinions when we think something is wrong.

I'll say again that if you are going to restrict ANYTHING in this deck it should be Bridge from Below.  It has the effect that people will need to resort back to the ghoul kill which does not present the space required to run such a super efficient disruption suite.  It also increases the validity of some spells to be played against the deck such as bounce and swords to plowshares.  However, I do not think that this is the time to call for a restriction since you have given no time for the format to adjust to a good deck.  We are currently in a state of upheaval, any further restrictions before this time next year will meet a cynical eye from me due to the facts that a) there has been improper time to allow the format to settle and b) it will put a permanent air of questionability on the restriction which oft makes it harder to remove from the list.  Gush and ponder will be extremely difficult to remove now thanks to part b.

I also believe that you cannot look to Ichorid as the sole cause of decks (or people for that matter) being pushed out of the format when, at the same time, you had the rise of flash and multiple gushbond archetypes.  Those contributed mightily to the rise in power level required to be competitive.

[Smmenen]

Steve, I think where we completely disagree is that you believe that Ichorid should be treated like every card/decks that have been problems in the past where winning many tournaments was a good indication of problem. The fact is that Ichorid is not even close to any deck we've ever seen in the past, so you have nothing similar to compare it to. I recently asked Erik Lauer what the DCI looks at when deciding which cards are restricted. His response was that they look at tournaments results (and also the sideboards those decks use), player's opinions and "other factors." So, just because Ichorid is not winning all the time does not mean that it could not be a serious problem for Vintage. The deck can fall into the DCI's category of "player opinions" if enough peole have a problem with the deck or also "other factors," which could be turning people off from playing Vintage or the level of fun people have while playing the game. As you should know by now, there is no definite system the DCI uses in deciding what is a problem, so I think it is unfair to only look at tournament results and say Ichorid is not a problem. If I and other people think it's a problem, it's a problem to some extent. If enough people are happy with the format and with Ichorid, then I'm not going to press the issue any further. For now, we are just discussing and voicing opinions, and it's not fair to dismiss my points because Ichorid has not won enough tournaments.

Again, you are missed my point, in response to moxLotus.

It's not that tournament results are the ONLY factor.  I agree completely with you that the DCI has a right to look at other factors.  There are many other factors.  But NEVER before have we been asked to simply and completely ignore ability to win tournaments.   All of the other cards that have been restricted of that nature not only did those things you dislike, but they also created decks that won tournaments.  Ichorid is empirically incapable of winning relevant tournaments.   Flash, Trinisphere decks, and 4LED decks won lots of tournaments. 

No one is saying that tournament results are the end all and be all (although they are very important).  I'm willing to concede that they are one of a mix of factors. But if a deck can't win tournaments, that is a totally different thing you are asking.   

It's like saying to a university admissions office, I know that you want to look at other factors beyond grades, such as extra-curriculars, life experience, hardship, etc.  But, actually, just ignore grades entirely.   Ability to win touranments may not be the end of the conversation, but it certainly has to be a part of the mix.   

Look guys, I'm not claiming I'm that most skilled player or a Vintage master.

But you are!  You specifcally stated that you lost because of luck, that you were the better player, that it was unfair that you had mastered your deck, sbed 8 cards and still lost.   You assume that you were better than your Ichorid opponents, that Ichorid takes little skill, and that you should be able to win if you sb in 8 hate cards and well metagamed, etc. etc.   I call BS.   

If the DCI hadn't have restricted Flash, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.  Which just proves my point that when the DCI sweeps too broadly, they risk a cascading restricted list.   This is precisely the debate that I predicted a few weeks ago, whether the conversation about what to restrict would turn to something in Ichorid.   And if Ichorid is restricted, then the conversation will turn to something else, as it always does.   It never ends.  People will always be making calls for something or another to be restricted.   Thank God the DCI has ignored 99% of those calls in the last 10 years.  It's a shame that they did what they did most recently because now they think that have given every Vintage player a right to the DCI court of appeals to ban the deck they dislike or consider to be unfun. 

