[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays - Restrict Mana Drain? the Nov/Dec Report

[madlucas]

Just check out www.tipo1.it and you will see how the Italian players are handling this metagame.
It is not "Vault/key vs anti Vault/key" at all and not even "Mana Drain vs anti Mana Drain".
It is a US metagame problem because everyone is sleeving up only decks who are piloted to win by Smennen,Shay,LSV...

[bluemage55]

It is simply paradoxical that you can remove one of the most critical tools of Drain archetypes (Brainstorm) while hardly weakening other archetypes, and all of a sudden the Drain decks become even more busted.

It makes perfect sense if you consider that Brainstorm is not only utilized by the Drain archetype.

Brainstorm wasn't just the best unrestricted card in Vintage, it was a drawing engine in and of itself.  And when you take away the strongest virtual card advantage engine in the game, the next-best replacement is going to be king, and that happens to be Thirst for Knowledge.  That's why we see Drain decks running rampant, because they utilize TfK the best.

Want to know who got hurt most by restricted Brainstorm?  Blue decks that don't have Thirst for Knowledge to pitch their dead cards.   That means Oath, Dragon, Landstill, and Fish, all of which if tooled properly can wreck a Drain metagame. 

You want to fix this problem?  Unrestrict Brainstorm, and let other Blue decks back in the game.

Like I said in my last post, this really isn't anything new.  The only difference is the combo at the end of the shell.  There is absolutely nothing you can do to this combo, which is already run in singleton, and the shell is likewise impossible to destroy and is very hard to damage through any means of restriction.

I agree completely that the shell is the problem.  But if we keep in mind that there are two ways to deal with this shell, either denting it, or lifting up other archetypes, why not do the latter?

[Purple Hat]

It is simply paradoxical that you can remove one of the most critical tools of Drain archetypes (Brainstorm) while hardly weakening other archetypes, and all of a sudden the Drain decks become even more busted.

It makes perfect sense if you consider that Brainstorm is not only utilized by the Drain archetype.

Brainstorm wasn't just the best unrestricted card in Vintage, it was a drawing engine in and of itself.  And when you take away the strongest virtual card advantage engine in the game, the next-best replacement is going to be king, and that happens to be Thirst for Knowledge.  That's why we see Drain decks running rampant, because they utilize TfK the best.

Want to know who got hurt most by restricted Brainstorm?  Blue decks that don't have Thirst for Knowledge to pitch their dead cards.   That means Oath, Dragon, Landstill, and Fish, all of which if tooled properly can wreck a Drain metagame. 

You want to fix this problem?  Unrestrict Brainstorm, and let other Blue decks back in the game.

Like I said in my last post, this really isn't anything new.  The only difference is the combo at the end of the shell.  There is absolutely nothing you can do to this combo, which is already run in singleton, and the shell is likewise impossible to destroy and is very hard to damage through any means of restriction.

I agree completely that the shell is the problem.  But if we keep in mind that there are two ways to deal with this shell, either denting it, or lifting up other archetypes, why not do the latter?

Given that half your "blue decks that don't play thirst" also didn't play brainstorm it seems odd to suggest that restricting brainstorm actually had any effect on them at all.  The only deck your argument is really true for is storm combo, but it seems to be getting along just fine where it is being played, putting up a fairly typical ratio of top 8:played in tournament.

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

If everyone, especially top players, is playing drains because they like them, because they think it lets them leverage their superior skill more effectively, or for some other reason then it is, as Dicemanx has been saying, a self-fulfilling prophecy that drains will be making up a huge proportion of top 8's.  People keep dismissing TK's wins with stax as "that was TK beating drains, not Stax beating drains" but no one ever works this logic the other way when Rich Shay or Smennen puts up a solid finish with drains.

[Nehptis]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

People keep dismissing TK's wins with stax as "that was TK beating drains, not Stax beating drains" but no one ever works this logic the other way when Rich Shay or Smennen puts up a solid finish with drains.

Oath was putting up good numbers before the Restriction of BS.  Now the only consistent appearance we see of Oath in T8s is James King playing Oath.  I attribute this to James King beating Drains, Shops, etc....NOT Oath beating them.  I say this with full confidence because I have seen other good Oath players try time and time again to make Oath work post BS restriction and they have not shown success like JK...not even close.

