[Free Article]The Most Dominant Engine in Vintage History: The March/April

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17460_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Most_Dominant_Engine_in_Vintage_History_The_MarchApril_Vintage_Metagame_Report.html

I rediscovered Excel.   I'm an Excel noob, but I think the graphs greatly aid the presentation here.  

Editor's blurb:

Monday, May 11th - In today’s So Many Insane Plays, Stephen Menendian brings us another of his excellent bi-monthly Vintage Metagame Reports. He collates all the relevant results from March and April, displays it in funky graph form, and draws some surprising conclusions regarding Mana Drain…

[psu42]

Very nice article Steve, I really liked this one.

Vintage has been at a bad standstill for some time now, and I've also been awaiting the unrestrictions of both Gush and Flash, which I feel will be forthcoming this summer...can't wait for that.

[Zieby]

Very nice article Steve, I really liked this one.

Seccond this.

And I fully agree with your statement about Gush.

Greetz Arjan

[Prospero]

I have premium, and have read the full article.

Restricting Thirst for Knowledge seems like the best answer at first, but I don't think that it's the right answer.  Thirst for Knowledge does give you card advantage, but it is a 3 mana spell, and it does require you to play a fair number of artifacts in order to net its advantage.  It may change your play style, as you may hold back a Mox that you would have otherwise used to advance your board state.  Yes, putting artifacts in your graveyard is relevant, and better than having them shuffled back in library.  But it's something that you can handle by making their other spells bad - Will isn't very good when they only have four land and you have a Trinisphere on the board, or a Wire tapping out some of their mana, or a Stack eating away their lands, etc, etc, etc... 

Thirst is very rarely cast on turn one, and is often cast off Drain mana.  I run enough Sphere effects that it's almost never a 3 mana spell, but is much more often a 4 mana spell that you won't have Moxen or non basic lands to cast.  If I shut off your Drain mana, and I've eaten/killed your Moxen, how do you intend on casting this?  I run quite a bit of hate for Moxen and non basics... 

As a dedicated Shop player, I can say that I'm not terribly bothered by Thirst for Knowledge.  It's a pretty fair card.

I'm not really that bothered by Mana Drain either, as it is possible to put together a Shop deck that hates Drains.  I have done significant, significant testing against Tezz decks that look like what Jimmy McCarthy ran a few months ago - U/B/G Tezz with the transformational Oath board.  I've tested Shops against U/B/R Tezz as well.  I have a winning record against Tezz decks mostly because they all choose to run three colors - which makes them much more susceptible to my Waste effects and Kegs/Shamans.

I lost to Mastriano in the finals at the Philly Open, and what bothered me more than anything else was Mystic Remora.  I have no way to hate the card in the main outside of Smokestack.  A blue player is able to pay for it for several turns with basic Islands that they're running in their deck (while I only have 1 Strip Mine, and 1 Crop Rotation to find it).  Finally, many of the decks that are running Remora are running Commandeers in addition to their Forces. 

Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to REB something like this?  You've already given them card advantage by doing it.  You have better, more important targets for REB's anyways.  You can't spend it on junk like this.  So what do you do when your opponent drops one of their four maindeck Remora's on turn one, and just plays out some fetches and a Mox to pay for it for three turns or so?  My game plan is to run them into the ground until they've expended their resources.  This nets them a card for nearly every threat I play, and my 9 artifact mana accelerants.  That's absolutely dumb and unfair. 

To put this more succinctly, I'm now expected to wage a war of attrition in which my opponent draws a card for every mana enhancer that I play and every threat that I cast.  If I try to wait him out I am forced to give up on my original game plan - which is to deny him a board and lock him out.  This card fundamentally changes the strategy that I must employ every time it's played. 

I'm not going to lie, I'd love for the DCI to gift me an unrestriction in an effort to balance the format.  But I think that, as ridiculous as this may sound, the right card to restrict is Remora, and not Thirst. 

You have acknowledged that Mana Drain will not ever be restricted because the DCI would rather restrict the engine that is used around it in order to save one of the pillars of Vintage.  Fine, I accept that.  I also accept that blue has to have some kind of draw engine - it's too absurd to just expect the DCI to restrict every half decent draw spell that blue gets (not to mention that the fundamental issue may remain as Intuition/AK isn't all that bad). 

There is, however, a difference between a fair draw spell and an unfair one.  I don't think that Mystic Remora is fair at all.  I really haven't figured out how to handle the card yet, and if the environment keeps shifting, I'm going to have to do so exceptionally quickly.

[LordHomerCat]

I have premium, and have read the full article.

Restricting Thirst for Knowledge seems like the best answer at first, but I don't think that it's the right answer.  Thirst for Knowledge does give you card advantage, but it is a 3 mana spell, and it does require you to play a fair number of artifacts in order to net its advantage.  It may change your play style, as you may hold back a Mox that you would have otherwise used to advance your board state.  Yes, putting artifacts in your graveyard is relevant, and better than having them shuffled back in library.  But it's something that you can handle by making their other spells bad - Will isn't very good when they only have four land and you have a Trinisphere on the board, or a Wire tapping out some of their mana, or a Stack eating away their lands, etc, etc, etc... 

