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

[Smmenen]

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.

Exactly!  Which is why this is not a case of popularity.   It's a case of actual format dominance.

I addressed this point in the article, which is that this is why we do not restrict cards given a snapshot.    

If Tezzeret decks and other Drain decks were underperforming relative to the field, then the decks that were performing better would, over time and in the aggregate case of hundreds of players (which is what the data I use represents), make their way to the top.   And over time, those players would switch.  

Some proportion of the field will be "stubborn" and play the same deck regardless of their performance.  However, we know that *enough* players do switch to make a difference in terms of Top 8s proportions, as the Gush and Trinisphere and other eras prove.    If players had devised a consistent strategy to defeat Tezzeret and other Drain decks, it would have shown up by now.  It hasn't.   Which means this is not simply a case of proportion to the field.   In any case, I know that it is not the case since I've counted up the Waterbury stats and seen other Mana Drain stats.  For example, in 2005 and 2006, only about 8% of players played Gifts decks in the SCGs and Waterburys (out of the entire field), yet Gifts decks were about 17-18% of Top 8s.   The same is true of Tez decks from the Waterbury data.    

You pose the question, yet seem, oddly enough, unable to find the answer.  It's no mystery.  You ask:

! The real question, then, is to ask why more people aren't playing the deck that places disproportionately more often.

It's because there are none.   Puzzling that you don't see this.   Perhaps you don't want to see this?   

For more evidence, take a look at the relative proportions of tournament wins to Top 8s.   Drain decks actually only make 42.5% of Top 8s, but they made up 66% of tournament victories.   That's a microcosm of the field right there.   

As you ascend up the tournament ladder, the proportion of Mana Drain and Tez decks grows ever larger.   

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

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.

Maybe because the best cards against Key/Vault are either easily bounceable or dead against 50% of the metagame. Or maybe because its a lot more fun running the combo itself than crossing your fingers that you draw the right couple of hate cards. Or maybe because randomly winning games with Key/Vault is better than randomly losing games to it. Or maybe because cards that hate on Key/Vault are completely dead against Tinker/Tendrils/Oath/WGD. Or maybe because Key/Vault decks are 50% of T-8s so you have a better chance of winning the tournament. IDK pick your reason there's probably at least another 1/2 dozen that I missed.

[Smmenen]

Let's be careful here.

As with prior restrictions/bannings, it is almost never the case that the dominant deck/engine can't be beaten.    It's just that the answers are not successful, on the whole at curbing the problem.    That's why the DCI steps in.  If the metagame could self-correct, it would.   That's the entire point of metagames.  In the case of Vintage, the data I aggregate every two months represents the efforts of no less than hundreds of players competing.   

[oneofchaos]

For more evidence, take a look at the relative proportions of tournament wins to Top 8s.   Drain decks actually only make 42.5% of Top 8s, but they made up 66% of tournament victories.   That's a microcosm of the field right there.   

As you ascend up the tournament ladder, the proportion of Mana Drain and Tez decks grows ever larger.   

Is the fact he drain decks have a higher win ratio than top 8 performances tied to the fact that some of the best players utilize drain decks?

[Smmenen]

For more evidence, take a look at the relative proportions of tournament wins to Top 8s.   Drain decks actually only make 42.5% of Top 8s, but they made up 66% of tournament victories.   That's a microcosm of the field right there.   

As you ascend up the tournament ladder, the proportion of Mana Drain and Tez decks grows ever larger.   

Is the fact he drain decks have a higher win ratio than top 8 performances tied to the fact that some of the best players utilize drain decks?

That question was exhaustively explored in the other thread:

Purplehat :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.


Me: 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:
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.

Me: Except we know this is not the case.   Players do not - all things equal - play Drains, as we have many instances of top players playing Academy decks, 4 Lion's Eye Diamond decks, Necro decks, Trinisphere decks, and Gush decks over Drain decks. 

In any case, it's an irrellevant issue. 

As I said in that thread: 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?  So Necro didn't have to be restricted.   

[Explosion]

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.

Well, Stephen dismissed it out of hand. It may well be the case that there is a true inability, but that can be rectified for the future. I know for DCI-sanctioned events, the decklists include a "Deck Name" spot, and from there, tournament reports can be relatively accurate. Obviously decks blur together a bit, and the line is subjective, but the information can be gleaned, and metagame reports for Standard have been written up for Star City Games that described the entire field from 200+ player tournaments.