[zeus-online]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

[Purple Hat]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

When we look at the other "pillars of vintage" Bazaar, Workshop and Rituals you see that they make up a significantly smaller portion of the field as a whole than the consolidated drain decks.  We can clearly see from the results that when top players like TK pick up decks based around other cards they are successful.  You can pick your archtype, but good players are doing well with decks built around non drain/fish strategies.  Then those results are being dismissed because of the superior play skill of the individual pilot (this is a whole seperate argument, but isn't that what we want?  playskill>deck choice?) but you never see this dismissal of drain results.

So we come to the question of whether Drains are being overplayed because they're too good or drains are looking too good because they're over played.  Some of the people in this thread, including me, are saying that drains look too good because they are being over played, historically drains have always been more heavily played than other strategies.  There are many reasons that players pick up any one deck, especially in vintage where players are more prone to playing pet decks over long periods of time regardless of their relative strength.  There has been a lot of hype about drains recently so people are more prone to picking up drain decks than they would normally be.  Add to that the fact that you have a large number of players who have always played drains, and a large number of exceptionally strong players who have historically played the best drain deck so long as there was one in the top 5 or 10 decks and you start to see US metagames where the field as a whole is composed of 50% drains not necessarily because of strength but also because of other factors.

That is what I was saying.  If there are 40 people in the tournament and 20 play drain decks 10 play fish and 10 play either workshop, ritual or bazaar decks then why the heck would we expect a top 8 that looks like anything other than 4 drain decks 2 fish decks and 2 decks playing either workshops, rituals or bazaars?  If we're only looking at the top 8 then we say "oh wow...drain obviously put up sick results" but if we look at the field as a whole we can pretty clearly see that the top 8 was exactly what we should have expected, given what showed up that day.

[neotrophy]

The more I read and think about this format, and what should be done to fix it, the more I think that the answer is "not much".  I think there should be some unrestrictions, mainly, as supported by bluemage's argument for unrestricting Brainstorm, Ponder.  I don't believe that Brainstorm itself should be unrestricted, but Ponder has most of the effect that bluemage is calling for, with the bonus of being sorcery speed, making it less palatable for Drain decks.  The are other, more subtle reasons for unrestricting Ponder as well, which have been mentioned elsewhere, but I can't remember them, and don't have time to dig for them at the moment.

The reason that I don't think that very much should be done about the format at the moment is that I think that the metagame is very much still adjusting to the introduction of another powerful win condition based on a restricted card.  When Yawgmoth's Will was ripping up the format, there were calls to ban it, but the metagame shifted, firstly becoming Will vs anti-will and then becoming powerful decks incorporating Will, vs decks with strong answers to Will, but not specifically designed to be a foil to Will decks.  The introduction of Darksteel Colossus caused a similar, if less dramatic metagame shift, with bounce becoming a standard feature of most decks to deal with an 11/11 creature that had no right to be in play and other very useful effects as well.

I think that Time Vault is similar to Yawgmoth's Will in power, except, instead of requiring setup of the graveyard, it's either a 2 card combo (so takes effort to set up), or costs .  These two attributes mean that it's a win condition that suits itself well to Drain decks, who tend to play longer games (time to set up a 2 card combo) and play more blue (making easier).  Unfortunately, being suited to the Drain shell means that it's more difficult to defend agains this combo, that the best defences (I can think of at the moment) for are shutting down one or both of the combo pieces, mana disruption and instant speed artifact destruction.  Those walls of counters make getting any of this through difficult, but there are ways.

What is required is a change in the way that decks are built, and those changes tend to come slowly.  I think it was Brian Weisman who once said "Every deck needs at least two Disenchants".  I think that is becoming fairly solid advice, but with Disenchant itself replaced by one of the myriad instant speed answers to artifacts, or a strategy that makes using Time Vault as a win condition inherently difficult.  This is just like in the past when decks had to pack incidental graveyard hate, basically as a price of coming to the table in an environment with Yawgmoth's Will.  Or where every deck needed bounce or Swords to Plowshares to handle the cheaty-faced Colossus.

[Smmenen]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

There is a very, very simple rebuttal to this point.