Thirst is very rarely cast on turn one, and is often cast off Drain mana.  I run enough Sphere effects that it's almost never a 3 mana spell, but is much more often a 4 mana spell that you won't have Moxen or non basic lands to cast.  If I shut off your Drain mana, and I've eaten/killed your Moxen, how do you intend on casting this?  I run quite a bit of hate for Moxen and non basics... 

As a dedicated Shop player, I can say that I'm not terribly bothered by Thirst for Knowledge.  It's a pretty fair card.

I'm not really that bothered by Mana Drain either, as it is possible to put together a Shop deck that hates Drains.  I have done significant, significant testing against Tezz decks that look like what Jimmy McCarthy ran a few months ago - U/B/G Tezz with the transformational Oath board.  I've tested Shops against U/B/R Tezz as well.  I have a winning record against Tezz decks mostly because they all choose to run three colors - which makes them much more susceptible to my Waste effects and Kegs/Shamans.

I lost to Mastriano in the finals at the Philly Open, and what bothered me more than anything else was Mystic Remora.  I have no way to hate the card in the main outside of Smokestack.  A blue player is able to pay for it for several turns with basic Islands that they're running in their deck (while I only have 1 Strip Mine, and 1 Crop Rotation to find it).  Finally, many of the decks that are running Remora are running Commandeers in addition to their Forces. 

Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to REB something like this?  You've already given them card advantage by doing it.  You have better, more important targets for REB's anyways.  You can't spend it on junk like this.  So what do you do when your opponent drops one of their four maindeck Remora's on turn one, and just plays out some fetches and a Mox to pay for it for three turns or so?  My game plan is to run them into the ground until they've expended their resources.  This nets them a card for nearly every threat I play, and my 9 artifact mana accelerants.  That's absolutely dumb and unfair. 

To put this more succinctly, I'm now expected to wage a war of attrition in which my opponent draws a card for every mana enhancer that I play and every threat that I cast.  If I try to wait him out I am forced to give up on my original game plan - which is to deny him a board and lock him out.  This card fundamentally changes the strategy that I must employ every time it's played. 

I'm not going to lie, I'd love for the DCI to gift me an unrestriction in an effort to balance the format.  But I think that, as ridiculous as this may sound, the right card to restrict is Remora, and not Thirst. 

You have acknowledged that Mana Drain will not ever be restricted because the DCI would rather restrict the engine that is used around it in order to save one of the pillars of Vintage.  Fine, I accept that.  I also accept that blue has to have some kind of draw engine - it's too absurd to just expect the DCI to restrict every half decent draw spell that blue gets (not to mention that the fundamental issue may remain as Intuition/AK isn't all that bad). 

There is, however, a difference between a fair draw spell and an unfair one.  I don't think that Mystic Remora is fair at all.  I really haven't figured out how to handle the card yet, and if the environment keeps shifting, I'm going to have to do so exceptionally quickly.

So to sum the second half: "Remora is good against me if they play it on turn 1.  It makes it hard for my deck with a million non-creature spells to win.  Even though it is not putting up particularly spectactular results (some wins and stuff here and there, but often in the hands of Rich or Paul so it's hard to credit the deck in those cases) my pet deck has a harder time with it than with Thirst, so therefore, it should be restricted."  I am kinda suprised you didn't ask for Energy Flux to go too.

Remora doesn't do anything to creatures.  Maybe you will have to retool the deck to be able to beat more than just Tezzeret, as crazy as that sounds.  I recommend casting things like Juggernauts which should just flat out kill the remora player.

[LotusHead]

I lost to Mastriano in the finals at the Philly Open, and what bothered me more than anything else was Mystic Remora.  I have no way to hate the card in the main outside of Smokestack.  A blue player is able to pay for it for several turns with basic Islands that they're running in their deck (while I only have 1 Strip Mine, and 1 Crop Rotation to find it).  Finally, many of the decks that are running Remora are running Commandeers in addition to their Forces. 

Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to REB something like this?  You've already given them card advantage by doing it.  You have better, more important targets for REB's anyways.  You can't spend it on junk like this.  So what do you do when your opponent drops one of their four maindeck Remora's on turn one, and just plays out some fetches and a Mox to pay for it for three turns or so?  My game plan is to run them into the ground until they've expended their resources.  This nets them a card for nearly every threat I play, and my 9 artifact mana accelerants.  That's absolutely dumb and unfair. 

expect the DCI to restrict every half decent draw spell that blue gets (not to mention that the fundamental issue may remain as Intuition/AK isn't all that bad). 

  I don't think that Mystic Remora is fair at all. 
[/quote]

blue players don't always win the die roll, and they don't always get Remora in their openning hand.

I don't see a problem with Mystic Remora.

[oneofchaos]

I did enjoy the article at on.  Restricting anything at this point seems fairly silly, because the last five restrictions yielded an epic failure on fixing the metagame. 

Smennen- Time Vault was not around eight months ago, how would time vault-key have played out in the metagame that existed when brainstorm, gush, ponder, merchant scroll, and flash were unrestricted?

[Prospero]

I have premium, and have read the full article.