It isn't asking that much from the community to have TOs list things like "Tezzeret Control: 16, Remora: 8, Oath 3, Ichorid 2, Charbelcher 1, Homebrew/etc. 3" in their report. At least then when we see 5 Tezzeret players in the top 8, we can see that roughly 50% of the players were playing Tezzeret, so it's not that disproportionate.

[Smmenen]

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.

Well, Stephen dismissed it out of hand.

I spent four full paragraphs in the closing section of this article to addressing the broader issue to which full metagame breakdowns might be relevant.    To say that I 'dismissed it out of hand' is  inaccurate.    It was one of the most important counter-claims to address.   When you posed the question, you acted as if I had ignored this issue.  And when I cited only one of the three contentions I made in response to that argument, you acted as if the only one I cited was the only one I advanced.   Finally, I spent the last post in response to you more fully elaborating/reiterating some of those arguments for your benefit.   

[Smmenen]

FYI:

Waterbury, Jan 2006
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2005-11-20&end_date=2006-02-12&event_type=WAT

Metagame:
9 Gifts Control out of 184.   4.89% of the Metagame
2 in top 8                          25% of top 8 Metagame

You are looking for data like that:

August Waterbury, Day 1
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2006-07-23&end_date=2006-07-30&start_num=25&limit=25
11/147 = 7.4% of the metagame
1 in top 8 = 12.5% of Top 8 metagame

[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.

Well, Stephen dismissed it out of hand. It may well be the case that there is a true inability, but that can be rectified for the future. I know for DCI-sanctioned events, the decklists include a "Deck Name" spot, and from there, tournament reports can be relatively accurate. Obviously decks blur together a bit, and the line is subjective, but the information can be gleaned, and metagame reports for Standard have been written up for Star City Games that described the entire field from 200+ player tournaments.

It isn't asking that much from the community to have TOs list things like "Tezzeret Control: 16, Remora: 8, Oath 3, Ichorid 2, Charbelcher 1, Homebrew/etc. 3" in their report. At least then when we see 5 Tezzeret players in the top 8, we can see that roughly 50% of the players were playing Tezzeret, so it's not that disproportionate.

SCG paid someone to put up those meta reports.  It is not an easy job to do and often is too much to ask when the majority of the community just wants to see top 8 lists, doubly so when you start getting handwritten lists, even if you are just trying to identify what the archetype was supposed to be.  Even for DCI sanctioned event they don't do this until day 2 if they do it at all, and they are required to look through each list, unlike our non-sanctioned TOs.

[meadbert]

The way Nash equilibriums work suggests that if each deck is to have a similar chance of winning the deck that will be played most will be the deck that is most difficult to hate out.

As a simple example consider football.  The offense can run or pass.  The defense can rush the passer or keep their linebackers to defend against the run.

If the expected results are

Offense passes and defense guesses pass: 4 yards
Offense passes and defense guesses run: 14 yards
Offense runs and defense guesses pass: 5 yards
Offense runs and defense guesses run: 4 yards

Just glancing at this many people would think that clearly passing makes more sense than running since getting 14 or 4 yards beats the pants off getting 5 or 4 yards.
Passing would be unarguably the more "powerful" strategy.
It turns out that passing most of the time is actually not the most optimal strategy though.  The optimal strategy for each player (assuming your opponent will take advantage of a non-optimal strategy) would be for the offensive player to pass 9% of the time and run 91% of the time.  Meanwhile the defensive player should guess run 9% of the time and guess pass 91% of the time.  Basically, because the defense can so effectively hate out the pass, it should go ahead and do that.  This leaves the run as the offenses best option.

The same can apply to magic decks.  Many archetypes such as Stax and Dredge are easily hated out.  Cards like Hurkyl's Recall, Rebuild and Energy Flux are a pain for Stax while Leyline of the Void, Planar Void, Tormod's Crypt and Relic of Progenitus are a pain for Dredge.  Because such awesome hate cards exist for these archetypes, decks generally include some in the sideboard if not in the main deck.  Neither Stax nor Dredge can realistically became a huge portion of the metagame unless they find ways to beat this hate.
When designing a sideboard and you may try to decide whether to add 1 more Red Blast, another Planar Void or another Hurkyl's Recall.  While you may expect to run into more blue based control than Dredge or Stax, the fact remains that Planar Void and Hurkyl's Recall totally hose Dredge and Stax respectively, while Red Blast only trades 1 for 1 in an undercosted sort of way.  Red Blast is surely better than whatever you are pulling out for it, but it is not THAT much better, while Planar Void is massively better than the extra Force/Duress that you would pull out against Dredge and Hurkyl's Recall is siginificantly better than whatever you pull out against Stax.  The result is that while we may expect to face mostly Blue based combo/control our sideboards actually look like we mostly fear Stax and Dredge.  This is simply because the sideboard cards that hate out Stax and Dredge give us more bang for the buck.