If it was apparent that Mana drains were a worse choice than Dark Rituals, then we would expect to see Dark Rituals increase in numbers and mana Drain decks recede as people move away from the inferior choice. 

If they do not, then we can assume that it is not an inferior choice.   

This is why we do not make restrictions based upon a single tournament, but gauge the metagame over time.  That's why I say that dominance *over time* matters.   

There are many other rebuttals as well.

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

Actually, we should be surprised then.   The best players select the best decks.   If Mana Drain was an 'average' or 'poor' performing deck, then they would not choose it, once they became aware of this information.

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.   

[Purple Hat]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

There is a very, very simple rebuttal to this point.


If it was apparent that Mana drains were a worse choice than Dark Rituals, then we would expect to see Dark Rituals increase in numbers and mana Drain decks recede as people move away from the inferior choice. 

If they do not, then we can assume that it is not an inferior choice.   

This is why we do not make restrictions based upon a single tournament, but gauge the metagame over time.  That's why I say that dominance *over time* matters.   

There are many other rebuttals as well.

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

Actually, we should be surprised then.   The best players select the best decks.   If Mana Drain was an 'average' or 'poor' performing deck, then they would not choose it, once they became aware of this information.

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.   

Except that we know for a fact that a lot of the top players would, all other factors equal, play drains.  It would take a significant power difference to cause several players I know to stop playing drains since they feel that their years of experience playing drains will allow them to make up for slight variations in power level.

I'm also not convinced by your rebuttal since there are two effects that go on.  1) People play whatever wins, 2) people play whatever beats whatever wins.  It's certainly possible that lots of people are playing drains because it's winning because lots of people are playing it, resulting in it winning, resulting in lots of people playing it.  Whenever people come on here saying "play something that beats drains" they're getting shouted down.  As I said, we ARE seeing good players who pick up other decks doing well with them.  TK is just one example, several members of your own team have done well with rituals recently.  In Europe drains are not dominating.  We're dismissing results that don't show the dominance of drains as "TK out played them" or "europe sucks" while we haven't been saying "Rich Shay is outplaying people" or "new england is highly influential on the US metagame and they prefer drains there."  It's clearly not the case that the other decks that beat drains are all weak vs the field since we do see them performing well in the hands of skilled pilots.

[Akuma]

Given that half your "blue decks that don't play thirst" also didn't play brainstorm it seems odd to suggest that restricting brainstorm actually had any effect on them at all.  The only deck your argument is really true for is storm combo, but it seems to be getting along just fine where it is being played, putting up a fairly typical ratio of top 8:played in tournament.

I don't get what you are saying here. All of the decks he mentioned used Brainstorm, with the exception of WGD. The loss of Brainstorm hurt lower curve decks (Fish and Oath variants) more than higher curve decks (Drain variants) IMHO.

But if we keep in mind that there are two ways to deal with this shell, either denting it, or lifting up other archetypes, why not do the latter?

I completely agree with bluemage55, widen my options. Any restriction at this point will just cause a slight adjustment to the current "blue shell".

We can clearly see from the results that when top players like TK pick up decks based around other cards they are successful.

TK is an excellent player, no question about it, but he did not pick up a deck "based around other cards". He went with an anti-Tezz/Drain/Vault/Key deck. Did you take a look at his list? Prison deck with Chalice + Null Rod main and 4 ANCIENT GRUDGES sideboarded.

[LordHomerCat]

FYI the grudges were not for Vault decks.  He didn't bring them in against my Tezz deck when we played, which definitely was the correct choice on his part.

[Webster]

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

There is a very, very simple rebuttal to this point.


If it was apparent that Mana drains were a worse choice than Dark Rituals, then we would expect to see Dark Rituals increase in numbers and mana Drain decks recede as people move away from the inferior choice. 

If they do not, then we can assume that it is not an inferior choice.   

This is why we do not make restrictions based upon a single tournament, but gauge the metagame over time.  That's why I say that dominance *over time* matters.   

There are many other rebuttals as well.

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

Actually, we should be surprised then.   The best players select the best decks.   If Mana Drain was an 'average' or 'poor' performing deck, then they would not choose it, once they became aware of this information.

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.

The rebutal is not so simple. It leans on the assumption that people are rational and follow the facts, which is far from the case.

