[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays - The May/June Metagame Report

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16161.html

Blurb:

Monday, July 21st - In today’s So Many Insane Plays, Stephen takes one final snapshot of the metagame at the time of the so-called Vintage Apocalypse. In this article, Stephen shows how Shadowmoor changed the Vintage metagame just before the DCI pushed the metaphorical button…

[Webster]

The metagame report isn't very relevant to the format right now. I would have omitted it.

I enjoyed the second half; it was far more interesting.

[JoshuaD]

What do you think the chances are that the DCI will unrestrict Brainstorm, Ponder, Flash and/or Gush?  I tend to agree with you that Merchant scroll would have been a good starting point, and probably would have accomplished the goals of the DCI without causing such turmoil.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

The metagame report isn't very relevant to the format right now. I would have omitted it.

I enjoyed the second half; it was far more interesting.

The first half was important to show just how boggling the June 20 restricted list was.  It formed the bulk of the evidence to support the second half of the article.

Peace,

-Troy

PS: great article, Stephen

[Gaius Darkfire]

Excellent article, Steve, and great analysis in the second half. The satire with the September 2008 restrictions was certainly an interesting take on the arguments since the restrictions.

[Akuma]

Thanks for the article Steve. It serves to remind us just how unwarranted the restrictions of June 20th were.

Everytime I look at recent tournament results, I feel like I am in some sort of time warp (2005 metagame...)

"Restrictions are for scrubs"

[Smmenen]

The metagame report isn't very relevant to the format right now. I would have omitted it.

I enjoyed the second half; it was far more interesting.

Even though the first half is irrellevant in the sense of current metagame strategy (although there should be some 'stickiness') as people shift into the new metagame, I think it is important for future Vintage analysts to have a snapshot of that metagame before it was killed. It will provide a baseline from which to measure other decisions and provide insight into what the metagame looked like at the time.

Thanks for the article Steve. It serves to remind us just how unwarranted the restrictions of June 20th were.

Everytime I look at recent tournament results, I feel like I am in some sort of time warp (2005 metagame...)

"Restrictions are for scrubs"

While I would have done things differently, I don't want to create the impression that I am just bashing the DCI here.   I think they could do alot of things better, with greater respectful and attention for the format than they apparently give it, but I don't disagree entirely with the restrictions.   

[dicemanx]

I think they could do alot of things better

They actually have a fairly good track record by my estimation over the past 4-5 years.

Perhaps their most controversial decision prior to their latest June B/R announcements was the unrestriction of Gush. However, I think it is faulty to automatically view that as a "mistake". It was simply a decision that came with a "date of expiration" so to speak, and Gush's run was up come June 20th. Plus, it is always too easy to criticize when hindsight is 20/20; I'd like to see who here can give convincing arguments that *their* vision of how things should be done is in fact superior to the manner in which the DCI makes its decisions.

I actually wouldn't disagree with any of your proposals Steve - so long as Flash would be removed from the format and the Gush decks would be toned down (without necessarily removing Gush) I would have been equally happy with the changes. However, I don't feel that any of your proposals are necessarily superior to what the DCI decided to do even if you feel that you have "reason" on your side while the DCI offered scant justification that you subsequently poked fun at in your September B/R list announcement parody.

Now this seems to be a bit of a paradox - how can a decision that is based on apparent scant evidence not be inferior to a "well-thought out argument" from a leading vintage expert? There is in fact a two-fold problem. The first is that people in general tend to be highly resistant to change, and can in fact grow tolerant even when things are not right and are deserving of change. For instance, Brainstorm has grown to be an accepted vintage staple that many felt was a skill-intensive card and thus essentially "untouchable", and yet perhaps it was a mistake to keep the card unrestricted all these years. Perhaps Brainstorm restriction was a move in the right direction as far as reaching the goal of maximizing format diversity and putting a greater premium on skill in this format. Granted, Brainstorm is skill intensive in terms of timing and making correct decisions as to what to put back, but in many games precise Brainstorm play is easily swallowed up by the powerful effect that it grants. What I mean is, it led to scenarios where players were able to exploit the power level of the card despite their play errors rather than be sufficiently punished for them. Of course Brainstorm by itself was not the only culprit in the pre-June 20th format; Merchant Scroll and Gush certainly contributed to the triumvirate that gave rise to very forgivable decks where despite numerous play errors a player could still completely overwhelm his more skilled opponent.