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Which just proves my point that when the DCI sweeps too broadly, they risk a cascading restricted list.   This is precisely the debate that I predicted a few weeks ago, whether the conversation about what to restrict would turn to something in Ichorid.   And if Ichorid is restricted, then the conversation will turn to something else, as it always does.   It never ends.  People will always be making calls for something or another to be restricted.

I agree, and I would also just like to add that today is the 20th.  Up until today, any speculation about what the meta will be was just that- speculation.  Today is the first day that we will get any real data on what is going on out there.  Will Ichorid be dominant?  Who knows?  But complaining about a deck's dominance, performance, or lack of those two things before the new environment even exists seems a bit risky to me.  There's just no data to back up any ascertions at this point.  After a couple of months, then conversations like this may be more substantiated.

Peace,

-Troy

[Dante]

When people present concerns about the health of the format derision is not exactly a great response. Perhaps you enjoy your T1 just fine in your corner of the world, but you have to be a little more sensitive to other people's concerns if you want this format to prosper on a more global scale.

I think any "health of the format" concerns about a format that just received a major shakeup (and thus "format" = speculative until it happens) and won't settle for 3-6 months is waaaay too premature.

Especially given the broad sweep of some cards that many seem to think marginal or outright incorrect restrictions (Brainstorm, Ponder), that we need to let the environment shake out 3-6 months before we start axing more cards.  I personally was glad to see Brainstorm restricted, but thought Ponder could/should stay.  But in combination with Gush, MS, and Flash, all that together went about as far down the "slippery slope" as possible and still being able to climb out (with the result of falling further down is that enough things get restricted that Vintage ends up as Legacy + Power + Yawg Will).

Even IF (and that's a big IF that I don't believe is necessary) doing something to Ichorid (take bridge not Bazaar) might be best for the format, doing it in September is absolutely the wrong timeframe for that.

I think that edging Vintage closet to Legacy + Power + Yawg Will will turn off FAR more Vintage players than any sort of Ichorid presence will and I feel that given the broad swath of restrictions, any more major restrictions within 6 months might push us over the edge to that end.

Dante

[Tha Gunslinga]

I don't understand how you can talk about the deck like that and then tell me it's healthy and fair.

Since when is Vintage fair?  Since when is life fair?  Since when is Vintage perfectly balanced and healthy?  Vintage is supposed to be stupid and insane; the only way you could make it "fair" is by banning everything remotely playable.

[Phoenix888]

I happened to love playing Ichorid and don't think any of it needs to be restricted.  I thoroughly enjoy winning the game through the attack step, and the fact that it's such a pain for blue counterspell decks to deal with makes it even more enjoyable for me.  I feel that every deck should have it's bad matchup and I love to be the bad matchup for counterspell.dec.

In fact, the worst time I've ever had playing Magic in a tournament setting and the dreaded word, unfun, came to my mind was when Psychatog was king of Standard and Extended (I think it had quite a presence in Vintage at the time too, but I didn't play Vintage any bit seriously then). 

I'd even go so far as to say that games versus counterspell.dec are some of the most un-interactive games I've ever played.  It doesn't feel like interacting to me when everything I try to do meets a counterspell and I'm never really in the game because it doesn't matter what I do.

I know I'm not a well known Vintage player so if that makes my opinion less valid then feel free to ignore this post.

- A nobody.

[Moxlotus]

First of all, I have no idea what you are even talking about with that example.  if its so infamous, one would think I would have heard of it

I was off by a card and by how you got rid of their force.  Oops.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12134.html

Black Lotus,
Grim Tutor,
Lion’s Eye Diamond,
Dark Ritual

I play Black Lotus and he Force of Wills it. I tap a land and play Dark Ritual, Grim Tutor, respond by sacrificing my Lion’s Eye Diamond, and kill him with Tendrils of Agony.
 

And I've found that GL/PL win about 15% of games, since Becker and I agree that getting 2 turn 1 kills in an entire tournament is good.  So using 15-20%, the odds of getting both of those in a row range from 2.25%-4%.  And that's not even counting winning through a force.  So I stand by my statement that using examples that have extremely low odds don't further your point.