As far as "The best players select the best decks.", I'd argue that it's more like, "The best players play 'not bad' decks' at least to a point to where they can leverage wins."


P.S. Change that. I won't argue it. I'm just going to say it and let it be. I don't want to bog down this thread with proper spelling or other nonsense like that.

[Smmenen]

Look at the number of workshops, bazaars and rituals being played in entire tournaments these days.  Then look at the number of drains.  Looking at those numbers can you honestly tell me that it's surprising that a card that's a 4 of in half the field is also a 4 of in half the top 8?  or that pillars that collectively make up 25% of the metagame aren't putting up big nubmbers of top 8 appearances?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify your points.  Are you saying that we should NOT be surprised by the high % of Drain numbers?  And it's acceptable that the Drain numbers are as high as they are?

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

There is a very, very simple rebuttal to this point.


If it was apparent that Mana drains were a worse choice than Dark Rituals, then we would expect to see Dark Rituals increase in numbers and mana Drain decks recede as people move away from the inferior choice. 

If they do not, then we can assume that it is not an inferior choice.   

This is why we do not make restrictions based upon a single tournament, but gauge the metagame over time.  That's why I say that dominance *over time* matters.   

There are many other rebuttals as well.

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

Actually, we should be surprised then.   The best players select the best decks.   If Mana Drain was an 'average' or 'poor' performing deck, then they would not choose it, once they became aware of this information.

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.   

Except that we know for a fact that a lot of the top players would, all other factors equal, play drains. 

And why is that?

Because they are really good and they allow you to win the game.

There are two possible claims:

Claim A:  Mana Drains are a mediocre/average card, but good players play them, and so they do well.

Claim B: Mana Drains are an amazing card, and so good players play them and do well because they are amazing.

You seem to be suggesting Claim A, when claim B is far more plausible. 

He's saying this:
If there's 50% Drain decks in the environment, it's not surprising that 50% of any given top8 is drain decks.

Actually there could be 7 drain decks in the top8 and still not mean that drain decks are the best, if only 1 ritual dude showed up and made top8, then one could only assume that rituals where a better choice.

/Zeus

There is a very, very simple rebuttal to this point.


If it was apparent that Mana drains were a worse choice than Dark Rituals, then we would expect to see Dark Rituals increase in numbers and mana Drain decks recede as people move away from the inferior choice. 

If they do not, then we can assume that it is not an inferior choice.   

This is why we do not make restrictions based upon a single tournament, but gauge the metagame over time.  That's why I say that dominance *over time* matters.   

There are many other rebuttals as well.

If the field is 50% drains then, given that every deck performs the same, you will have a top 8 with 50% drains.  We should not be surprised when analyzing tournament stats where the meta is mostly composed of drains if there are also large numbers of drains in the top 8.  We should be especially unsurprised if it turns out, as it has recently, that many of the best players in the field are choosing to play drain based decks.

Actually, we should be surprised then.   The best players select the best decks.   If Mana Drain was an 'average' or 'poor' performing deck, then they would not choose it, once they became aware of this information.

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.

The rebutal is not so simple. It leans on the assumption that people are rational and follow the facts, which is far from the case.

To some extent that's true.   With the important caveat that people don't always change decks if they think that they have better odds if they change their existing deck to adjust.

I was assuming that people change to a better deck if they want to win tournaments if its clear that their decks are inferior. 

There is alot of evidence to support this.   If it were otherwise, we would have seen alot more Mana Drain decks in tournaments during the second Gush era, but most of the Drain players changed to gush decks.   Even Brian DeMars!

In any case, I would contend that even if individual people aren't rational, as a group, they are more rational than stubborn individuals  That is, let's suppose that some segment of the Vintage population is stupidly stubborn and will play Drains even when they suck (as they did in the second Gush era), at least SOME proportion of players will shift, and that will affect the overall numbers.    To continue with the same hypothetical, so if there was only one TPS player, and they made top 8, and there were 50% Mana Drain players, and four made top 8, if only 4 more people play TPS, then Drains numbers, assuming every TPS player makes top 8, will fall.   It only takes a very small number change in overall metagame composition, by this logic, to create a much larger percentage change in the compostion of the top 8 metagame. 

