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

[Smmenen]

The RELEVANT question is:Is Ichorid fun FOR Vintage?  Is Ichorid Healthy FOR Vintage?  Is Ichorid unfair FOR Vintage?

No, Eh, probably not and no.

Ok fine, I'll bite. Why?

If we accept the premises:

1) Diversity makes Vintage more fun to play

2) Diversity makes Vintage more healthy (by creating more metagame balance, copmetitiveness etc)

3) Decks that are very unlikley to win major tournaments are fair (note that doesn't mean that they are fun to play against)

Then it pretty much makes the answers Yes, Yes, and Yes likely, if not logically consequent. 



I mean, let's be honest here.   So far, there are several instances in which we can clearly site examples of restrictions for interactivity reasons:  Flash, Trinisphere, Burning Wish/LED.
 
In each of those instances, the DCI specifically cited the lack of being able to play a spell.    Since manaless ichorid has a 0% turn one win percentage, its pretty clear the Trini/Flash/LED example doesn't apply.

Furthmore, we can logically deduce that Grim Long has more turn one wins than it.  If we are going to restrict Bazaar ofr something out of ichorid, we have to fashion reasons for not doing the same to Grim Long or Belcher.   The normal answer: these decks don't win tournaments can't apply because neither does Ichorid.   

If Manaless Ichorid can get Bazaar restricted, I'm pretty sure that just shows you that anything in Vintage can be restricted.

Let's restrict Oath becuase it makes it unfair for aggro decks.  Let's restrict Academy Rector for being an unfair tutor.  Let's restrict Polluted Delta for being the best tutor for getting the very best cards (Island, etc) AND being in too many decks.  Let's restrict Mana Drain for being an insane mana accellerant.  Let's restrict Intuiton, after all Gifts is restricted.  And while we're at it, let's not just restrict Bazaar from Ichorid, let's hammer the whole deck.  Let's "nuke it" (to use David's language) and restrict Troll, Bridge, moeba, etc.   I mean, where does it end?   You can justify any restriction nowadays. 
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36021.msg501196#new

[Smmenen]

  I am not one for the DCI restricting cards to nueter decks, but if they are going to restrict cards at all and have some sort of "pretend to be consistent" criteria for restricting, then bazaar is a sure candidate and needs to get the axe.

This is a good and relevant comment.  Basically, my strongest argument against restricting Bazaar used to be that it was one of the few options to Brainstorm. 

I disagree wholeheartedly with the underlying premise.   There is no consistency.    As I've pointed out many times, there are ridiculous and obvious discrepancies in their restriction list policy.  Grim Monolth is restricted, but Mishra's Workshop is not.   Why Gifts and not Intution? They do not even PRETEND to be consistent.   There is no pretense.   They have no problem citing previous restrictions to justify later ones, but they have never made an overall claim to consistency.   

I forgot to point this out as well, but Brainstorm has several functions, only really one of which Bazaar does the same as: which is turning junk into gems quickly.  Bazaar doesn't see three cards and takes up a land drop which stunts mana growth.   Most importantly, Bazaar * by itself* is not card advantageous - it's the opposite, while brainstorm is card advantage neutral.   There are plenty of distinguishing characteristics which do not compel Bazaar's restriction on the priciple that Brainstorm and Ponder are restricted.  Same with Top.

[Dante]

Also, when it loses, it's not much of one.

I also don't agree with that.   When I beat Ichorid, it is usually a very interesting game.  I think that games 2 and 3 are highly interactive.  Ichorid brings in a suite of cards and I bring in a suite of cards.  Winning is just as often by the sweat of your balls as in any really close matchup.   I think that losing game 1 is the price we pay to have Ichorid in the format.  I don't think it would be viable if it didn't have such a lopsided game 1.   

I'm going to echo Steve's sentiment that playing against Ichorid has been fun - I've probably played 5-6 tournament matches (mostly SCG matches from last year) and almost all of the sideboard games were actual games, not simply "I have GY hate or I don't".  You know you need at least 2 of your cards to stick (i.e. 1 Leyline or Crypt or Needle won't do it alone).  The two SCG's I played, my Ichorid matches were FAR more interesting and interactive than any match vs Gush - Fastbond, Gush, Gush, Will, Dryad/Empty you...ugh.

All of the matches were FAR more interactive and enjoyable than anything starting mana -> Trinisphere go.

On an unrelated note, I think a lot of people dislike playing against it because there's no "genius" or "tricky" plays, either playing or playing against Ichorid.  There's no "pull my ass out of fire and look how clever I am" Gifts or anything like that and I think there's a strong bias amongst stronger Vintage players (who also tend to be more vocal players) to prefer playing and playing against decks that are flexible and have a lot of options, instead of streamlined "linear" decks that either "have it" or they don't. 