Restricting Thirst for Knowledge seems like the best answer at first, but I don't think that it's the right answer.  Thirst for Knowledge does give you card advantage, but it is a 3 mana spell, and it does require you to play a fair number of artifacts in order to net its advantage.  It may change your play style, as you may hold back a Mox that you would have otherwise used to advance your board state.  Yes, putting artifacts in your graveyard is relevant, and better than having them shuffled back in library.  But it's something that you can handle by making their other spells bad - Will isn't very good when they only have four land and you have a Trinisphere on the board, or a Wire tapping out some of their mana, or a Stack eating away their lands, etc, etc, etc... 

Thirst is very rarely cast on turn one, and is often cast off Drain mana.  I run enough Sphere effects that it's almost never a 3 mana spell, but is much more often a 4 mana spell that you won't have Moxen or non basic lands to cast.  If I shut off your Drain mana, and I've eaten/killed your Moxen, how do you intend on casting this?  I run quite a bit of hate for Moxen and non basics... 

As a dedicated Shop player, I can say that I'm not terribly bothered by Thirst for Knowledge.  It's a pretty fair card.

I'm not really that bothered by Mana Drain either, as it is possible to put together a Shop deck that hates Drains.  I have done significant, significant testing against Tezz decks that look like what Jimmy McCarthy ran a few months ago - U/B/G Tezz with the transformational Oath board.  I've tested Shops against U/B/R Tezz as well.  I have a winning record against Tezz decks mostly because they all choose to run three colors - which makes them much more susceptible to my Waste effects and Kegs/Shamans.

I lost to Mastriano in the finals at the Philly Open, and what bothered me more than anything else was Mystic Remora.  I have no way to hate the card in the main outside of Smokestack.  A blue player is able to pay for it for several turns with basic Islands that they're running in their deck (while I only have 1 Strip Mine, and 1 Crop Rotation to find it).  Finally, many of the decks that are running Remora are running Commandeers in addition to their Forces. 

Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to REB something like this?  You've already given them card advantage by doing it.  You have better, more important targets for REB's anyways.  You can't spend it on junk like this.  So what do you do when your opponent drops one of their four maindeck Remora's on turn one, and just plays out some fetches and a Mox to pay for it for three turns or so?  My game plan is to run them into the ground until they've expended their resources.  This nets them a card for nearly every threat I play, and my 9 artifact mana accelerants.  That's absolutely dumb and unfair. 

To put this more succinctly, I'm now expected to wage a war of attrition in which my opponent draws a card for every mana enhancer that I play and every threat that I cast.  If I try to wait him out I am forced to give up on my original game plan - which is to deny him a board and lock him out.  This card fundamentally changes the strategy that I must employ every time it's played. 

I'm not going to lie, I'd love for the DCI to gift me an unrestriction in an effort to balance the format.  But I think that, as ridiculous as this may sound, the right card to restrict is Remora, and not Thirst. 

You have acknowledged that Mana Drain will not ever be restricted because the DCI would rather restrict the engine that is used around it in order to save one of the pillars of Vintage.  Fine, I accept that.  I also accept that blue has to have some kind of draw engine - it's too absurd to just expect the DCI to restrict every half decent draw spell that blue gets (not to mention that the fundamental issue may remain as Intuition/AK isn't all that bad). 

There is, however, a difference between a fair draw spell and an unfair one.  I don't think that Mystic Remora is fair at all.  I really haven't figured out how to handle the card yet, and if the environment keeps shifting, I'm going to have to do so exceptionally quickly.

So to sum the second half: "Remora is good against me if they play it on turn 1.  It makes it hard for my deck with a million non-creature spells to win.  Even though it is not putting up particularly spectactular results (some wins and stuff here and there, but often in the hands of Rich or Paul so it's hard to credit the deck in those cases) my pet deck has a harder time with it than with Thirst, so therefore, it should be restricted."  I am kinda suprised you didn't ask for Energy Flux to go too.

Remora doesn't do anything to creatures.  Maybe you will have to retool the deck to be able to beat more than just Tezzeret, as crazy as that sounds.  I recommend casting things like Juggernauts which should just flat out kill the remora player.

You're painting me as being infinitely more radical and foolish than I am.  I have no problem with Energy Flux, Shattering Spree, Rack and Ruin, or any of the dozen or so sideboard cards that were used against me post board, just as I'd imagine that you have no issues with Red Elemental Blast, Pithing Needle, or any of the sideboard cards that I use against Tezz.

I've said that I take no issue with Thirst for Knowledge, which is a pretty awesome card for blue players, don't make it seem as though I'm just a Shop homer.

A continuation of your logic posits that the environment should be aggro, aggro variants, and Tezz decks.  How is this anything less than the same kind of favoritism mirrored in your statement?

[Prospero]

I lost to Mastriano in the finals at the Philly Open, and what bothered me more than anything else was Mystic Remora.  I have no way to hate the card in the main outside of Smokestack.  A blue player is able to pay for it for several turns with basic Islands that they're running in their deck (while I only have 1 Strip Mine, and 1 Crop Rotation to find it).  Finally, many of the decks that are running Remora are running Commandeers in addition to their Forces. 

Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to REB something like this?  You've already given them card advantage by doing it.  You have better, more important targets for REB's anyways.  You can't spend it on junk like this.  So what do you do when your opponent drops one of their four maindeck Remora's on turn one, and just plays out some fetches and a Mox to pay for it for three turns or so?  My game plan is to run them into the ground until they've expended their resources.  This nets them a card for nearly every threat I play, and my 9 artifact mana accelerants.  That's absolutely dumb and unfair. 

expect the DCI to restrict every half decent draw spell that blue gets (not to mention that the fundamental issue may remain as Intuition/AK isn't all that bad). 

  I don't think that Mystic Remora is fair at all. 

blue players don't always win the die roll, and they don't always get Remora in their openning hand.

I don't see a problem with Mystic Remora.
[/quote]

You're absolutely right, they don't always win the roll (though, to be fair, over the course of nine rounds, I won the die roll twice - randomness that is outside your control is a huge factor).

How many threats is a given deck able to drop on turn one, on average?  What do I have to do in order to make their Remora's bad?  Think about the various game states - early, mid and late game, neutral, positive and negative.  If it's dropped in early neutral, early positive, mid neutral, mid positive, late neutral or late positive, it's fine.  It's only truly awful when the non Remora player is far enough ahead that the Remora player can't afford to keep it around for a few turns, or wouldn't want to because they're losing on the board. 

If the DCI is concerned with the four pillars - Drains, Shops, Bazaars and Rituals, then, in theory, any given pillar should be a viable choice.  Imagine a TPS player trying to go off who sees that dropped before they combo.  How is this not brutal against Rituals?  It's pretty awesome against Shops.  It's only bad against Bazaars.  Does this mean that the guy playing Rituals should be running Tarmogoyfs in the main as well? 

One of the things that Steve notes is that Mana Drain is quite clearly more powerful than many of the cards that have been restricted.  The DCI is concerned with keeping Drains because they feel that Drain decks should be part of the format.  I have no qualms with this, and I agree.  But to what detriment to the other pillars?  Blue needs to have a draw engine.  I don't think that Thirst is inherently unfair.  I think that Remora creates some really unfair game states, and as far as this thread has gone so far, I don't really think that has been addressed. 

Yes, you have to play spells in order for this to be relevant.  If I was able to just sit while my opponent tapped his mana down to this thing, that'd be fine.  But in a format where your opponent can take infinite turns for four mana, I can't afford to just sit.  I have to be proactive or I've lost.  Even the control decks in the format play a combo win.  This isn't like I'm sitting back and waiting for my opponent to kill me with Morphling.

[Smmenen]

Remora is only a tiny proportion of Top 8s so far. 

[Explosion]

It seems really foolish to just flat-out ignore what archetypes people played in the Swiss and only look at the Top 8. If fully 50% of the players were playing a Tezzeret/Time Vault Control deck, we'd expect to see 50% of the Top 8 playing that, and 50% of tournaments won by that deck.

If Tezzeret is played by 50%, but only makes up 40% of the Top 8, and only wins 30%, then it seems fair. If it was being played by only 30%, and won 50%, then it's disproportionately powerful, and would be something to be concerned about. Decks gain popularity, and are played for reasons other than being just the "Best Deck." I think it's important to discern whether Tezzeret is winning tournaments due to being overpowered, being played specifically by the best players, or due to sheer numbers. If you discount the notion of looking at the total players rather than just the Top 8, you're dismissing the "sheer numbers" possibility out of hand.

[Prospero]

Remora is only a tiny proportion of Top 8s so far. 

I'm only raising such a stink about this because I think the best deck in the format right now is probably the new Tezz list with Remora's in the main, and because I think that the Tezz decks, from here on out, are going to be running them.  I think the deck is going to shift.  I don't know if this is the new Meandeck Tezz, or if this is just Paul running this out there, but it's really, really good.

[Smmenen]

It seems really foolish to just flat-out ignore what archetypes people played in the Swiss and only look at the Top 8. If fully 50% of the players were playing a Tezzeret/Time Vault Control deck, we'd expect to see 50% of the Top 8 playing that, and 50% of tournaments won by that deck.

If Tezzeret is played by 50%, but only makes up 40% of the Top 8, and only wins 30%, then it seems fair. If it was being played by only 30%, and won 50%, then it's disproportionately powerful, and would be something to be concerned about. Decks gain popularity, and are played for reasons other than being just the "Best Deck." I think it's important to discern whether Tezzeret is winning tournaments due to being overpowered, being played specifically by the best players, or due to sheer numbers. If you discount the notion of looking at the total players rather than just the Top 8, you're dismissing the "sheer numbers" possibility out of hand.

If you read the article, you'd see that this argument is directly addressed in the article in detail, since it's one that is commonly made.  I have crafted 3 specific responses.  Each of them is important, but one of which I will paraphrase right now:, if Necro decks (or Affinity in Standard) were 60% of the field, but only 50% of Top 8s, no argument would be heard that Necro should not be restricted.  

[Smmenen]

Remora is only a tiny proportion of Top 8s so far. 

I'm only raising such a stink about this because I think the best deck in the format right now is probably the new Tezz list with Remora's in the main, and because I think that the Tezz decks, from here on out, are going to be running them.  I think the deck is going to shift.  I don't know if this is the new Meandeck Tezz, or if this is just Paul running this out there, but it's really, really good.