[zeus-online]

Given that half your "blue decks that don't play thirst" also didn't play brainstorm it seems odd to suggest that restricting brainstorm actually had any effect on them at all.  The only deck your argument is really true for is storm combo, but it seems to be getting along just fine where it is being played, putting up a fairly typical ratio of top 8:played in tournament.

I don't get what you are saying here. All of the decks he mentioned used Brainstorm, with the exception of WGD.

Actually not all fish decks used brainstorm, and i have no clue about landstill, i have never played against it. (At least not in vintage)

[Troy_Costisick]

Or, you can look at it like this.  If Drain Decks aren't the best right now, then it's a terrific time to sneak into a tournament with whatever deck is actually the best and win a bunch of prizes.

But honestly, I find it hard to believe that 50% of the tournament winning decks in Nov/Dec that were sporting the same engine aren't sporting the best engine.  Popularity can only go so far.  Winning every other tournament is a powerful and telling statistic.

[zeus-online]

There are two possible claims:

Claim A:  Mana Drains are a mediocre/average card, but good players play them, and so they do well.

Claim B: Mana Drains are an amazing card, and so good players play them and do well because they are amazing.

You seem to be suggesting Claim A, when claim B is far more plausible. 

There is a third possibility:

Claim C: Drain is more or less* equally strong as ritual, workshop and bazaars, but most players/good players enjoy playing drains more then the other archetypes.

I find this very plausible.
If i where to go to a tournament tomorrow and i got to choose between a ritual deck, a workshop deck and a drain deck which i believed had an equal chance to win, i'd pick the drain deck.
And i really don't think i'm alone here.

Also take into consideration that some players have played since the keeper era or the hulk smash era and are better at playing drains then rituals, that would increase their chances with drains even if they are only "just as good" as the other archetypes.
This assumption relies on more people being good with drains then with other decktypes though. (Again, something i find plausible)

/Zeus

*Using the term "more or less" since i'm firmly of the conviction that nothing is ever equally good in a well designed game.

[Troy_Costisick]

I find this very plausible.
If i where to go to a tournament tomorrow and i got to choose between a ritual deck, a workshop deck and a drain deck which i believed had an equal chance to win, i'd pick the drain deck.
And i really don't think i'm alone here.

If that's true, then the current Drain dominance is just a fad and will pass in a few months as boredom and experimentation set it.  I'd like to believe that's the case.  We'll see how the metagame reports turn out for Jan/Feb.

Also take into consideration that some players have played since the keeper era or the hulk smash era and are better at playing drains then rituals, that would increase their chances with drains even if they are only "just as good" as the other archetypes.
This assumption relies on more people being good with drains then with other decktypes though. (Again, something i find plausible)

I think it would be fair to say that there is a certain allure to playing "The Deck".  It's the archetype that really define Vintage in the early days and it's something that many still venerate.  Tez is the closest thing we've had in many years. 

[Purple Hat]

There are two possible claims:

Claim A:  Mana Drains are a mediocre/average card, but good players play them, and so they do well.

Claim B: Mana Drains are an amazing card, and so good players play them and do well because they are amazing.

You seem to be suggesting Claim A, when claim B is far more plausible. 

There is a third possibility:

Claim C: Drain is more or less* equally strong as ritual, workshop and bazaars, but most players/good players enjoy playing drains more then the other archetypes.

I find this very plausible.
If i where to go to a tournament tomorrow and i got to choose between a ritual deck, a workshop deck and a drain deck which i believed had an equal chance to win, i'd pick the drain deck.
And i really don't think i'm alone here.

Also take into consideration that some players have played since the keeper era or the hulk smash era and are better at playing drains then rituals, that would increase their chances with drains even if they are only "just as good" as the other archetypes.
This assumption relies on more people being good with drains then with other decktypes though. (Again, something i find plausible)

/Zeus

*Using the term "more or less" since i'm firmly of the conviction that nothing is ever equally good in a well designed game.

I love when people read me saying if all the decks are equal power levels lots of people I know will play drains, and don't infer that there are only 2 possible options NEITHER of which is that many of the best vintage players simply prefer drain decks.  I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but where they are played decks that are built around other pillars are making top 8.  It is just that they aren't being heavily played in the US right now.

[dicemanx]

It's not self--fulling prophesy.  The best players play what they think is the best deck.   If the best players are winning with mana drains, that is a sign that mana drains are the best deck.