Drain decks which are not easily hated out.  Along with the mild Pyroblast and Red Blast, you have In the Eye of Chaos and Choke, but even these do not show up that often because at the end of the day they are just not that effective at hating out drain decks, mostly because each is highly vulnerable to Mana Drain itself since they are sorcery speed and cost 3.
Currently the most effective cad is probably Xantid Swarm which does hose Drain decks and does in fact frequently show up in combo decks.

If the Drain equivalent of Hurkyl's Recall were printed it might be something like this:
Hurkyl's Hose Blue
 
Instant
Target player discards all blue cards.

If there were something that ridiculous then all of a sudden Drains would really struggle to dominate.  They would show up maybe 20% or show like Stax and Dredge are capable of doing, but they could never approach 50% because you would find everyone running 4xHurkyl's hose blue from the board and perhaps some in the main.

The closest equivalent we have now to Hurkyl's Hose Blue is to just run Dredge, which is the main reason that Dredge is #2 right now.

Drain's prevalence mostly suggests that it is the toughest deck to hate out not that it is inherently too powerful.
My preference would be to then print cards that hate out drains rather than restrict Drain, Thirst and Intuition.  The problem is not that Drain, Thirst and Intuition are too powerful.  The problem is that no great cards exist for hosing blue decks.


Going back to Gush I have this comment.  If a card that the "best deck" could play is great in the mirror but bad in other matchups then unrestricting that card actually hurts the "best deck."  Gush is that card.  Gush is not particularly great against Dredge or Combo and it is quite terrible against Stax and Shop Aggro.  Where Gush shines is in the control matchup.  Blue based Control decks are forced to run Gush so they can compete against each other.  This actually hurts their Stax matchups since bouncing permanents is annoying against Smokestack and Gush sucks with Resistors/Thorns/Uba Masks out.  For this reason the restricting of Gush actually helped blue based control out.

The same argument can actually be made regarding Fact or Fiction.  Fact is not amazing against Combo because it is too slow.  It is also not impressive against Dredge since it either comes out too late or puts cards in your hand where they can be removed.  Fact is not even THAT broken against Shops because if you can get 4 mana up you are probably winning anyway.  Where Fact really shines is in the control mirror.  Unrestricting Fact might Force Drain decks to run more Fact or Fictions and actually hurt many of their matchups in the process.  Fact has significant risk since it would be so Powerful in a deck like Control Slaver where it load the yard similar to Thirst for Knowledge.  I am not convinced that it would actually help blue that much though.

The final example is Library of Alexandria.  Imagine Library were unrestricted.  Drain decks would consider dropping multiple libraries in their main decks and they would probably have to at least start running several post board just to compete with each other.  How would this impact their other matchups?  Library versus Dredge?  Sucks!  Library versus Combo? Sucks ... give me an Island so I can get Drain up.  Library versus Shops?  Sucks ... give me an island.  Against most other Archetypes Drain decks would rather have Island than Library.  By unrestricting Library, Drain decks would actually run more to beat up on each other and in that manner make their main decks weaker against other Archetypes.  I have high confidence that the unrestriction of Library would actually hurt blue based combo/control.

I would rather see Drain's dominance addressed by unrestricting cards that are good in the Drain vs Drain mirror and printing new cards that hose Drain rather than adding a bunch of new cards to the restricted list.

[Smmenen]

I would rather see Drain's dominance addressed by unrestricting cards that are good in the Drain vs Drain mirror and printing new cards that hose Drain rather than adding a bunch of new cards to the restricted list.

That's what my article argues as well.

[Stormanimagus]

I think my Selkie Deck is pretty well positioned to hose drains as well. I faced off against Eric Dupois in TMD Open and won it in 3. He is a great pilot in general as well, so I think that says something. I wouldn't say Ichorid is the ONLY deck out there that hoses Drains. I think Remora in a Tezz Shell could really give ANT decks issues, but I also think Ad Nauseam decks running 8 Duress effects should also have a decent chance against Drains.