I understand your concern, but one person winning two tournaments does not justify a restriction. 

[wiley]

First, the suggestion that the problem is not Mana Drain decks, but rather Time Vault decks, is refuted by the data. Take a look at the line chart showing the metagame by engine since the June, 2008 restrictions. Mana Drain decks were already ascending to record levels of dominance in the four month period before Time Vault was re-errated and Tezzeret was printed. The only difference is that it is different Mana Drain decks that are being played now.

This doesn't fully take into account the community trend during that period.  Nearly every well known player on these boards championed either a mana drain archetype (CS and Painter mostly) or a ritual archetype (TPS).  The only other deck that was even looked at with any kind of serious eye was dredge, which was largely laughed off and hated out.  This was further cemented when TPS won champs and two CS builds made it into top 8 (and 1 dredge deck).  With a large amount of the vintage voices going towards these decks should it really be a surprise that these engines performed the best?  When the (already powerful) archetypes have numbers and talent it is hard for them to not succeed.

As you say, mana drain is clearly the best engine, but what I don't see you expressly stating is that Tez is the best of the best of any drain archetype ever.  You compare it to gifts, another era in which mana drains as an archetype flooded the meta, reaching as high as 46.5% according to the Fall 2005 Metagame Breakdown article you link.  However, in that same article it shows that gifts won a grand total of 3 out of 20 events.  That is a rather large discrepancy from 7 of 15 and I believe that it should be addressed.  While mana drains have always been a large part of the meta, going from respectable showings to flat out obvious dominance time and again, they have rarely ever controlled the king of the kill position as securely as tezzeret does.  The engine has not changed all that much, the current decks are all capable of similar power levels in reaction at any given point in the game so why is it that tezzeret has 7 out of the 9 mana drain wins, or even 7 out of the 15 overall wins?  The other current drain lists are performing similar to drain decks of old, making good showings and winning once in a while but not flat out dominating everything in its path.  What other than the kill condition can possibly be attributed to the difference in performance?

Again, Mana Drain has served as a large section of the field more than once in the past, the time post gush era and pre time vault era fits into that wave form of drain's appearance to a T.  The current plight however, is that now there is a drain deck that has a kill condition perfectly suited to strip away much of a normal drain deck's weaknesses in time vault.  To say that time vault is not the largest common denominator to the format's current problem is wrong.

[Smmenen]

I disagree.  I don't think that there is a 'common demonator.'  Rather, I think that Drain's dominance is the confluence of several important factors.    My analysis, and I haven't run a regression to test this (assuming I could), is that Time Vault explains around 5-8% of Drains numbers.

In any case, I should not have even addressed that point in my article since it is not terribly relevant.  Even if that is true, it doesn't really matter.     So, what?   We don't ban or power errata in Vintage, so other options have to be explored instead. 

EDIT: Interestingly, that one month you pointed to Wiley was the month after Trinisphere was restricted.   There was a huge surge in Drains.   

[nineisnoone]

It seems really foolish to just flat-out ignore what archetypes people played in the Swiss and only look at the Top 8. If fully 50% of the players were playing a Tezzeret/Time Vault Control deck, we'd expect to see 50% of the Top 8 playing that, and 50% of tournaments won by that deck.

If Tezzeret is played by 50%, but only makes up 40% of the Top 8, and only wins 30%, then it seems fair. If it was being played by only 30%, and won 50%, then it's disproportionately powerful, and would be something to be concerned about. Decks gain popularity, and are played for reasons other than being just the "Best Deck." I think it's important to discern whether Tezzeret is winning tournaments due to being overpowered, being played specifically by the best players, or due to sheer numbers. If you discount the notion of looking at the total players rather than just the Top 8, you're dismissing the "sheer numbers" possibility out of hand.

If you read the article, you'd see that this argument is directly addressed in the article in detail, since it's one that is commonly made.  I have crafted 3 specific responses.  Each of them is important, but one of which I will paraphrase right now:, if Necro decks (or Affinity in Standard) were 60% of the field, but only 50% of Top 8s, no argument would be heard that Necro should not be restricted.

I think the difference here though, at least with regard to Affinity, Affinity is a deck whereas Mana Drain is a card.  I don't really see it as an "engine" anymore than Force of Will + lots of blue cards is an "engine."  Any deck that can run 16ish blue cards automatically should run Force of Will (some exceptions I'm sure), just like any deck that will hit double blue automatically should run Mana Drain (again some exceptions I'm sure).

The typical Tezzeret list is just the best 57 cards in the format + Vault, Key, Tezzeret.  What those are can be debated, but that at least is the general idea.

With the loss of Brainstorm and with no suitable replacement insight, combo decks that used to be strong against Drain lists just lost a very solid turn one play, undeniably making them slower.  This makes the "60 best cards in the format" deck preferable to the "best deck in the format" deck.  Combo decks have to make it through a window to earn their keep, i.e. they need to play like the best deck in the format.  With them becoming slower, it's easier to trip them up, and if they can't play like the best deck in the format, then all that matters is that they aren't the 60 best cards in the format nor are they a deck designed to hate the best deck/cards in the format. 