I mean let's say there was a new card that fit into Goblins that gave a certain build a greater than 50% win rat against the entire rest of the field, but the deck was fairly straight forward to play.  I'll guarantee you that Vintage deck would be underplayed for a loooong time.

Dante

[Yare]

Ok, a few things

When I said "nuke" I meant just to hamstring the deck such that it wouldn't be viable, and that's why I chose Bazaar of Baghdad; I wouldn't advocate just restricting a deck into oblivion by picking on every single card in the deck. Of course, this gets into issues of whether it's better to restrict more cards or fewer ones or whatever. I mean, they did just whack Merchant Scroll and Gush, which probably wasn't necessary to achieve...whatever goal the DCI had in mind.

It is obvious that the DCI pretty much has no standardized...uh...standard for restricting cards. I completely agree with Steve's analysis in that some decks will always be unfair toward other decks. I do quibble about whether Bazaar of Baghdad is card disadvantage for a deck that wants cards in the graveyard and that Brainstorm is card advantage neutral in the presence of fetchlands and tutors. But of course, there will always be a best unrestricted card. I'm also not certain that having this somewhat if not completely baseless policy is bad in that it does shake things up a bit. But, at the same time, if we value having 4-of's for the sake of having 4-of's and generally want a smaller restricted list, then we should be concerned.

When I think of Ichorid, I think of Flash. Both decks won enough to Top 8 every once in a while, but not consistently. Both decks have ruined the days of a lot of "good" or "skilled" players because the (often, but not always incompetent) Ichorid player was lucky, not because he was good. I mean, yeah, little Phil can play the deck and win with it and he'll probably come back next time. But, I'm not sure that the value of deck diversity should be placed above having a "fair" format (which I talked about in my B/R policy article from a while ago). It is definitely the almost completely random nature of Ichorid that makes me dislike it, just like I dislike Flash.

Oh, and if you want to whack Serum Powder to hit Ichorid, I guess that's fine if it will actually do the job. I picked Bazaar because I think it's objectively better and would get the job done for sure. But, picking Serum Powder crossed my mind as well.

[Vegeta2711]

Steve honestly I don't care if the deck gets restricted or stays healthy or not, I've taken the deck to tournaments before and don't outright hate it. I'm not going to write a fucking essay on why I think those answers are true or not, I'm simply going to assume most people are smart enough to figure it out. Like I said before, we've had this type of discussion for a long time and it's probably the most fruitless kind because as you've stated multiple times in this thread by itself; the DCI has very little (if any) consistency when it comes to restriction. They sure as hell don't listen to us in a relevant sense outside of corner cases.

Also I certainly wouldn't accept the three diversity points AT ALL. And no, again, not writing a huge response on why that's the case. My only response to that is to go look at real formats, especially the ones that have had a dredge-esque deck (or the one with Dredge itself).

[Smmenen]

I do quibble about whether Bazaar of Baghdad is card disadvantage for a deck that wants cards in the graveyard and that Brainstorm is card advantage neutral in the presence of fetchlands and tutors.

I went back and edited my post to make sure that no one misunderstood me.  *by itself* bazaar does not generate card advantage.  Absolutely, every tap of Bazaar in Ichorid is like +10 CA.

When I think of Ichorid, I think of Flash. Both decks won enough to Top 8 every once in a while, but not consistently.

Not even close.  Although both decks have, over the course of the last 12 months, come close in terms of top 8 apperances (although not really, Flash has a statistically significant higher number of appearances), Flash has won a HOST of tournaments - just gobs of tournaments.  Big ones, small ones, europe, usa, asia, everywhere.   Ichorid?  Maybe 1 or 2 33+ player tournaments.  If that. 

Steve honestly I don't care if the deck gets restricted or stays healthy or not, I've taken the deck to tournaments before and don't outright hate it. I'm not going to write a fucking essay on why I think those answers are true or not, I'm simply going to assume most people are smart enough to figure it out. Like I said before, we've had this type of discussion for a long time and it's probably the most fruitless kind because as you've stated multiple times in this thread by itself; the DCI has very little (if any) consistency when it comes to restriction. They sure as hell don't listen to us in a relevant sense outside of corner cases.

Also I certainly wouldn't accept the three diversity points AT ALL. And no, again, not writing a huge response on why that's the case. My only response to that is to go look at real formats, especially the ones that have had a dredge-esque deck (or the one with Dredge itself).

Josh:
I, too, assume that most people are smart enough to realize that Ichorid while maybe silly by itself is not necessarily a bad thing for the format.  There are lots of silly decks, and more than a few will return to the format now that Scroll is gone.   Oh, and I also think that people are smart enough to see through your angry little riposts about my posts being blow hard essays, implying that I disguise untruths in alot of clever language.   