The mana-denial Fish Strategies with Daze + FoW + Waste + Stifle and the CA bomb of Cold-Eyed Selkie also do decently against 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 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.

I don't know what you thought I meant, but I knew that is what you meant. 

My point is that there is no "Main Drain deck" or engine.  There are just decks that run mana drain.  Just like every deck that runs Force of Will isn't a "Force of Will deck" or engine.  What are the numbers of decks running Force of Will in the top 8s and as part of the field?  Yet, I highly doubt anyone will support a restriction on Force of Will.  Unless... you are? 

Make no mistake, Mana Drain would not be a restriction to normalize the metagame or hate out a deck. I can almost promise you with 100% certainty that the change to the meta will be minor, all that will happen is decks won't run 3 Mana Drains.  We'll still see Tezz/Vault/Key in much of the same force as before.

The real reason why Mana Drain is so dominant right now is, again, it is the best unrestricted card (better than Force of Will) in the format.  And there isn't any linear combo strategy, like Flash or Storm + Brainstorm, that is strong enough to solidly trump "the best 60 cards in the format" deck designs that Tezz lists basically are.  Restricting it does nothing other than simply make people play a different card. 

It won't alter deck designs because Mana Drain isn't an engine.  Force of Will isn't an engine.  It's a simple question of will you pass the turn with two blue mana, if the answer is yes, then you run it.  If the answer is no, then don't run it.  It's entirely passive in deck design and a restriction won't really effect the strategic environment.

I know what you were referring to with Affinity, but the comparison is wrong.  Affinity is a degenerate deck, not an overpowered card.  The comparison is to Dark Ritual and Counterspell in the standard.  Both cards that were permanently rotated out because it was decided that the format was meant to be played at a lower power-level.  And to me, that just seems anti-thetical to what Vintage should be.

[DarkfnTemplar]

 Article was good. Liked the graphs...
 As far as res/unres goes, we have to admit that American Vintage is what has truly defined the format (or at least in my experience for the last 4-5 years.) Scattered power-poor Euro tournaments aren't great indicators. No offense to our overseas friends, but I believe the highest level of competitive vintage has always been in the states (Eurovino might be the exception.) To be frank, Vintage is at it's lowest point since I've played. I don't think we should take any action until after the ICBM open and Championships.
 If there is still a problem, Restricting drain might be the answer, because I can't really pinpoint any unrestrictions that would even the field for everyone. Plus, I'm sure that a drain restriction would still allow Tezz to be VERY playable.  (Just saw your agreement with that point. Sorry if i brought up old topics. Didn't read first page)
 

[Diakonov]

Going back to Gush I have this comment.  If a card that the "best deck" could play is great in the mirror but bad in other matchups then unrestricting that card actually hurts the "best deck."  Gush is that card.  Gush is not particularly great against Dredge or Combo and it is quite terrible against Stax and Shop Aggro.  Where Gush shines is in the control matchup.  Blue based Control decks are forced to run Gush so they can compete against each other.  This actually hurts their Stax matchups since bouncing permanents is annoying against Smokestack and Gush sucks with Resistors/Thorns/Uba Masks out.  For this reason the restricting of Gush actually helped blue based control out.

The same argument can actually be made regarding Fact or Fiction.  Fact is not amazing against Combo because it is too slow.  It is also not impressive against Dredge since it either comes out too late or puts cards in your hand where they can be removed.  Fact is not even THAT broken against Shops because if you can get 4 mana up you are probably winning anyway.  Where Fact really shines is in the control mirror.  Unrestricting Fact might Force Drain decks to run more Fact or Fictions and actually hurt many of their matchups in the process.  Fact has significant risk since it would be so Powerful in a deck like Control Slaver where it load the yard similar to Thirst for Knowledge.  I am not convinced that it would actually help blue that much though.

The final example is Library of Alexandria.  Imagine Library were unrestricted.  Drain decks would consider dropping multiple libraries in their main decks and they would probably have to at least start running several post board just to compete with each other.  How would this impact their other matchups?  Library versus Dredge?  Sucks!  Library versus Combo? Sucks ... give me an Island so I can get Drain up.  Library versus Shops?  Sucks ... give me an island.  Against most other Archetypes Drain decks would rather have Island than Library.  By unrestricting Library, Drain decks would actually run more to beat up on each other and in that manner make their main decks weaker against other Archetypes.  I have high confidence that the unrestriction of Library would actually hurt blue based combo/control.