  There are many other factors.  But NEVER before have we been asked to simply and completely ignore ability to win tournaments

Sharazad was banned despite its ability to win tournaments.

  like saying to a university admissions office, I know that you want to look at other factors beyond grades, such as extra-curriculars, life experience, hardship, etc.  But, actually, just ignore grades entirely.   

Some athletes at state schools

[Tha Gunslinga]

Sharazad was banned despite its ability to win tournaments.

As were Rebirth and Falling Star.  Shahrazad is a special case and has no relevance to this debate.  Please don't bring it up.

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Hey Ben, how much money will you donate if Serum Powder and/or Bridge get restricted?

Sharazad is relevant because it was a special case. Ichorid, too, is a special case because it does not win many major events. My point is that the DCI can make exceptions to their "normal" policy. Sharazad is a good example of that.

[c dizzle]

Sharazad is relevant because it was a special case. Ichorid, too, is a special case because it does not win many major events.

Equating the two is just silly. One card vs. one deck. A legitimate reason vs. a guy who doesn't like the deck. Cody, you're way better than that argument.

[Xyre]

Steve, I think where we completely disagree is that you believe that Ichorid should be treated like every card/decks that have been problems in the past where winning many tournaments was a good indication of problem. The fact is that Ichorid is not even close to any deck we've ever seen in the past, so you have nothing similar to compare it to.
I recently asked Erik Lauer what the DCI looks at when deciding which cards are restricted. His response was that they look at tournaments results (and also the sideboards those decks use), player's opinions and "other factors." So, just because Ichorid is not winning all the time does not mean that it could not be a serious problem for Vintage. The deck can fall into the DCI's category of "player opinions" if enough peole have a problem with the deck or also "other factors," which could be turning people off from playing Vintage or the level of fun people have while playing the game. As you should know by now, there is no definite system the DCI uses in deciding what is a problem, so I think it is unfair to only look at tournament results and say Ichorid is not a problem. If I and other people think it's a problem, it's a problem to some extent. If enough people are happy with the format and with Ichorid, then I'm not going to press the issue any further. For now, we are just discussing and voicing opinions, and it's not fair to dismiss my points because Ichorid has not won enough tournaments.

Is this conversation about whether the DCI will restrict a piece of Ichorid, or should? If it's will, then this conversation is moot, because predicting the future is a waste of time. If it's should, then DCI standards don't play into it. And I would argue that you haven't proven that any of those standards are met (besides a "random" sample of player opinions on the deck).

Furthermore, I would argue that the bolded statement is untruthful and is consistent with a misunderstanding of how the metagame functions.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Hey Ben, how much money will you donate if Serum Powder and/or Bridge get restricted?

Sharazad is relevant because it was a special case. Ichorid, too, is a special case because it does not win many major events. My point is that the DCI can make exceptions to their "normal" policy. Sharazad is a good example of that.

Figures Smmenen would be MIA right when we need him the most to point out how much of a straw man argument this is. Shahrazad was banned due to a conflict with the standardized tournament rules and regulations, consistent with the DCI's longstanding policy of banning cards that conflicted with this, such as ante and manual dexterity cards. The debate over the banning focused on whether or not it actually had the potential effect the DCI stated, not whether the specified reason was  the correct grouping.

The time issues and possible abuse of subgames has absolutely nothing to do with the issues you bring up with Ichorid. Please don't bring it up.

Look guys, I'm not claiming I'm that most skilled player or a Vintage master.

Whether or not you are literally making this claim is irrelevant. All evidence I've seen shows that you appear to have innovated and mastered a particular deck (Drain Tendrils), which apparently has a bad matchup against Ichorid. Nowhere do I see that you've taken your skill and Vintage mastery and applied them to any other deck which might be much better suited to wrecking Ichorid, such as Deez Naughts, a Shop variant, Oath, or even something like GobLines. I ran ICBM Oath for several years, up until other decks pushed the deck to the margins and I shifted to Gifts, then Tyrant Oath, and now back to other things for the newly emerging metagame.