That was sort of an aside.  But in any case, I'm not a fan of restricting Mana Drain, but I think it is incorrect to try and compare it to Affinity because Mana Drain is simply not a deck.  If you want to make good comparison, you should compare it to Dark Ritual or Counterspell.  They were never banned, but they were rotated out of the format with no return in sight.  There was no specific deck in mind, it was just the simple fact that they were too strong. Which, in isolation, I suppose I don't have a huge problem with, but given the over-restrictions that basically lead to it being too strong it seems silly. 

[Smmenen]

It seems really foolish to just flat-out ignore what archetypes people played in the Swiss and only look at the Top 8. If fully 50% of the players were playing a Tezzeret/Time Vault Control deck, we'd expect to see 50% of the Top 8 playing that, and 50% of tournaments won by that deck.

If Tezzeret is played by 50%, but only makes up 40% of the Top 8, and only wins 30%, then it seems fair. If it was being played by only 30%, and won 50%, then it's disproportionately powerful, and would be something to be concerned about. Decks gain popularity, and are played for reasons other than being just the "Best Deck." I think it's important to discern whether Tezzeret is winning tournaments due to being overpowered, being played specifically by the best players, or due to sheer numbers. If you discount the notion of looking at the total players rather than just the Top 8, you're dismissing the "sheer numbers" possibility out of hand.

If you read the article, you'd see that this argument is directly addressed in the article in detail, since it's one that is commonly made.  I have crafted 3 specific responses.  Each of them is important, but one of which I will paraphrase right now:, if Necro decks (or Affinity in Standard) were 60% of the field, but only 50% of Top 8s, no argument would be heard that Necro should not be restricted.

I think the difference here though, at least with regard to Affinity, Affinity is a deck whereas Mana Drain is a card. 

I was using "affinity" as a shorthand to refer to any particular card that was banned in Affinity.     I think most people knew what I meant.

[Eastman]

I disagree.  I don't think that there is a 'common demonator.'  Rather, I think that Drain's dominance is the confluence of several important factors.    My analysis, and I haven't run a regression to test this (assuming I could), is that Time Vault explains around 5-8% of Drains numbers. 

But we are realizing now that you don't need overkill to fix the meta.  So cutting 8% out of drain decks might be just the right tweak.  And it has the advantage of being minimally invasive and running almost NO risk of unintended consequences. 

[Smmenen]

I disagree.  I don't think that there is a 'common demonator.'  Rather, I think that Drain's dominance is the confluence of several important factors.    My analysis, and I haven't run a regression to test this (assuming I could), is that Time Vault explains around 5-8% of Drains numbers. 

But we are realizing now that you don't need overkill to fix the meta.  So cutting 8% out of drain decks might be just the right tweak.  And it would be minimally invasive.

You are suggesting banning Time Vault.   

[Eastman]

You are suggesting banning Time Vault.   

Well I'm not 100% sure that we need action, yet, though if I had to bet I'd put my money on it being necessary.  If action is taken I think a ban on vault is appropriate.

Or, and I wish to heck they would do this, they could just print something that absolutely destroyed vault/key.  Like a card with the ability "if  [this] is in your hand or graveyard and your opponent begins his or her third consecutive turn, you win the game." 

But yah I think vault is what needs to be answered here. 

[Neonico]

The real problem is the time vault/Voltaic key combo... The combo is really stupid. Even playing it from a Gifts ungiven Combo (Yaug/Reg/Vault/Key) it's a 6 mana win, often no mana drain mana needed (just assuming you got a land in your graveyard). It's even less mana intensive than the Gifts winning pile (with yaug, tinker, recoup and time walk)

Restricting Thirst for knowledge when the best actual draw engine for a drain deck is remora would be really stupid.... And in a remora deck, Mana drain isn't that important. Replace them with REB, misdirection, or whatever else cheap counterspell you can get and it won't change the power of the deck....

Perhaps the real problem is Force of Will... That's the card i think it could be interesting to see restricted.

[Smmenen]

You are suggesting banning Time Vault.   

Well I'm not 100% sure that we need action, yet, though if I had to bet I'd put my money on it being necessary.  If action is taken I think a ban on vault is appropriate.

But yah I think vault is what needs to be answered here. 

The real problem is the time vault/Voltaic key combo... The combo is really stupid.

Even if Time Vault did not exist, Mana Drain decks would still be performing over 10% as well as Gush decks did at their peak, which prompted a bunch of restrictions. 

In any case, the DCI has made it clear that they do not ban cards in Vintage.   While you can have that conversation, keep in mind that that would also open the door to cards that are arguably more dominant in Vintage, like Yawgmoth's Will.    The set metrics we have set up for evaluating cards is for restriction, not banning.   

My articles, analysis, and presentation are all framed from the point of view that bannings are off the table.   I will continue to assume as much, for practical reasons if nothing else. 

[wiley]

I disagree.  I don't think that there is a 'common demonator.'  Rather, I think that Drain's dominance is the confluence of several important factors.    My analysis, and I haven't run a regression to test this (assuming I could), is that Time Vault explains around 5-8% of Drains numbers.