You don't have to accept the point that diversity is fun and healthy for a format.   Maybe you don't find more diversity fun.  That's fine.  Fun is subjective.  Most players accept it as does the DCI.   Most players would rather have more high level optoins than less.  It makes vintage look more interesting and intriguing as a format, as well as fun to play in.  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? 

[RaleighNCTourneys]

Speaking personally...

It's unfair because of the amount of sideboard space that must be devoted to it. 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. I don't see how Ichorid's performance has any bearing on these points. Winning or losing, it's still unfair. For the same reasons, its miserably unfun for me to play against (even if I win, which I have many times). Finally, it's unhealthy for Vintage as a whole because many people have a horrible time playing against the deck and do not want to return to a tournament where they are not having fun. I am selling my cards by the end of this summer. I considered keeping some staples to have around for the random tournament, but honestly I can't stand the notion of playing against Ichorid and will probably sell all my stuff. I just don't have fun, which is what Vintage should be about. So, it is also unhealthy if it hurts tournament attendeance, which I have noticed as TO and know to be due to Ichorid to some extent.

[Vegeta2711]

How is that unfair to Vintage?

It isn't. I even said so when I answered the question. 'Is Ichorid unfair to Vintage?' A: No.

angry little riposts about my posts being blow hard essays

It's a little ribbing Steve, 'blow hard essays' I'd consider more like when Flores writes something now, a lot to do about nothing. You just write a lot, always have and always will. I make those little jabs because I know when I go out of my way to answer as briefly and concisely as possible, I'll still get many many more words in a response from you even though I try my hardest so that isn't the intended effect. Unless you start talking about Goblins on a consistent basis you can rest peacefully with the thought that I'm not out to get you.

EDIT:

It's unfair because of the amount of sideboard space that must be devoted to it. 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.

Isn't that true for just deciding to play the game of Magic though? I lose plenty of games through mistakes and I lose others to just being unable to do something due to draws. Similarly nobody is forcing you to devote that much sideboard space, you can choose to ignore it and that's a perfectly valid move. Bringing up a comparison to Extended for a second, a lot of people at GP: Philly decided to eschew any and all pure Dredge hate for the simple reason it'd lower their % across the rest of the field. Now I know that's not the same due to how a GP is constructed tournament-structure wise, but the point is there's always going to be that chance factor involved.

In addition, your argument easily slides both ways. Can you really say it's fair that you should be able to beat me playing Ichorid just by drawing a certain card with no chance for skill to take part in the game? Is it my fault you chose a deck that naturally loses to my choice? Is it your fault I picked a deck that can be easily hosed by hate?

[Xyre]

Speaking personally...

It's unfair because of the amount of sideboard space that must be devoted to it. 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. I don't see how Ichorid's performance has any bearing on these points. Winning or losing, it's still unfair. For the same reasons, its miserably unfun for me to play against (even if I win, which I have many times). Finally, it's unhealthy for Vintage as a whole because many people have a horrible time playing against the deck and do not want to return to a tournament where they are not having fun. I am selling my cards by the end of this summer. I considered keeping some staples to have around for the random tournament, but honestly I can't stand the notion of playing against Ichorid and will probably sell all my stuff. I just don't have fun, which is what Vintage should be about. So, it is also unhealthy if it hurts tournament attendeance, which I have noticed as TO and know to be due to Ichorid to some extent.

And you could board in plenty of disruption against a Long variant and still lose turn 1. You keep saying "unfair", but you don't recognize that, strictly speaking, the format by definition is unfair at times. Part of the reason it works is because the unfairness is balanced out, and problem cards are filtered out when they become too much of a problem (e.g. NOT Flash, Trinisphere, Brainstorm/Ponder, but rather Gush et al).

Ultimately, though, when it comes to relative fairness/unfairness, I would say that Ichorid is not unfair. It may require a slight paradigm shift (one which I would argue has already occurred with the rise in graveyard hate), but such has been the case for most broken decks. That's Metagame 101.

[c dizzle]

The arguments by those who hate Ichorid are just silly. "It breaks the rules.", they say. They play Vintage- the format that is all about breaking the rules!!! Ichorid just breaks the rules in a way that the other extreme rule-breaking decks have a hard time dealing with, so now it's bad.

I don't hear these people talking about how playing twelve spells and winning on turn one is unfair. Why not? It's because that's how they like breaking the rules. I think it's great that a guy with $100 in his pocket can be competitive in 10-proxy Vintage. For years people stayed away from this format because it cost too much to get into. Now people can get in cheap and be competitive. That's great!!! To remove a cheap Tier One deck from the format because some egomaniac says that it allows players that are not as good as him to beat him is laughable. GET OVER YOURSELF!!! Or build your deck differently to make it better against a weak match-up.