But Steve, that is the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That is not to suggest that Mana Drain is not an amazing card. However, it is in a format filled with other amazing cards that are part of archetypes that could very well be on par with Tezzeret power-wise.

I don't get what you are saying here. All of the decks he mentioned used Brainstorm, with the exception of WGD. The loss of Brainstorm hurt lower curve decks (Fish and Oath variants) more than higher curve decks (Drain variants) IMHO.

Not quite; he mentioned Landstill and WGD, which don't use Brainstorm, and he mentioned Fish, which doesn't always use Brainstorm. Both Landstill and WGD should in fact be VERY pleased the Brainstorm is gone from the environment.

Furthermore, the comment about how the loss of Brainstorm hurt "lower curve decks" is puzzling; when I first made my claim that the loss of Brainstorm paradoxically led to such Tezzeret dominance I was thinking about the beatdown versus control roles of decks. The loss of Brainstorm should definitely impact the beatdown decks far less than those thrust into a control role. When a Drain archetype is facing down cards like CotV or Null Rod which stifle their development or facing hordes of little weenies, cards like Brainstorm become more critical in getting out of the mana binds or finding solutions to the pressures exerted by the decks adopting the beatdown role.

Additionally, decks that utilize cards like Null Rod and CotV tend to be highly redundant, reducing the significance of the loss of Brainstorm.

[Smmenen]

There are two possible claims:

Claim A:  Mana Drains are a mediocre/average card, but good players play them, and so they do well.

Claim B: Mana Drains are an amazing card, and so good players play them and do well because they are amazing.

You seem to be suggesting Claim A, when claim B is far more plausible. 

There is a third possibility:

Claim C: Drain is more or less* equally strong as ritual, workshop and bazaars, but most players/good players enjoy playing drains more then the other archetypes.

I find this very plausible.

But why do they enjoy playing drains more than other archetypes?  Because they win more with them!  That's because they aren't equal, they are better! 

The idea that we don't have to do anything about a dominant deck because it's just the best players playing it is sort of ridiculous by its own terms.   Under that logic, nothing would ever have been banned for dominance.   Because, it's just the best players playing the deck they like, right? 

The far more plausible answer is that the best players are the best players -- in part -- because of their ability to identify and play the best decks. 


Again: If Mana Drains performed less well than other archetypes in terms of translating % of metagame into % of top 8s, then eventually players would know and at least some would switch and the dominance (in terms of % of top 8s) would recede.  And if Mana Drains weren't as good, then those who switch would be rewarded for their switch.    Sure, not everyone would, but the experience with Gush proves that many would.   

[dark burn]

Menendian, why do you enjoy playing TPS so often?  I doubt because it is always the best deck for the tournament.  Are you playing TPS now, or have you switched to drain decks like most other people?  You play TPS because you are famular with the deck, know it inside and out, and can tweak it to beat an expected metagame.  Others are the same way with drains.

People like drain decks because they like to say "NO!!!!".  It is one of the best feelings in the world to be able to control what another person can, or cannot do.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Yes, I think the actual amounts of players lobbying for the restriction of Mana Drain is centered on a few individuals and they have more of a hate for Drain rather then it will help the metagame.

As someone who's been playing Drains off and on for the last 6 years, I find your argument laughable, especially since I split my last tournament maybe a month ago with Drains.

Menendian, why do you enjoy playing TPS so often?  I doubt because it is always the best deck for the tournament.  Are you playing TPS now, or have you switched to drain decks like most other people?  You play TPS because you are famular with the deck, know it inside and out, and can tweak it to beat an expected metagame.  Others are the same way with drains.

But why are they *familiar* with Drains to such an extent?  Because they've been doing well with Drains for years, because Mana Drain has dominated Vintage off and on, but mostly on, since it was printed.

[Akuma]

Not quite; he mentioned Landstill and WGD, which don't use Brainstorm, and he mentioned Fish, which doesn't always use Brainstorm. Both Landstill and WGD should in fact be VERY pleased the Brainstorm is gone from the environment.