The second problem contributing to the paradox is that it is very difficult to pin down exactly what criteria one should use when making B/R decisions, and what arbitrary cut-offs are to be implemented when the criteria are based on quantification (for instance, what is an acceptable first turn kill ratio?). Because of these difficulties there is much difficulty in pulling the trigger without enough convincing evidence even if intuitively something doesn't seem quite right. Case in point - Trinisphere and Flash. There was certainly no sufficient evidence to banish both cards to the restricted list. And yet, it was one of those cases where one perceived a problem when playing the game, even though on paper the decks that featured those cards weren't a "problem". The missing element in many B/R decision discussions is game quality; there is so much focus on dominance and distortion that it is too easy to dismiss arguments that use game quality as a criterion. The first time that I've seen the DCI refer to game quality is their referral to "unfunness" of Trinisphere - the card was axed not because of format dominance but because it reduced the enjoyability of this game by diminishing game quality.


In any case, the DCI have created an entirely new format, despite the pundits claiming that we're revisiting 2005 again, and their B/R decisions that generated this new format have not been unreasonable. Furthermore, it's only been a month thus far, and the instinct is to fall back on old, tried, tested and true approaches (CS and Long variants) but I think players are underestimating the potential of this new format (and certainly complaining quite a bit about it).

[Smmenen]

and their B/R decisions that generated this new format have not been unreasonable.

Without claiming or purporting to address all or even most of the points you raise in your post, I would like to respond briefly to this single point.   I think it was precisely this point that my satirical 9/1/08 B&R list announcement was addressing.  The restriction of almost anything can made to appear 'reasonable.'  I wasn't suggesting that the restrictions taken weren't reasonable.   My critiques were based on different grounds.

EDIT: I also wasn't suggesting that the DCI offered scant justification for their restrictions.  They actually offered up a host of reasons for each card (at least, in the second attempt they did). 

[dicemanx]

and their B/R decisions that generated this new format have not been unreasonable.

Without claiming or purporting to address all or even most of the points you raise in your post, I would like to respond briefly to this single point.   I think it was precisely this point that my satirical 9/1/08 B&R list announcement was addressing.  The restriction of almost anything can made to appear 'reasonable.'  I wasn't suggesting that the restrictions taken weren't reasonable.   My critiques were based on different grounds.

EDIT: I also wasn't suggesting that the DCI offered scant justification for their restrictions.  They actually offered up a host of reasons for each card (at least, in the second attempt they did). 

Just a point of clarification - the entire post (which I've since expanded) wasn't meant to address your arguments exclusively; in fact many things I mention do not apply to the arguments that you're presented, but apply to the arguments that others have presented in various threads here.

The justification was certainly scant since the DCI offered up generic explanations and in turn made the restrictions "appear 'reasonable'", whereas in fact there was an absence of what vintage players would deem to be acceptable justifications for the restrictions. You even parodied their explanations in your September B/R announcement to demonstrate the vacuousness of the arguments. That of course doesn't mean that their decisions weren't absolutely correct, and I even stated in a prior thread that it didn't even matter what explanations the DCI provided.  Again, this is addressing the arguments made by others regarding the lack of justification for the restrictions, not your arguments specifically (which I don't disagree with).

My claim is simply that the B/R decisions were quite reasonable, but NOT because of the reasons given by the DCI specifically; the DCI in fact offered very weak justifications as your parody demonstrated and as most vintage pundits saw immediately after they were published.

[Smmenen]

What did you think of the three critiques I raised though?  Note, I am not tacitly agree with your points, I just want to focus the discussion. 

[Akuma]

I don't want to create the impression that I am just bashing the DCI here.   I think they could do alot of things better, with greater respectful and attention for the format than they apparently give it, but I don't disagree entirely with the restrictions.

My post was a little vague. I actually agree that Merchant Scroll needed to go, according to what I had come to expect from the DCI. It never really made any sense that Merchant Scroll was unrestricted while other comparatively subpar tutors were restricted. The restriction criteria made sense for M. Scroll.