BTW, for all of you Vintage guys who have tried to get people to try the format, what is their number one complaint? Virtually everyone I have talked with has said, "It's full of cards that are too expensive and guys killing each other on turn one." People avoid this format because of turn-one kills, NOT because there is a deck that packs cheap and effective disruption that wins on turn 3 or 4.

That brings me to the fundamental truth about Ichorid: ICHORID CANNOT WIN ON TURN ONE, SO IT'S OPPONENT ALWAYS GETS A CHANCE TO REACT TO IT! When a Tendrils-based deck draws the nuts on the play it's opponent doesn't get that luxury. Talk about failing to be interactive!!!

Does Ichorid impact the format in general and deckbuilding in particular? Yes. But the reintroduction of the Gush-Bond engine also changed how people built their decks. We saw a change in focus from long-term card advantage to tempo. Duress effects abounded, as a result. But nobody complained about that. "That's just what we have to do to evolve with the changing metagame.", they said. So why is 4 Leyline of the Void and 4 Pithing Needle in your sideboard such a big deal? That's just what we have to do to evolve with the changing metagame. Besides, those cards (while conveniently being called "Anti-Ichorid" cards to give unfair emphasis to a point) also hurt Control Slaver, certain Workshop decks, virtually every deck that uses Yawgmoth's Will and several others (including my pet deck, Dragon) that look to be a force in tomorrow's metagame (pun intended). They seem to me to be good, flexible sideboard answers. The same way that Chain of Vapor seems to be a good, flexible sideboard answer rather than an "Anti-Anti-Ichorid" card.

I am a proud Vintage Libertarian. Less government (DCI) involvement is better. If a deck becomes too good, it will get neutered by innovation. Or by people getting butt-hurt and selling their cards. Either way, problem solved.

[Yare]

Regarding Flash and Ichorid having comparable tournament results, I'll admit I haven't been following the metagame that closely so I'm just using my general impressions; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[RaleighNCTourneys]

To remove a cheap Tier One deck from the format because some egomaniac says that it allows players that are not as good as him to beat him is laughable. GET OVER YOURSELF!!!

If terrible players who never play Vintage can pick up a deck and beat skilled players consistently, what's the point of playing magic? If I want to throw away whatever skills I have and gamble, I'll go to a slot machine. Ichorid discourages me from playing Magic for exactly that reason. Of course I can lose to Long on turn 1 and not be able to do anything. But how often does that actually happen? Almost every game 1 I have ever played against Ichorid was out of my control or they mulled to zero. Every single game 2 and 3 has been about anti-Ichorid cards versus anti-anti-Ichorid cards. My deck does not matter. There is no other deck in the format where the actual function of my deck is irrelevant. All that matters is if I can find hate and sustain it.

ICHORID CANNOT WIN ON TURN ONE, SO IT'S OPPONENT ALWAYS GETS A CHANCE TO REACT TO IT!

I think TK's Mana Ichorid deck would like a word with you. 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.

So why is 4 Leyline of the Void and 4 Pithing Needle in your sideboard such a big deal?

It's a big deal because I don't enjoy the Vintage format playing like that. These are my opinions I wanted to share with the community. If enough people agree, then it's a problem. If not, then so be it and we all move on. They are not unfairly called "anti-Ichorid," and I'll prove it to you. If the Ichorid archetype did not exist, I swear to you I would run 0 Leyline of the Void and 0 Pithing Needle. That makes them exactly what I called them: anti-Ichorid cards. And let's be honest, Ichorid's entire sideboard is to deal with hate. There's no way around that.

[diopter]

If terrible players who never play Vintage can pick up a deck and beat skilled players consistently, what's the point of playing magic?

If this were true then Ichorid would be winning consistently. It isn't doing that.

[RaleighNCTourneys]

I lose to Ichorid pretty much regardless of the pilot's skill level about 50% of the time. I consider that consistent. That doesn't mean that they are going to win a tournament becuase they can win 50% of the time. That means that they will randomly beat people and also randomly lose. If my skill doesn't matter, what's my motivation for playing?

[Yare]

Suppose in every tournament we added a dummy player where whenever you were paired against that dummy player, rather than play a round, you would just flip a coin to see if you won or not. Would you support this? I'm not saying Ichorid is precisely this, but it's pretty close.

[diopter]

I lose to Ichorid pretty much regardless of the pilot's skill level about 50% of the time. I consider that consistent. That doesn't mean that they are going to win a tournament becuase they can win 50% of the time. That means that they will randomly beat people and also randomly lose.