Seeing no evidence that you've tried any other approach to the Ichorid problem, and taking into account my own experience that Ichorid is very much a consistently beatable strategy, I have no real logical choice but to oppose this article and its premise in every way.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I'm still missing why Shittorid is any sort of issue.

A.  People are not complaining about it in serious numbers.
B.  The deck cannot win turn 1 or 2 with any sort of consistency.
C.  The deck is very vulnerable to hate.
D.  The deck isn't seeing much play anywhere.
E.  The deck isn't really "abusive" in the way that everything ever has been before being restricted.

Am I missing something here?

[Zombie Shakespeare]

Really? You lost to Ichorid?

TOO BAD.

Really, I don't understand lines like "It's unfair because I can master my deck and board 8 anti-Ichorid cards and still lose due to pure luck of the draw with no chance for my skill to take part in the game." You're not making an argument, you're whining, plain and simple. If you want a game with no inherent luck whatsoever, go play chess. Otherwise, accept that you are going to lose sometime. Mastering a particular deck doesn't make you immune to this any more than anything else. I've mastered Oath as much as anyone and still gotten knocked out by my best matchups.

Maybe I'm just biased due to the fact that I tend to beat Ichorid more than I lose to it, but I fail to see the problem. It's like when certain people in my local scene used to whine that Oath needed restriction based largely on the fact that they were sick of losing to me playing it. The most applicable criterion for restriction, despite whatever official language used, is, has, and likely will always be format dominance. I do believe Steve has adequately proven that Ichorid is in fact performing rather poorly in comparison to other archetypes, consistent with my own observations. Case closed.

AngryPheldagrif's & JACO's replies summed up how I feel far more eloquently than I could hope to. And, as Wiley pointed out, the article failed to touch on decks that had a decent matchup against Ichorid game 1.

Also I found this comment from the article a little concerning:

As long as Ichorid is around, Vintage will slowly start dyeing. As a tournament organizer of fifteen events, I have seen this first hand. There are always opportunities to recruit people for one of my events either from college or at the local card shop. For one of tournament, I convinced a group of guys from school who play Standard to give Vintage a try. They were very eager and prepared to see how they would fair in this new and potentially exciting format. They played against Ichorid and never came back. True story.

Was the Vintage tournament itself their very first foray into the format? Did you playtest with them using the various decks (including Ichorid) they'd be expected to face at the event beforehand so they'd at least know what they were getting into? I'm all for bringing new players into the format but their first experience shouldn't be a competitive power tournament.

A long time ago when people were debating whether Goblin Welder of all cards needed to be restricted I posted the following:

The problem isn't Welder or Trinisphere or Workshop or Mana Drain or any other single card in the format right now. The single biggest problem the format faces now and will continue to face regardless of what new cards are printed or what the DCI sees fit to restrict is LAZINESS.

With the exception of Meandeck, Shortbus and a few other teams and individuals, everyone else - myself included - are playing decks that are already established in the metagame. Nobody else seems willing to come up with something new and play it at big events. The masses simply wait for the next big deck from the SCG events or Waterbury or worse rely on the DCI to fix what they perceive as a problem.

Quit complaining about what you perceive as the problem and find answers to the problem. Play more basic lands, run main deck artifact and creature removal. Answers are out there people. We just have to have the diligence to find them.

Sadly, three years later, it still rings true.

[hitman]

Quote
As long as Ichorid is around, Vintage will slowly start dyeing. As a tournament organizer of fifteen events, I have seen this first hand. There are always opportunities to recruit people for one of my events either from college or at the local card shop. For one of tournament, I convinced a group of guys from school who play Standard to give Vintage a try. They were very eager and prepared to see how they would fair in this new and potentially exciting format. They played against Ichorid and never came back. True story.

Vintage has always been like this.  Face the facts people.  Players are attracted to Vintage because of the brokeness.  Just because more Type 2 players *shock* didn't like Vintage doesn't mean we neuter a deck that really is relatively easy to beat.  There's a whole slew of cards that beat up on the deck.  Everyone already knows them.    If Ichorid was blue-based and consequently was resilient like most blue-based strategies, there might be a problem.  However, Ichorid has always had a glaring weakness that it can't get around. 