The remaining restrictions (especially Brainstorm and Ponder) fit in nicely with your satirical 9/1/08 announcement. Any good card can "reasonably" be restricted, but why is that necessary. Looks like it is okay for Mana Drain engines to comprise 1/3 of the field...

[wiley]

Does the theory that it was a critical mass of a particular effect hold any water?  In my view you had a chunk of cards that allowed you to prune your deck and hand to near perfection with decent consistency.  Brainstorm may have been fine as a four of for years, but the moment they made the mistake of allowing it to become a pseudo 5-8 of it became too much.  This would also explain (to some extent) the restriction of ponder.

Gush and Scroll were both cards that, arguably, needed to go.  Flash was the next trinisphere, it simply damage the quality of the games played.  A game that isn't fun doesn't attract new people.  Or at least that's the message I get from the DCI.

If you look throughout the entire history of the DCI they seem to let a problem exist for ~1 year until they decide to do something about it (exceptions are when they decide a card would be too damaging to the format even before it hits decks).  Taking this into account it could be a late reaction to brainstorm or an early reaction to ponder.

Anyways, thanks for the article Steven.  I always enjoy seeing the format analysis, it adds a nice data set to check all of the "the sky is falling" claims made by people.

[Smmenen]

This article is now free.  I consider the arguments here and information here as important and relevant to Vintage players and the Vintage community as they were when they were first published.  My three criticisms, Timing, Sweep, and poor means-end fit I think are as logically persuasive now as when I drafted this article. 

The data in this article is also critical for future Vintage analysts.

For those of you who do not have premium, enjoy!

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

This is the first time I actually had the opportunity to read one of your articles, because often after three months, the topics can be outdated.
This one however is still highly relevant (and even more so now, I think, with the printing of ad Naus, Tezzeret and Cannonist)

First of all: It was very well written, and backed up by actual data. Nice.
Second: If I look at it now, the card that definitely warrants restriction is merchant scroll because it really is the enabler for gush and flash.
Barainstorm and ponder are powerful, yes, and In one sense I agree on Brainstorm being restricted. Ponder though doesn't create the same effect, nor is it instant. Sure it would fill the gap that Brainstorm leaves but hey, that's the way it works: When the ace is restricted, the king takes it's place (as you pointed out)

Flash and Gush (without Merchant scroll and ponder) don't look scary at all. I think the metagame would be much more diverse with gush/flash still amongst us.
I mean, how's the top8s looking right now?
I don't have actual data gathered, but from glances over top8s it seems that mana drain+Thirst have just taken it's place. I would even think that mana drain decks make a much higher percentage than gush decks did back then.

If I ever get a credit card, I'll suscribe to premium just for your articles right away.

[Smmenen]

This is the first time I actually had the opportunity to read one of your articles, because often after three months, the topics can be outdated.
This one however is still highly relevant (and even more so now, I think, with the printing of ad Naus, Tezzeret and Cannonist)

First of all: It was very well written, and backed up by actual data. Nice.

Thank You.  For an article like this, a great deal of attention is put into organization and logic.   Rather than present a rambling, but coherent essay, I felt it was more important to advance a couple of key points which were concisely argued.   

I think my discussion of ELD’s point regarding “lack of clear goals” is really perhaps one of the most important analytical points in the article. 

Second: If I look at it now, the card that definitely warrants restriction is merchant scroll because it really is the enabler for gush and flash.
Barainstorm and ponder are powerful, yes, and In one sense I agree on Brainstorm being restricted. Ponder though doesn't create the same effect, nor is it instant. Sure it would fill the gap that Brainstorm leaves but hey, that's the way it works: When the ace is restricted, the king takes it's place (as you pointed out)

Flash and Gush (without Merchant scroll and ponder) don't look scary at all. I think the metagame would be much more diverse with gush/flash still amongst us.

Of the three critiques I mounted, the most persuasive, in retrospect, appears to be have been the sweep argument.   There is really no answer to it given or available.

I mean, how's the top8s looking right now?
I don't have actual data gathered, but from glances over top8s it seems that mana drain+Thirst have just taken it's place. I would even think that mana drain decks make a much higher percentage than gush decks did back then.