Not all Landstill decks look like Mattiuzzo's version, many of them ran Brainstorm. The majority of Fish decks ran Brainstorm as well. It seems like you are focusing on my use of the word "all". How about if I change "all" to "the vast majority", would that be more to your liking? Something else to keep in mind is that WGD and Landstill are irrelevant in Vintage. Who cares if they are pleased that Brainstorm is gone, no one is playing those decks anyway.

The loss of Brainstorm should definitely impact the beatdown decks far less than those thrust into a control role. When a Drain archetype is facing down cards like CotV or Null Rod which stifle their development or facing hordes of little weenies, cards like Brainstorm become more critical in getting out of the mana binds or finding solutions to the pressures exerted by the decks adopting the beatdown role.

Fish decks are not always the "beatdown". Without Brainstorm, they don't have the ability to produce the "right" disruption or threat as consistently, meanwhile decks that are just packed with restricted cards have a better chance of just doing something broken while the Fish deck sits there with a Null Rod when I have Tinker/Darksteel Colossus or a Chalice of the Void when I have Tezz or Vault/Key in play. Let's not forget about the problems Oath decks face now.

IMO, decks that are "Restricted List (UB + Art)" are less affected by losing something like Brainstorm than other candidates. In fact, I don't think they can be affected via restrictions anymore. The "blue shell" is already mostly just a bunch of 1-ofs.

In any case, I am just here to say that:

- All of the restrictions that took place last year are/were lame.
- Restricting something now would be lame.

[dicemanx]

Something else to keep in mind is that WGD and Landstill are irrelevant in Vintage. Who cares if they are pleased that Brainstorm is gone, no one is playing those decks anyway.

Whether or not we should care doesn't challenge the claim that was made when this point was brought up; in fact, that these decks are NOT played supports that claim. You're not just trying to be argumentative, are you?

Fish decks are not always the "beatdown". Without Brainstorm, they don't have the ability to produce the "right" disruption or threat as consistently, meanwhile decks that are just packed with restricted cards have a better chance of just doing something broken while the Fish deck sits there with a Null Rod when I have Tinker/Darksteel Colossus or a Chalice of the Void when I have Tezz or Vault/Key in play. Let's not forget about the problems Oath decks face now.

In other words, your rebuttal is "there are exceptions". I'm well aware that the aggressive decks don't always adopt the beatdown role, nor will they always play the beatdown role ideally because they fail to produce the "right threats" or "right disruption". But the point still stands that Brainstorm is more essential to the decks that adopt or are forced to adopt a control role. It goes back to the old adage that there are "no wrong threats, just wrong answers"; it is obviously more complicated than that in vintage, but there is still much truth to that statement.

Your argument is that the "restricted list" decks have more of a chance to "do something broken"; well, they had a greater ability to do that WITH 4 Brainstorm. Your argument would only make sense if the Fish decks, more often than not, were relying on Brainstorm to dig for answers in response to a threat produced by restricted list decks, or were relying on Brainstorm to dig for "the right threat" despite the massive redundancy in the lists. Given that I have played for many years in an environment filled to the brim with all manner of Fish decks (Toronto Canada was Fish central for the longest time), I can tell you first hand that that is NOT the case.

But why do they enjoy playing drains more than other archetypes?  Because they win more with them!  That's because they aren't equal, they are better!

I think we're conceding that this argument might be true, but not enough time has elapsed to identify whether the Tezzeret deck is "truly dominant". The European results seem to indicate that Tezzeret is not as dominant as the US meta would seem to suggest - either the European players are making a huge mistake in deck selection by not choosing the best deck, or the US players are overestimating the deck strength but they are reluctant to switch to another deck because of their successes thus far.

[fury]

I think we're conceding that this argument might be true, but not enough time has elapsed to identify whether the Tezzeret deck is "truly dominant". The European results seem to indicate that Tezzeret is not as dominant as the US meta would seem to suggest - either the European players are making a huge mistake in deck selection by not choosing the best deck, or the US players are overestimating the deck strength but they are reluctant to switch to another deck because of their successes thus far.

I want to add about this. In Europe, Tezz is not dominating, because people play archetypes which have a good match-up against Tezz and Drain decks (Ichorid, hateful aggro archetypes). As we can see the US metagame from Europe, we notice that in America, a lot of people play a deck because of its performance at  former tournaments. And that would explain the fact that a lot of Tezz/drain decks are found is the top8 of US tournaments. To quantify the phenomenon, let's divide the number of Tezz/Drain decks by the total number of decks that are played in a breakdown tournament. It should be normal to see a near proportion of it in any top 8, if Tezz is very played.