I would rather see Drain's dominance addressed by unrestricting cards that are good in the Drain vs Drain mirror and printing new cards that hose Drain rather than adding a bunch of new cards to the restricted list.

Really awesome.  I'm kidnapping this and taking it with me over to the Unrestriction thread.  I am very much convinced.

Perfect timing for you to post this, because I was just starting to think about the following as I was scrolling down:

Perhaps there is no single main culprit in the dominance of Tezz decks.  I think that combo decks like TPS used to reliably present an opposing force to combo-control decks such as Tezz, but the restriction of Brainstorm was SO damaging to it that it just doesn't hold up anymore.  Sure, Tezz would have also lost Brainstorm, but the impact is just not nearly as severe.  The natural strategy of combo-control, when combined with the extra room/versatility allowed by not having to worry about combo quite as much, on top of the room made by having a quick and simple 2 card win condition, makes me think that it really ought to be doing incredibly well against the rest of the format.  It's like removing the natural predator of a certain species from its environment and watching that species thrive unchecked.

In other words, maybe it's not just Drain or Vault or Thirst at fault.  It could be the whole strategy itself that's so successful.  If any one of those components were eliminated somehow, it could probably be replaced by something else (other counters, Painter/Grindstone, Int/Ak).  It would probably bring the deck down a peg, but it's possible that it wouldn't do very much overall.  In the end, the archetype would still be the main abuser of the core of the Restricted List.

If this is the case, then meadbert's solution makes even more sense to me.  If not, I think it mostly rests on Vault/Key, in which case meadbert's solution could still work.

[Dnine]

I think my Selkie Deck is pretty well positioned to hose drains as well. I faced off against Eric Dupois in TMD Open and won it in 3. He is a great pilot in general as well, so I think that says something. I wouldn't say Ichorid is the ONLY deck out there that hoses Drains. I think Remora in a Tezz Shell could really give ANT decks issues, but I also think Ad Nauseam decks running 8 Duress effects should also have a decent chance against Drains.

The mana-denial Fish Strategies with Daze + FoW + Waste + Stifle and the CA bomb of Cold-Eyed Selkie also do decently against drains.

As an avid fish player I used to think the same thing and was actually excited to play in a drain heavy meta.  I even built a fish deck that severely hated on blue heavy decks and decks using the vault combo kill.  Unfurtunately this is not the case for 2 main reasons.

First is the printing of an untargetable tinker target.  Fish used to be the answer to drain decks.  They could restrict there mana or hand development by wastes, nul rods, and durresses and cheap counters forcing the drain player to go to plan B, usually tinker into big dumb robot.  Even then fish had many usefull maindeck answers in the form of cheap bounce and swords.  These cards were also useful in many other matchups and at different times in the game.  Now the fish player is forced to main deck severely narrow and specialized cards to deal the a decks "plan B"  the cards are also completely dead until the drain player actually gets the leviathan in play.  You can't cast them early like a w. bouncer nor can you get any additional use out of them.  Not to mention who as room in there sideboard for 4 Edicts to deal with 1 card when you need 6-8 slots to have any hope agianst dredge. 

The second fact is that drain decks no longer have to splash a 3rd color for their kill.  There mana bases are a lot more streamlined and therefore they can afford to run more basics.  The converted mana cost of there decks also went down and there kill cards can be completely cast of of drain mana.  The mana denial route became a lot harder to pull off.

Fish used to be one of the decks that helped keep drain decks in check.  Heck, isn't that the reason the deck got designed in the first place?  Unfortunately the new weapons that drain decks recieved in the last few months really help it nueter on of it's best checks.  One of there bad matchups now isn't quite so bad anymore.  I think that is something many people are overlooking as to why drain decks are on the rise.   

So what's the answer?  Honestly I don't know, but I do believe that E. Laviathon has just as much to do with the current situation as Terz does.