This is borne out by the facts, which are stated in my July/August metagame report.

If I ever get a credit card, I'll suscribe to premium just for your articles right away.

[Liam-K]

Second: If I look at it now, the card that definitely warrants restriction is merchant scroll because it really is the enabler for gush and flash.
Barainstorm and ponder are powerful, yes, and In one sense I agree on Brainstorm being restricted. Ponder though doesn't create the same effect, nor is it instant. Sure it would fill the gap that Brainstorm leaves but hey, that's the way it works: When the ace is restricted, the king takes it's place (as you pointed out)

Flash and Gush (without Merchant scroll and ponder) don't look scary at all. I think the metagame would be much more diverse with gush/flash still amongst us.

Of the three critiques I mounted, the most persuasive, in retrospect, appears to be have been the sweep argument.   There is really no answer to it given or available.

I think the implied answer is a justified, largely proven-out fear that the restrictions would not cause the rebalancing of strategies they seemed to intend, and simply lead to the replacement of the restricted staples with the next-best unrestricted card.  With ponder, at least, this seems obvious to me (you'd run ponders as brainstorm replacements if you could, right?).  While it does seem that with the above exception the restrictions were largely considered in isolation, when you take into account the DCI's unfamiliarity with vintage deck design it strikes me more as playing it safe.  I remember their article about the restrictions that killed original Long.dec discussing sleeving the thing up and demonstrating it.  If they knew what was up in our format this wouldn't have been neccecary.

They wanted Gush and Flash gone, not to see new support under either card.  Then, realizing that it went both ways and axing the top of the chain left the support intact, they killed that too in order to not see the same shell powered by the next best thing.  My gut says the word diversity was thrown around and they wanted to open up design space for a new breed of tier 1 decks.  I honestly don't think they noticed the gaping holes in this line of thinking.

The rise of flash, especially, sets off serious colour pie sirens under type 2 design theory, and with only a slightly closer inspection Gush is almost as bad.  The restrictions say "enough is enough" and try to cut the legs out from under Blue's ability to enable non-Blue strategy.  It takes a much better feel for Vintage to recognize the futility of that crusade, and probably one better still to realize it's just not a problem.

[Smmenen]

Second: If I look at it now, the card that definitely warrants restriction is merchant scroll because it really is the enabler for gush and flash.
Barainstorm and ponder are powerful, yes, and In one sense I agree on Brainstorm being restricted. Ponder though doesn't create the same effect, nor is it instant. Sure it would fill the gap that Brainstorm leaves but hey, that's the way it works: When the ace is restricted, the king takes it's place (as you pointed out)

Flash and Gush (without Merchant scroll and ponder) don't look scary at all. I think the metagame would be much more diverse with gush/flash still amongst us.

Of the three critiques I mounted, the most persuasive, in retrospect, appears to be have been the sweep argument.   There is really no answer to it given or available.

I think the implied answer is a justified, largely proven-out fear that the restrictions would not cause the rebalancing of strategies they seemed to intend, and simply lead to the replacement of the restricted staples with the next-best unrestricted card.  With ponder, at least, this seems obvious to me (you'd run ponders as brainstorm replacements if you could, right?).  While it does seem that with the above exception the restrictions were largely considered in isolation, when you take into account the DCI's unfamiliarity with vintage deck design it strikes me more as playing it safe.  I remember their article about the restrictions that killed original Long.dec discussing sleeving the thing up and demonstrating it.  If they knew what was up in our format this wouldn't have been neccecary.

They wanted Gush and Flash gone, not to see new support under either card.  Then, realizing that it went both ways and axing the top of the chain left the support intact, they killed that too in order to not see the same shell powered by the next best thing.  My gut says the word diversity was thrown around and they wanted to open up design space for a new breed of tier 1 decks.  I honestly don't think they noticed the gaping holes in this line of thinking.

The rise of flash, especially, sets off serious colour pie sirens under type 2 design theory, and with only a slightly closer inspection Gush is almost as bad.  The restrictions say "enough is enough" and try to cut the legs out from under Blue's ability to enable non-Blue strategy.  It takes a much better feel for Vintage to recognize the futility of that crusade, and probably one better still to realize it's just not a problem.