In any case, I should not have even addressed that point in my article since it is not terribly relevant.  Even if that is true, it doesn't really matter.     So, what?   We don't ban or power errata in Vintage, so other options have to be explored instead. 

EDIT: Interestingly, that one month you pointed to Wiley was the month after Trinisphere was restricted.   There was a huge surge in Drains.   

Tezzeret accounts for (according to your article) 24 out of the 51 mana drain decks that made top 8, or ~47%, compared to gifts ~44% of its meta.  Their (drains) dominance has risen from roughly 35%, which is close to the average of the gifts era, to a peak of a little over 45% (also something that happened in the gifts era).  The difference between these two eras is that time vault wins a lot more than gifts ever did.  Gifts took down (3/20) ~15% of the tournaments of greater than 50 people, time vault has taken down (7/15) ~46% of tournaments with >32 people.  If you want to compare it on a more level playing field by bumping up the requirement for time vault to >50 players then time vault gets 5 of 9 wins for 55%.

The ramifications of that should be included in the talks for un/restriction, otherwise you either a) nuke the drain shell and vault/key moves to another shell or b) create more viable shells for vault key to be placed in which may or may not also be used to combat the current drain fueled vault/key archetype(s).  I don't ever expect time vault to be re-ettera'ed or banned, indeed I hope that never happens as it would continually serve as a sore spot for the entire community.  Personally I still don't see the current metagame as broken, despite the obvious disparity in the numbers to the contrary, but again that is my own opinion.


EDIT: Also, Phillip called it.

Speaking of accelerants and otherwise offensive cards, the cards at all-time highs are Thirst for Knowledge, Mana Drain, Tinker, and Yawgmoth's Will. These again show the push for keeping a great deal of defensive power while accelerating the combo kills that Vintage decks thrive on. TPS's continued strength could be viewed as it acting much like a Drain combo deck (before there was such a thing), but one that splits Mana Drain's functions into Duress and Dark Ritual.

Post-Trinisphere, everyone has fortunately seen fit to catch their breath about restrictions and stop writing epic-length rebuttals of rebuttals. In this spirit, TMD's Spanish ambassador, Gaby van Dinteren a.k.a. "Gabethebabe", started the silent auction equivalent of a restriction shouting match here, with each poster basically voting for or against a restriction each day. Enough people voting either way would make that card either restricted or immune to restriction. By the time the thread degenerated into the tongue-in-cheek restriction of Force of Will, it had the following victims:

 
Dark Ritual Restricted 1st
Goblin Welder Restricted 2nd
Grim Tutor Restricted 3rd
Oath of Druids Restricted 4th
Yawgmoth's Will Banned
Mana Drain Unrestrictable
Gifts Ungiven Restricted 5th

I found this fascinating. The thread was going roughly as I expected up until Oath got so many down votes. For the purposes of metagame analysis, to me all of these choices say that people feel very vulnerable to decks that can just go off in their faces. Even with virtually every deck packing first-turn Force of Will defense (28 copies per Top 8, a new record), this feeling persists, and even a higher-mana spell like Gifts attracts the concern. Since in competitive T1 the answer to combo is combo-control, the wise metagamer should probably consider packing Arcane Laboratory for all the people who will stifle their fears with another dose of Drain-fuelled combo.

By far the most interesting part of this thread though, was seeing the split between pro- and anti-Drain votes. It went back and forth for days, but eventually the timing and certain voters shifting to other targets brought about the declaration of Mana Drain as a sacred cow. The thread's dearth of words only made it seem more vehement to have a dozen people continuously change one little number on a list, and I could see much truth in this caricature of a real debate. When Mana Drain hits 60% or 70% of all Top 8 decks (you heard me, I said "when"), I'm not looking forward to the acrimony. Until then, play Mana Drain - prove my prophecies correct!

Philip Stanton

[Eastman]

Re: Bannings

Given the nature of the restricted list, it already includes, and will continue to include, increasing numbers of highly efficient tutors.  With those available, restriction is not a remedy to cheap 2-card combo wins.  DCI ought to allow for banning of certain cards not based on power level, but based on enabling a dominant 2-card combo, since these are particularly advantaged by the overall restriction structure. 

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Re: Bannings

Given the nature of the restricted list, it already includes, and will continue to include, increasing numbers of highly efficient tutors.  With those available, restriction is not a remedy to cheap 2-card combo wins.  DCI ought to allow for banning of certain cards not based on power level, but based on enabling a dominant 2-card combo, since these are particularly advantaged by the overall restriction structure. 

I agree fully here. If tomorrow morning something came out that could be run as a singleton and make the WGD combo peak at 45% T-8s people would be screaming to ban WGD. The only reason it isn't being considered for key/vault is because it isn't as obvious that key/vault is the problem. I highly doubt banning Vault would only take Drains down 5-8%. When 7/9 T-8 Drain decks in the format are pure Key/Vault that doesn't say 8% to me. It is so much easier to deal with Painter/Stone than it ever will be to deal with Key/Vault unless the card Eastman threw out there will be printed. I bet in the next bi-monthly report there will be a graph showing Key/Vault at 70% of T-8 decks as it is really just pointless not running it if you already run a playset of the restricted black tutors or can afford to.