[Zieby]

Article was good. Liked the graphs...
 As far as res/unres goes, we have to admit that American Vintage is what has truly defined the format (or at least in my experience for the last 4-5 years.) Scattered power-poor Euro tournaments aren't great indicators. No offense to our overseas friends, but I believe the highest level of competitive vintage has always been in the states (Eurovino might be the exception.) To be frank, Vintage is at it's lowest point since I've played. I don't think we should take any action until after the ICBM open and Championships.
 If there is still a problem, Restricting drain might be the answer, because I can't really pinpoint any unrestrictions that would even the field for everyone. Plus, I'm sure that a drain restriction would still allow Tezz to be VERY playable.  (Just saw your agreement with that point. Sorry if i brought up old topics. Didn't read first page)
 

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Euro Metagame.
I live in The Netherlands and we have a 10 Proxy viintage tournament that gets 50+ people each time.
I know in Spain there are two very large Vintage communities with tournaments with 60 or 70+ people attending where only 10 to 15% is non-powered.
I was at BOM last year and the 8 rounds I played where all against fully powered decks.

If I need a fully powered deck I have 3 or 4 in my serounding to use.
The point I'm trying to make is: Although on Europe the most tournaments are sanctioned, that doesn't mean theat 50% of the decks is non powered or made to fight the powered decks.
And I think if you look to all the Tournaments that counts for the reports Steve made 10 out of 15 where in Europe, so I don't think the Metagame is made by the USA.

Just to clarify some things

Greetz Arjan

[jamestosetti]

I still think Tezzeret the seeker being restricted would curb this problem nicely. As bad as you think the card is, it is the problem.

[Shock Wave]

I still think Tezzeret the seeker being restricted would curb this problem nicely. As bad as you think the card is, it is the problem.

That's actually quite easy to disprove. Without Tezzeret, we still have a problem. If we keep Tezzret, and ban Time Vault, the problem is solved. The problem is not Tezzeret; rather the problem is compounded by Tezzeret.

[Chill79]

I still think Tezzeret the seeker being restricted would curb this problem nicely. As bad as you think the card is, it is the problem.

Tezzeret is not the problem,it's allready played as one or 2 off at max.I think that people are playing the deck becouse it's best deck in format so you should be prepaired to mirror matches(sideboard teches) or just go rogue and play deck that beats tezz but against other decks you had to struggle.

[DarkfnTemplar]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Euro Metagame.

And I think if you look to all the Tournaments that counts for the reports Steve made 10 out of 15 where in Europe, so I don't think the Metagame is made by the USA.

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the tournaments that "matter" (maybe an unfair term here), are in the U.S. Where do you guys pick up your decks from?
  That's what I was getting at. Steve is using European tournies for 2/3's of his stats. I'm saying those stats are slanted because they represent a community that's innovation and building are almost completely net-decked. Maybe it's my lack of insight here, but I'm not ever going to take european t8's as my indicator for the metagame I'm going to face here. That's seems obvious, but my point is that your meta always seems to be a couple months behind. Take a look at the euro t8's before tezzy and post tezzy. Notice any lag?

[Hero]

Nice report and interesting to see statistics.  I agree that restriction/banning more cards is not the answer.  Unrestricting cards to see how the meta plays out would be interesting.  It also would seem to be that if the DCI cared about Vintage at all they would print cards that would elevate the other non-Blue colors so that maybe players would have reasons to play non-Gush/Drain/etc decks. 

[Ophidian]

I hope no one slams me too much as I'm sure someone has said this before. But this is it way I see it.

 In the current environment the top Archetype Tezzeret gain card advantage "cheaper" than other decks because of cards like Mana Drain so people are moving to decks that make Mana Drain useless "Ichorid" or make then so they can't use the mana "Workshop". To make the environment more diverse you need to give Mana drain less targets for its extra mana which I think would lead to Workshop/Ichorid decks ruling the field, that would lead to the same problem with different decks. The other choice is speed up the other decks to catch up. Now I'm for unrestricting ponder and gush to make things more diverse. I'm sure things will not get a lot better before the September changes as it's hard to right a ship on the first try when it's leaning too far to one side.

[reaperbong]

I'd like to say I'm reallly happy with the metagame right now, it's fun and there is much room for innovation, especially if you own 4 Mana Drains and a Time Vault

Just saying, I really don't see what all the uproar is about. These threads are like the Vintage version of that crazy guy on the corner with the END IS NIGH sign. Normal Vintage players are trying to ignore you, we'd like to just continue on with our Magic life and play with our little Mana Drains.