And who cares that you have to sideboard eight cards for Ichorid?  Graveyard hate is prevalent in most sideboards.  If you have 4 Jailers or Leylines, and 2 Explosives or Pithing Needles and an Extirpate and you're still losing, maybe your draw engine is weak.  I know when I tried Intuition/AK in Slaver I ended up taking it out because an opposing Leyline made my draw engine much weaker.  Maybe you're afraid of mulliganing into oblivion.  That's happened to me before, but you need what you need to get the job done and if you don't have it, you have to mull into it.  If Ichorid is your only problematic matchup, punt it.  Who cares?  It sucks to punt a match but sometimes you can't massacre your sideboard for a matchup you're probably not winning anyway. 

I just don't want the DCI to see this discussion and think there's a problem when there really isn't.  There's a difference between getting blown out by a very fast deck that's also very resilient and a very fast deck that can blow you out but has glaring weaknesses. 

[Moxlotus]

Sharazad was banned despite its ability to win tournaments.

As were Rebirth and Falling Star.  Shahrazad is a special case and has no relevance to this debate.  Please don't bring it up.

I simply brought it up to show that Steve's statement about the DCI never having completely disregarded tournament performane was factually untrue.  And I even chose a non-ante/dexterity card.

[c dizzle]

If Ichorid is your only problematic matchup, punt it.  Who cares?  It sucks to punt a match but sometimes you can't massacre your sideboard for a matchup you're probably not winning anyway.

How is it such a problematic match-up when he says it's 50/50? That's the problem with the whole argument- there's no logic to it. The article is nothing more than an emotional response to a deck he doesn't like. Using words like "unfun" only further illustrate that point. That's an emootional word. You don't like the deck. We get it. That just doesn't mean the DCI has to restict anything.

[Xyre]

Sharazad was banned despite its ability to win tournaments.

As were Rebirth and Falling Star.  Shahrazad is a special case and has no relevance to this debate.  Please don't bring it up.

I simply brought it up to show that Steve's statement about the DCI never having completely disregarded tournament performane was factually untrue.  And I even chose a non-ante/dexterity card.

I would say that Shaharazad falls into a third important category for banning: cards that require 18 extra pages of rules to explain.

Minus cards like Mind's Desire which were pretty much guaranteed to be played and thus restricted before such had to be proven, I can't think of an example of the DCI banning a card that hasn't done well at all (at least not in the so-called "modern" era).

[Moxlotus]

If Ichorid is your only problematic matchup, punt it.  Who cares?  It sucks to punt a match but sometimes you can't massacre your sideboard for a matchup you're probably not winning anyway.

How is it such a problematic match-up when he says it's 50/50? That's the problem with the whole argument- there's no logic to it. The article is nothing more than an emotional response to a deck he doesn't like. Using words like "unfun" only further illustrate that point. That's an emootional word. You don't like the deck. We get it. That just doesn't mean the DCI has to restict anything.

That word, "unfun" was the SOLE reason given by the DCI to justify the restriction of trinisphere. 

Look how easy it is to change a few words

   
   
   
I could repeat many of the paragraphs above with some of the words changed to cover the Vintage changes, but I think I'd rather summarize instead.

Ichorid is a nasty deck, no bones about it. It does ridiculous things in Vintage...

Now that it has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping Drain decks in check, it also randomly makes every card in your opponent's deck useless, with little recourse other than Leyline of the void. And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun. The power level of the deck is no jokes either, which is a big reason why I don't feel bad about its restriction.

Vintage, like the other formats with large card pools, always runs the risk of becoming non-interactive, meaning the games are little more than both players “goldfishing” to see who can win first.  Ichorid adds to that problem by literally not being affected by the opponent's spells. We don't want Magic to be about that, especially not that easily. If drain rears its head, we'll worry about it later. But for now, we want to people to play against their opponent. Really.
 