The fact that Key/Vault is spreading like the plague (as I predicted in my first few posts here on TMD) and infecting every deck that can reasonably run it is sick. Any deck besides Fish and Shops (which are clearly faring terribly) is soon going to be running the combo and God forbid they start running it+some tutors also. This isn't Yawgmoth's Will. Will takes a deck built around it. It would be considered silly for people to be so scared of the singleton Will that they went out of their way to run pure Will hate or where Will was just slapped into every deck in the format. Yet all non-Key/Vault decks now need to run a dozen anti-Key/Vault cards or lose.

Restricting Force of Will would be dumb as hell. The last thing we need is a 90% Grim Long/ANT/Belcher metagame...

[Smmenen]

The fact that Key/Vault is spreading like the plague (as I predicted in my first few posts here on TMD) and infecting every deck that can reasonably run it is sick. Any deck besides Fish and Shops (which are clearly faring terribly) is soon going to be running the combo and God forbid they start running it+some tutors also. This isn't Yawgmoth's Will. Will takes a deck built around it. It would be considered silly for people to be so scared of the singleton Will that they went out of their way to run pure Will hate or where Will was just slapped into every deck in the format. Yet all non-Key/Vault decks now need to run a dozen anti-Key/Vault cards or lose.

All due respect, I think this is overstated.

A couple of months ago everyone on my team was saying this, but I think this has, and will, turn out to be an unfounded fear.

As I said in the Vault Storm thread, Time Vault is frankly not optimal in every deck in Vintage, or even a majority of them.   In combo, although there is something to be said for assembling a two card combo, especially when you've drawn one of the parts, the parts themselves end up being dead weight too much of the time.   I tried Time Vault combo in Grow too, and it was not optimal there either.   The best test, of course, is not my testing, but the metagame as measured by tournaments.    So far, despite being six months into it, there is no evidence that top performing tournament decks outside of Mana Drain based decks are using Time Vault in anything but minuscule numbers. 

[Explosion]

If you read the article, you'd see that this argument is directly addressed in the article in detail, since it's one that is commonly made.  I have crafted 3 specific responses.  Each of them is important, but one of which I will paraphrase right now:, if Necro decks (or Affinity in Standard) were 60% of the field, but only 50% of Top 8s, no argument would be heard that Necro should not be restricted.   

I did read the article, I saw this argument, but I don't find it compelling. This example means that the remaining 40% of decks are placing 50%. Take it to an extreme of "Broken Deck A" being 90% of the field, and 75% of Top 8s (90/75 is the same ratio as 60/50), that means the remaining 10% of decks are making up 25% of Top 8s! The real question, then, is to ask why more people aren't playing the deck that places disproportionately more often.

In your theoretical situation, I'd be totally fine with the metagame. Necro/Affinity/whatever is hugely popular, but does worse than expected. I'd play another deck to prey on the homogenous metagame and be happier for it. The situation that calls for bannings or restrictions is when a deck that is played 30% of the time is placing as 50% of the Top 8; when a deck places disproportionately higher, then something is going wrong. Popularity alone is not a reason to restrict something, and since you're unwilling to address whether Tezzeret's success in placing repeatedly in Top 8s is due to popularity, the argument goes nowhere.

[hitman]

If people are so worried about a four-mana, two-card, artifact activated combo in Vintage, why don't you start playing cards that are good against it?  There's plenty of time to disrupt such a combo and/or the means of assembling the combo with cards like Gorilla Shaman, Null Rod, Red Elemental Blast/Pyroblast and Ancient Grudge.  All these cards are strategically superior to Drain-based archetypes that win with Time Vault/Voltaic Key.  If people are sooo worried about it, why aren't these cards seeing more play?  These are perfectly efficient, maindeck worthy cards.  

There is never any reason to ban a card in a format that has as many viable, efficient answers as Vintage does.

I did read the article, I saw this argument, but I don't find it compelling. This example means that the remaining 40% of decks are placing 50%. Take it to an extreme of "Broken Deck A" being 90% of the field, and 75% of Top 8s (90/75 is the same ratio as 60/50), that means the remaining 10% of decks are making up 25% of Top 8s! The real question, then, is to ask why more people aren't playing the deck that places disproportionately more often.

In your theoretical situation, I'd be totally fine with the metagame. Necro/Affinity/whatever is hugely popular, but does worse than expected. I'd play another deck to prey on the homogenous metagame and be happier for it. The situation that calls for bannings or restrictions is when a deck that is played 30% of the time is placing as 50% of the Top 8; when a deck places disproportionately higher, then something is going wrong. Popularity alone is not a reason to restrict something, and since you're unwilling to address whether Tezzeret's success in placing repeatedly in Top 8s is due to popularity, the argument goes nowhere.

Well put!

[wiley]

Popularity alone is not a reason to restrict something, and since you're unwilling to address whether Tezzeret's success in placing repeatedly in Top 8s is due to popularity, the argument goes nowhere.

Unwillingness or inability?  The vast majority of tournament results, especially for larger ones like those that make it into these articles, do not have a metagame breakdown by archetype.  I don't expect them to any time soon either, as that can be a lot more trouble than it is worth.