50% is not a winning percentage I would consider "consistent".  In fact if your worst matchup in the field is 50/50 then that is unbelievably good. Other formats have had popular matchups with much more lopsided %'s - for instance Owling Mine against Zoo in 2006 Standard.

Suppose in every tournament we added a dummy player where whenever you were paired against that dummy player, rather than play a round, you would just flip a coin to see if you won or not. Would you support this? I'm not saying Ichorid is precisely this, but it's pretty close.

I don't think it's close at all - Ichorid may be more forgiving than other archetypes but it still takes no small amount of playskill to play effectively against hate.

[bronxie]

Everyone keeps saying its going to get hated out of the format.  How?  about 98% of people already run 4-8 sideboard slots against it, how much more hated out can a single deck get and continue winning tourneys and top 8ing on a regular basis?

[diopter]

Everyone keeps saying its going to get hated out of the format.  How?  about 98% of people already run 4-8 sideboard slots against it, how much more hated out can a single deck get and continue winning tourneys and top 8ing on a regular basis?

OK I wanted to check this so I checked morphling.de. Since the start of March, Ichorid has recorded 6 wins and 34 non-win top8s. Now I know that morphling.de isn't the end-all-be-all but it's pretty comprehensive - it records about 20 events a month. So out of 70-odd events, Ichorid has won 6 times and placed 34 top 8s. So Ichorid wins tourneys about 9% of the time and places in the top 8 about one in every two events.

Seems fine to me.

[c dizzle]

If terrible players who never play Vintage can pick up a deck and beat skilled players consistently

I thought you said it was 50/50.

And let's be honest, Ichorid's entire sideboard is to deal with hate.

Isn't everyone's sideboard made to deal with hate or at least potential bad match-ups (which is practically the same thing)?

And honestly, how many times have you ever lost turn 1 to a Long deck in a tournament.

Several, including a feature match against LSV in Reno a few years ago.

All that matters is if I can find hate and sustain it.

That's an oversimplification of the match-up. I've played the Ichorid/Dragon match-up a lot. Though it's not Drain Tendrils, it is still combo vs. Ichorid. If I lose game 1, I have found that going balls deep in combo mode game 2 and switching to hate game 3 (when I'm on the draw) is the best way to win that match-up. Diluting your deck and over-focusing on hate cards game 2 may actually contribute to your woes against that archetype. Have you tested my approach? I don't know the ins and out of that match-up, but it has merit.

If the Ichorid archetype did not exist, I swear to you I would run 0 Leyline of the Void and 0 Pithing Needle.

Switch to more general purpose stuff like bounce, then. You still have a decent game plan against them and you aren't handcuffed against other decks. Run crypt which helps your storm count. You make it seem so cut and dry - Leyline & Needle - when there are actually a myriad of options.

[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

[Smmenen]

Regarding Flash and Ichorid having comparable tournament results, I'll admit I haven't been following the metagame that closely so I'm just using my general impressions; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Just check out my Vintage metagame report articles.  The data is there.  Flash has won MANY tournaments.  Ichorid: not so much.

Everyone keeps saying its going to get hated out of the format.  How?  about 98% of people already run 4-8 sideboard slots against it, how much more hated out can a single deck get and continue winning tourneys and top 8ing on a regular basis?

OK I wanted to check this so I checked morphling.de. Since the start of March, Ichorid has recorded 6 wins and 34 non-win top8s. Now I know that morphling.de isn't the end-all-be-all but it's pretty comprehensive - it records about 20 events a month. So out of 70-odd events, Ichorid has won 6 times and placed 34 top 8s. So Ichorid wins tourneys about 9% of the time and places in the top 8 about one in every two events.

Seems fine to me.

It is important that most of those tournament wins are small tournaments.  My claim is not that Ichorid can't win tournamnts.  It's that it doesn't win relevant or sizable tournaments.  Which is fact:

In March/April, it made top 8 12 times, with 1 tournament win. http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16023.html In January and Feb, it had 8 top 8s with zero tournament wins.  http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15594.html
In Nov/Dec it had 8 top 8s, with one tournament win.   http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15238.html From Mid-August through October, it had 6 top 8s with zero tournament wins.  In July and mid-august there was 1 Ichorid in a top 8, and it got 3rd place.   And then, in my top secret May June data set from this year, Ichorid has 5 top 8s, and zero wins. Out of 360 top 8 slots, Ichorid posted FIFTEEN From July 1st to December 1st, with only ONE tournament win. That made it a whopping 4.16% of top 8s in the second half of 2007 and a huge 2.22% of tournament wins in that time period.   Those numbers, which I'lll aggregate for 2008 in two weeks, are essnetially the same.