Or even use the Mirrodin wave of bannings

Was Vintage that bad? Was the format actually not diverse enough, and not solvable enough? Looked at purely analytically, the format probably wasn't that bad. Decks emerged that could beat Affinity. You could play something other than Deck X and Deck Y and have a decent chance to succeed. If the DCI attempted to solve every issue as if it were a complicated math problem, we very well might have done nothing again.

After all, banning cards is bad, and we only want to ban cards if a format was lopsided enough to warrant action, which Standard may not have been. The best deck only won X% of the time, was beaten by the second-best deck Y% of the time, and decks #3, 4, and 5 were all played in reasonable numbers. If we like the math, no problem. Just like last time.

But in the past three months R&D and the DCI have been reminded that Magic is not a series of balanced equations, spreadsheets of Top 8 results and data of card frequencies. Magic is a game played by human beings that want to have fun.

 

[Anusien]

I may be a bit late with asking this question, but Codi, "Why do you feel entitled to win against Ichorid based on your 4 Leyline of the Void and 4 Pithing Needle?"  From what I understand, that's been your go-to anti-Ichorid sideboard for a while.  If you don't change your plan against the deck and you tend to know the people you play with (and post decklists online), that seems like a good way to get into trouble.  If you only run permanent-based disruption or the same cards, you make it dramatically easier to beat you.

If this thread is accurate: Let's say you lose game 1 and side in 4 Needle 4 Leyline in game 2 and win it.  Now game 3 maybe you mulligan, maybe you don't, but you do not put a Leyline into play.  I now know, without a doubt, you have Pithing Needle in your hand (or you mulliganed into oblivion).  Guess what I'm naming with Cabal Therapy?

During Extended somebody was talking about Dredge and how players tended to run 4 Yxilid Jailor or 4 Crypt or 4 Extirpate.  That author (I wish I remember) said something to the effect of, if you have 4 sideboard slots to devote to Dredge, why not go:
1 Leyline of the Void
1 Yixlid Jailor
1 Extirpate
1 Tormod's Crypt

Good luck finding the right answers then!


So why not change your sideboard?  Instead of doing 4 Leyline 4 Needle, change it up.  Turn the 4 Needles into something other than 4 Needles: Extirpate/Faerie Macabre/Offalsnout will force them to divert their hate from just CoV or Reverent Silence.


Would you feel that CS should be banned if you boarded 4 Tormod's Crypt/4 Ground Seal against it and lost to the Tinker?

[Vegeta2711]

During Extended somebody was talking about Dredge and how players tended to run 4 Yxilid Jailor or 4 Crypt or 4 Extirpate.  That author (I wish I remember) said something to the effect of, if you have 4 sideboard slots to devote to Dredge, why not go:
1 Leyline of the Void
1 Yixlid Jailor
1 Extirpate
1 Tormod's Crypt

Feldman or Zac Hill said it (those guys are like twins anyway, so w/e) and it was basically 100% correct and even moreso with the advent of Faerie Macabre, why not have Ichorid not only need an answer, but the right answer?

[Hillboy]

Suddenly I want to play Ichorid. 

All jokes aside Ichorid is not powerful enough to warrant a ban the worst thing about it in my opinion is it has made it so alot of people splash hate for it making decks like dragon fall to the wayside. However it itself can get nailed by leyline, extirpate, tormod's crypt what have you.

In all seriousness I might try ichorid though.

[Ufactor]

The third premise (that decks that don't win tournaments are fair) is not a diversity point, FYI.  It's a point about fairness, which was one of the questions that Codi asked.  Ichorid doesn't win tournaments (ones that count, anyway).  How is that unfair to Vintage? 

It would seem that chances of Ichorid winning a tournament are inversely proportional to the amount of players attending.  Just because Ichorid is not winning major tournaments, doesn't mean it's not winning.  The deck can be, right now, flying under the radar, and ruining all of the small tournaments that take place in New England and the southeast every month.

So that is not to say that Ichorid is not ruining the format, or that it is not murdering the meta game on a regular basis.  It just means that the deck is only unfair in a smaller demographic than we realize.

This is significant if it is affecting enough players, so please don't write this off as not being "ones that count".