But this doesn't imply that the Tezz archetype is truly dominating the Vintage format. Ans thus, I don't really understand assumptions about the B&R list only on this type of arguments. According to me, the current B&R list is good.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I want to add about this. In Europe, Tezz is not dominating, because people play archetypes which have a good match-up against Tezz and Drain decks (Ichorid, hateful aggro archetypes). As we can see the US metagame from Europe, we notice that in America, a lot of people play a deck because of its performance at  former tournaments. And that would explain the fact that a lot of Tezz/drain decks are found is the top8 of US tournaments.

I want to make sure I understand your post.  Is it your suggestion that as a rule, Americans tend to switch decks based on how well they perform at tournaments while Europeans continue to play the same deck regardless of performance at former tournaments?

Peace,

-Troy

[Marske]

I want to add about this. In Europe, Tezz is not dominating, because people play archetypes which have a good match-up against Tezz and Drain decks (Ichorid, hateful aggro archetypes). As we can see the US metagame from Europe, we notice that in America, a lot of people play a deck because of its performance at  former tournaments. And that would explain the fact that a lot of Tezz/drain decks are found is the top8 of US tournaments. To quantify the phenomenon, let's divide the number of Tezz/Drain decks by the total number of decks that are played in a breakdown tournament. It should be normal to see a near proportion of it in any top 8, if Tezz is very played.

I want to make sure I understand your post.  Is it your suggestion that as a rule, Americans tend to switch decks based on how well they perform at tournaments while Europeans continue to play the same deck regardless of performance at former tournaments?

Like I said in the other trainwreck...  I've also noticed this in the European Meta, we Europeans seem to be willing to play more diverse decks and try out more stuff (Some guys switch decks no matter what they did with them in the past) just for the fun of it while American players tend to stick with what they know more. I think thats also a reason that we see more innovative decks in Europe then we do in the states. (Don't get me wrong I'm not flaming you guys)

Plus while American players seem to be very fond of playing with Drains European players tend to be fond of pulling drain decks apart, there's a reason we see more Stax, Fish, Sui, Dragon, TMWA around Europe.

[reaperbong]

*cough* proxies *cough*

Don't forget people In Europe tend to/need to invest a lot more money into their deck so it's not as viable to just switch it up to whatever is winning. That guy that's been playing Goblins for that last two years is not likely to just show up with a Tez deck.

[Marske]

@Reaperbong,
There are proxie events in Europe and especially in the Benelux... I know all the big events are sanctioned but we do see our share of proxie events. Only difference is most TO's keep a 10 proxie limit MAX without bullshit like paying for extra proxies or whatever. I hope this isn't turning into a US vs Europe meta game discussion again but I do think the meta's are 2 different beasts and people should acknowledge that or at least understand it.

Besides Tezz decks are only winning because EVERYBODY is playing them and only a handfull of people know how to play the mirror well enough to get consistent top 8 finishes. If this is not the case I dare 10 people to bring U/x Fish, TPS, Ichorid, Dawn of the Dead, Cerebral Assasin to a big tournament in the US and prove me wrong. (I'll bet five people out of ten will get GREAT results if the 5 people aren't Joe something in his first event but some good players.)

[reaperbong]

In Prague we've typically had 10 proxy events and you had to pay ~ $1 for each proxy. I'm proud to say though that there is a real movement to ban proxies, starting 2009 we are holding no proxy tournaments in Czech (Brno+Prague), although anything still goes on normal Friday night tourneys.

You can't deny that this is a huge factor in the meta even with 10 proxies. Take Goblins for example, someone here tried to make the claim that Goblins being played in Europe is merely a sign of a warped anti-Tez meta. Of course Goblins have been around a lot longer then Tez, but why play Goblins in the US when you can proxy up the latest Meandeck anyway?

Don't mean to derail the discussion, but I do find this relevant to the issue at hand. Ban proxies in the US and see how fast everyone without power will be rocking 4x chalice + 4x Null Rod. Afterwhich i'd bet my money that Tez wouldn't dominate top 8's like now.