SO: out of THIRTY SIX Top 8s from July 1, 2007 through June 20, 2008 from tournaments of 33 players or more, there were TWO tournament wins, both from mid-sized Euro tournaments.  In fact, BOTH tournament wins were Spanish tournaments of 44 and 38 players respectively. 

Congrats, your deck can't win major tournaments.

To remove a cheap Tier One deck from the format because some egomaniac says that it allows players that are not as good as him to beat him is laughable. GET OVER YOURSELF!!!

If terrible players who never play Vintage can pick up a deck and beat skilled players consistently, what's the point of playing magic?

This was your assumption earlier, but I strongly contest it.   There are many, many skills in magic.  Why are you assuming that you are better than your opponents you lost to?  Deck choice is a huge part of Vintage skills.  You chose a deck that is inhernently weak to Ichorid, both against Leylines and Chalices.  What if you had played Tyrant Oath?  I think your chances would have been better.  You played Drain Tendrils.

Speaking personally...

It's unfair because of the amount of sideboard space that must be devoted to it. 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. I don't see how Ichorid's performance has any bearing on these points. Winning or losing, it's still unfair. For the same reasons, its miserably unfun for me to play against (even if I win, which I have many times). Finally, it's unhealthy for Vintage as a whole because many people have a horrible time playing against the deck and do not want to return to a tournament where they are not having fun. I am selling my cards by the end of this summer. I considered keeping some staples to have around for the random tournament, but honestly I can't stand the notion of playing against Ichorid and will probably sell all my stuff. I just don't have fun, which is what Vintage should be about. So, it is also unhealthy if it hurts tournament attendeance, which I have noticed as TO and know to be due to Ichorid to some extent.

I think its absolutely arrogant to assume that just because you sbed eight cards (oh my!) and "mastered" your deck that you "deserved" to win a match.  That's ridiculous.   You assume that you are better than your opponent.  What actual evidence do you have for that contention other than your bald assertion to the contrary?   

[c dizzle]

This was your assumption earlier, but I strongly contest it.   There are many, many skills in magic.  Why are you assuming that you are better than your opponents you lost to?  Deck choice is a huge part of Vintage skills.  You chose a deck that is inhernently weak to Ichorid, both against Leylines and Chalices.  What if you had played Tyrant Oath?  I think your chances would have been better.  You played Drain Tendrils.

Normally, I would say "Ouch.", but Steve is obviously just biased because he won a tournament with Tyrant Oath, so his stinging reply is hereby discounted. Peace.

[Smmenen]

This was your assumption earlier, but I strongly contest it.   There are many, many skills in magic.  Why are you assuming that you are better than your opponents you lost to?  Deck choice is a huge part of Vintage skills.  You chose a deck that is inhernently weak to Ichorid, both against Leylines and Chalices.  What if you had played Tyrant Oath?  I think your chances would have been better.  You played Drain Tendrils.

Normally, I would say "Ouch.", but Steve is obviously just biased because he won a tournament with Tyrant Oath, so his stinging reply is hereby discounted. Peace.

Stop it. You're making me feel bad.

[AngryPheldagrif]

This was your assumption earlier, but I strongly contest it.   There are many, many skills in magic.  Why are you assuming that you are better than your opponents you lost to?  Deck choice is a huge part of Vintage skills.  You chose a deck that is inhernently weak to Ichorid, both against Leylines and Chalices.  What if you had played Tyrant Oath?  I think your chances would have been better.  You played Drain Tendrils.

Normally, I would say "Ouch.", but Steve is obviously just biased because he won a tournament with Tyrant Oath, so his stinging reply is hereby discounted. Peace.

Stop it. You're making me feel bad.

I came in here for the OSNAP-age and was not disappointed.

I am not actively in favor of the neutering of Ichorid (note how I word that) for the same reasons I didn't support axing Flash. I don't feel that an acute feeling of 'unfairness' is valid as a restriction criterion. I'm well aware that Ichorid tends to require a number of sideboard cards to combat. This does not overly concern me, so long as the warping doesn't extend to maindecks. Once things start to need to include those 4 Leylines and 4 Needles main, then we have a warped metagame. Until then, I'm quite fine with the fact that Ichorid can win.

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.

[Moxlotus]

. 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.

  "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.

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.

Ichorid can interact with an opponent.  Game 1 your opponent cannot interact with ichorid.  I see this as a fundamental flaw to the format and to the game itself.