Your answer, to the extent it makes sense, is only applicable with respect to Ponder/Brainstorm, and is no answer as to why Gush and Flash are restricted with Ponder, Scroll, and Brainstorm restricted.   There are no good substitutes for Ponder and Brainstorm.   Those cards are completely unique.   To the extent that substitutes exist, they are clearly so inferior that they are very unlikely to create problems extant with the relevant cards.

In fact, your answer is so unsatisfactory that you seem to even abandon it by the end, and switch your justification to the "let's just neuter blue" rationale.  Yet, as I already explained in my article, "neutering blue" as a goal is a total impossibility.  You could restrict every card in Magic and blue would still be the dominant color. 

For reference, here is the part of my article on this point:

Sweep

Although the DCI is clearly empowered to restrict as many cards as it chooses, multiple restrictions which have the same purpose raise questions about the means-end fit. The explanation offered for each restriction primarily focused on the effect, power, and role of each card taken in isolation. Thus, the discussion of Flash focused on its ability to lead to turn 1 and turn 2 victories. And the discussion of Merchant Scroll emphasized its power as a tutor. In fact, the cards restricted on June 20th were highly interconnected. The restriction of any one of them would have had an impact on the use and abuse of the other four. Specifically, in the discussion on Gush and Flash, nothing was said about the impact that the restrictions of Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm would have on the use of those cards, particularly the uses that the DCI cited as troubling.

This is a major gap in reasoning. If the restriction of Brainstorm, Ponder, and Merchant Scroll effectively renders Flash unplayable, then the restriction of Flash was completely unnecessary. The same is true of Gush.

The obvious explanation for the sweep of these decisions is the symbolism of them. Yet symbolism is a poor substitute for reason, especially in a format where symbols quickly fade into the backdrop of metagame realities and the long-term vision of a format where you can play with all of your cards as much as possible.

Vintage players, including myself, feel strongly that cards should not be restricted unless as a last resort. I have campaigned vigorously to unrestrict various cards over the years (successfully in many instances, unsuccessfully in others). The successful campaigns over minor, irrelevant cards such as Fork or Mind Over Matter seem vain and idle if the DCI, in the interests of making a statement, sweep out cards that are unlikely to see play as a result of other restrictions.

Goal-Implementation Gap

I initially wanted to describe this point as a ‘lack of clear goals,’ following the lead of Eric Dupuis who described it as such. However, after thoughtful reflection I realized that the problem isn’t that there aren’t clear goals. The problem is that the goals expressed do not always have clear routes to implementation.

Maintaining the ‘health’ of the format or the ‘fun’ of the format is to me a relatively clear goal, but it is not all evident which policies can be logically devised to implement them. Further specification is required. For example, Erik Lauer repeatedly referenced the goal of weakened combo decks vis-à-vis control decks. There are many combo decks in Vintage. Which are safe and which are not? If Flash is a fair target, why is Dragon or Grim Long combo safe?

If the objective was to neuter Blue, that objective failed. The four or five cards that have just been restricted are sure to be replaced (as we are seeing) by several other blue cards and non-blue cards that are primarily abused by blue decks. In any case, "neutering Blue" is not an implementable goal. In a format with cheap and incredibly efficient multi-color mana bases thanks to Alpha and Onslaught, that goal is a fool’s errand. Any deck without Blue can be arguably strengthened with a Blue splash. People also talk about creating more balance to the color wheel in Vintage. There is no real color wheel in Vintage. Since Day 1, Vintage decks have been five colors (see Brian Weissman’s "The Deck" back in 1994).

If the objective was to make the format more interesting, while that sounds great, I think the DCI took the wrong approach. Making the format more interesting could have been accomplished in many other ways. Unrestrictions and targeted restrictions could have accomplished the same result without being so intrusive. Specifically, restricting just Merchant Scroll could have accomplished well over 50% (and perhaps as high as 80%) of what the DCI apparently hoped to accomplish with these restrictions. Unrestricting Fact or Fiction could also have served some of those goals, such as giving Mana Drain decks a doorway back into the format without aiding so called ‘combo-control’ decks in the process.