I'll stand by my claim that, in my opinion, ichorid is the most unfun deck I've ever played against.  I have to drive 3 hours to a tournament.  And I'm usually sacrificing doing something else that weekend.  I skipped several back when Milwaukee was expected to have a large number of Flash and Ichorid decks.  Those decks weren't fun to play or play against.  I know I wasn't the only one who did this.  And that is the crux of the matter--if a deck so unfun that it causes people to stay home.  Flash+Ichorid did it to me a few times.  Codi gives anecdotal evidence of the same.  Codi's is probably worse since they are trying to establish a type 1 scene and ichorid may have driven off several potential players from ever coming again.

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.

[JACO]

It's unfair because of the amount of sideboard space that must be devoted to it. 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.

This is the part of the same reason that people used for the restriction of Flash, and frankly, it's horseshit.

For the past few years, a seemingly growing contingent of Vintage players seem to think that they shouldn't have to sideboard for what they expect to face, or to combat strategies that trump theirs. Why? Should no one have to sideboard to be able to be your weapon of choice either?

Build your deck to combat your weakest matchups, or to combat the opposing strategies that are strongest against yours. That is the point of deckbuilding, and sideboarding in tournament matches.

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.

As Steve mentioned above, it's irrelevant that you contend you've "mastered" your deck, especially if your deck is weak compared to other strategies that you'll encounter in tournament play. I could "master" Goblin Charbelcher, but in a field full of Stax and Force of Wills, that strategy is probably going to suck.

I am selling my cards by the end of this summer. I considered keeping some staples to have around for the random tournament, but honestly I can't stand the notion of playing against Ichorid and will probably sell all my stuff. I just don't have fun, which is what Vintage should be about. So, it is also unhealthy if it hurts tournament attendeance, which I have noticed as TO and know to be due to Ichorid to some extent.

If your intolerance of one deck type is enough to drive your from tournament play, then good riddance. Go back to playing kitchen table Magic, where you can play "fun" decks and not have to take into account that you'll face other strong strategies, even if they might attack the opponent in a different way. Tournament Magic does not reward those who are intolerant of other deck types, and unwilling to metagame correctly.

[AngryPheldagrif]

I am selling my cards by the end of this summer. I considered keeping some staples to have around for the random tournament, but honestly I can't stand the notion of playing against Ichorid and will probably sell all my stuff. I just don't have fun, which is what Vintage should be about. So, it is also unhealthy if it hurts tournament attendeance, which I have noticed as TO and know to be due to Ichorid to some extent.

If your intolerance of one deck type is enough to drive your from tournament play, then good riddance. Go back to playing kitchen table Magic, where you can play "fun" decks and not have to take into account that you'll face other strong strategies, even if they might attack the opponent in a different way. Tournament Magic does not reward those who are intolerant of other deck types, and unwilling to metagame correctly.

It's this part that I really don't understand. This intangible measure of 'unfun' makes me want to just put my head through my desk every time it gets brought up. What exactly is fun? I can't think of a single scenario that would be 'fun' for all parties involved. Simply put, Magic is a game, and like most games, someone has to lose. Generally speaking, losing isn't fun. There are tons of 'unfun' scenarios in Vintage involving unrestricted strategies. I personally find it unfun when Long Duresses my counter and then combos me out. I find it unfun when I'm playing Oath and my opponent drops a bunch of Spheres of Resistance against me before I can even drop my first land. I find it unfun when my opponent gets a Crucible recurring a Wasteland and I can't find a basic land.

Should we restrict Duress? Dark Ritual? Sphere of Resistance? Thorn of Amethyst? Crucicble? Wasteland? Of course not. The list of 'unfun' plays could go on from there. Ask any of my opponents how much fun they have when I draw a hand with Orchard, Mox, Oath, Force, blue card. When you really break it down, very rarely do people talk about how much fun they had losing. Maybe they had a great time get obliterated in the hotel room later, but that's a separate issue.

So I'm going to echo JACO. Please, by all means quit if you find Ichorid so offensive. Don't try to innovate a strategy that beats it more consistently, don't try another deck altogether that has a better matchup, don't just accept that occasionally even 'masters' lose a game or two, just quit. Let the rest of us enjoy the game.

[dicemanx]

Tournament Magic does not reward those who are intolerant of other deck types, and unwilling to metagame correctly.

Jason, from Cody's account he was very willing to metagame correctly, but it was still inadequate because he wasn't rightfully rewarded for his SB decisions and the SB decisions reduced down to pure number crunching rather than any strategy or in-game decisions on his part. It's more of a question of "do I have it in my starting seven, otherwise I lose". His argument is from the perspective of someone that wants to minimize the luck component in magic, not someone who wants to play casual decks at tourneys.

I am all for deck diversity and I enjoy all of the amazing strategies that can be employed in T1, but those that drastically increase the luck component need a little more scrutiny. There is most certainly a threshold of acceptability in this format or we wouldn't have a restricted list to begin with, but I appreciate that not everyone has the same threshold. Unfortunately, your desires might have to make way for the greater good of the format - I seriously doubt that those against Ichorid neutering are going to quit if Ichorid is removed from vintage, while there is a very real possibility that many will be dissuaded from playing t1 because of the presence of such a deck.

Please, by all means quit if you find Ichorid so offensive. Don't try to innovate a strategy that beats it more consistently, don't try another deck altogether that has a better matchup, don't just accept that occasionally even 'masters' lose a game or two, just quit. Let the rest of us enjoy the game.

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.

[wiley]

Suppose in every tournament we added a dummy player where whenever you were paired against that dummy player, rather than play a round, you would just flip a coin to see if you won or not. Would you support this? I'm not saying Ichorid is precisely this, but it's pretty close.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the deck and I am amazed that someone as intelligent as you would actually say this.  The simple fact is that Ichorid is one of the best aggro-control decks ever, the fact that the majority of the meta is combo-control (hint: aggro-control is designed to beat combo-control) is the only reason I can see people feeling this way.  My suggestion is to get off your high horse and try out a different deck.  You mentally decide to take the risk of piloting a deck that you know has a horrible match up against certain archetypes, therefore you are the only person to blame when you face that match and "don't have any fun."  Case in point: My testing shows that Dark Illusions also has a pretty good game against Drain Tendrils.  What is Dark Illusions? It is an aggro-control archetype.

Everyone keeps saying its going to get hated out of the format.  How?  about 98% of people already run 4-8 sideboard slots against it, how much more hated out can a single deck get and continue winning tourneys and top 8ing on a regular basis?

This has been proven erroneous throughout the thread.  Ichorid has not consistently top 8'ed or won tournaments; especially not ones of an appreciable size.  A 15 person tournament is nothing to get in an uproar over.  In fact, I have kept a list of every Manaless Ichorid deck that has Top 8'ed at a 20 person or more event throughout 2008 located here.  Here is a listing of the same for Mana'd Ichorid.

Jason, from Cody's account he was very willing to metagame correctly ...

This is incorrect.  Cody himself admits that "dedicating 8 sb slots to Ichorid" is not enough in his opinion.  Therefore he was not willing to metegame correctly since he obviously knew that what he had done was inadequate.

His argument is from the perspective of someone that wants to minimize the luck component in magic, not someone who wants to play casual decks at tourneys.

This is invalid.  Simply because he chooses to play a deck that requires a "lucky start" against a certain other deck he is throwing the equivalent of a hissy fit.  Others have already said it and I will parrot it.  Try playing a different deck, the metagame is not in your favor if there are multiple Ichorid decks running around.  Note that I said odds, remember this is a game of skill AND chance.  No matter what deck you play there is an amount of both.  Cody's win against me in the first round of a prior tournament shows this implicitly.

... first turn tinker->colossus, which I bounced and he then went to go brainstorm, yawg will, tinker, colossus.  Epic?  Yes!  Deserving of payback?  Yes!

How do you determine if this play was skillful or simply lucky?  I say it was the latter hands down.  He found a route that could lead him to victory and followed it.  Does this mean I should have called for the restriction of brainstorm?  Hell no.  Knowing the ins and outs of your deck is a very minor part of the skill set required to be good at vintage, and this comes from someone who piloted Full English Breakfast in its days of inception.

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 have to question how healthy a format is when its players are allowed to attempt to neuter their bad match ups without being met with some amount of derision.  The day such a thing occurs I will probably quit magic, as the community will no longer be to my liking.

[dicemanx]

Jason, from Cody's account he was very willing to metagame correctly ...

This is incorrect.  Cody himself admits that "dedicating 8 sb slots to Ichorid" is not enough in his opinion.  Therefore he was not willing to metegame correctly since he obviously knew that what he had done was inadequate.

Cody was (note the past tense) willing to metagame correctly by virtue of the fact that he DID do so. He found that it was inadequate to push the match-up  enough in his favor and he found that the SBing was more based on seeing cards in the opening 7 than actually playing your cards correctly over the course of the game.

This is invalid.  Simply because he chooses to play a deck that requires a "lucky start" against a certain other deck he is throwing the equivalent of a hissy fit.  Others have already said it and I will parrot it.  Try playing a different deck, the metagame is not in your favor if there are multiple Ichorid decks running around.  Note that I said odds, remember this is a game of skill AND chance.  No matter what deck you play there is an amount of both.  Cody's win against me in the first round of a prior tournament shows this implicitly.

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

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

I have to question how healthy a format is when its players are allowed to attempt to neuter their bad match ups without being met with some amount of derision.  The day such a thing occurs I will probably quit magic, as the community will no longer be to my liking.

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.