Anyway if someone could take a moment to address the following 4 points that have been on my mind it'd be greatly appreciated:

1: The best Tez lists can still roll over to 8x Chalice/Rod and 8x Duress/Thoughtseize. No really, I'm testing these lists all the time against Sui-black and I still haven't found a build that easily gets around x16 of the above cards more then 60% of the time. If I'm wrong please someone point me to a decklist.

2: When's the last time anyone played Painter-Grindstone? Last tourney I was at I watched 2 fully powered Tez builds lose to a practically budget Painter Combo deck loaded with hate and Goblin Welders. In case you forgot, Painter-Grindstone is another 'opps I win' 2 card combo that costs a tiny bit more colorless mana. Both combo pieces are unrestricted and only 1 is a dead draw, the other enables REB's to a superior effect. The price for this combo is also like 1/10th of the price. Where was all the restriction talk before Time Vault? I promise you if Time Vault wasn't re-errated these same people would be here complaining about Painter's combo. If Time Vault is axed then Painter-Grindstone is ready and willing to take it's place, I'd give it 6 months before we start seeing the same discussion again.

3: Tez decks dominate because it's fun, end of story. After all this data collection and all these complaints and opinions I guarantee the only conclusion you'll be able to find is that more people play this deck because it's the most fun. Control is fun. Mana Drains rock, everyone loves them. The Planeswalker is pretty cool. Time Vault is kick ass, one of Tedin's G O A T paintings. Infinate turns is like the peak of Vintage broken greatness, who wouldn't want to go for infinate turns?? Sorry but you won't find me saving up to get Workshops or Bazzaar of Baghdad soon.. B O R I N G ...

4: Ichorid is just as broken or worse. If I'm wrong then why does it take up so much more space in the sideboard? Let me know when people will start boarding in 8-10 anti-Tez cards.

[Andreas]

2: When's the last time anyone played Painter-Grindstone? Last tourney I was at I watched 2 fully powered Tez builds lose to a practically budget Painter Combo deck loaded with hate and Goblin Welders. In case you forgot, Painter-Grindstone is another 'opps I win' 2 card combo that costs a tiny bit more colorless mana. Both combo pieces are unrestricted and only 1 is a dead draw, the other enables REB's to a superior effect. The price for this combo is also like 1/10th of the price. Where was all the restriction talk before Time Vault? I promise you if Time Vault wasn't re-errated these same people would be here complaining about Painter's combo. If Time Vault is axed then Painter-Grindstone is ready and willing to take it's place, I'd give it 6 months before we start seeing the same discussion again.

Not quite. If you want to beat Painter you can simply add a single Gaea's Blessing to your sideboard, and you significatnly improve your post-board win percentage. You could even play it maindeck if you have some Green in your manabase. There is no single card that can improve the Vault+Key matchup that drastically, in particular since you do not even need to draw the Blessing to take effect (actually you don't even want to).

[Vegeta2711]

Restrict Drain and ban Vault, there I saved Vintage; I'll expect my JP Meyer Peace Prize in the mail shortly. Props to me for having the last sane post on what I'm sure will soon be a complete trainwreck of a thread. Mana Drain has always been a problem, we've just learned to live with it as we had with Brainstorm and other such annoyances. Meanwhile Time Vault wrecks the format by being a colorless artifact that allows for the most compact kill mechanism we've ever seen in this format. Vault-Key fucks the format over because it doesn't take any commitment to run, all that's happened is the one mildly unique aspect left in making Vintage decks (the optimal kill condition and cards which enable said kill condition) and completely removed it.

[reaperbong]

2: When's the last time anyone played Painter-Grindstone? Last tourney I was at I watched 2 fully powered Tez builds lose to a practically budget Painter Combo deck loaded with hate and Goblin Welders. In case you forgot, Painter-Grindstone is another 'opps I win' 2 card combo that costs a tiny bit more colorless mana. Both combo pieces are unrestricted and only 1 is a dead draw, the other enables REB's to a superior effect. The price for this combo is also like 1/10th of the price. Where was all the restriction talk before Time Vault? I promise you if Time Vault wasn't re-errated these same people would be here complaining about Painter's combo. If Time Vault is axed then Painter-Grindstone is ready and willing to take it's place, I'd give it 6 months before we start seeing the same discussion again.

Not quite. If you want to beat Painter you can simply add a single Gaea's Blessing to your sideboard, and you significatnly improve your post-board win percentage. You could even play it maindeck if you have some Green in your manabase. There is no single card that can improve the Vault+Key matchup that drastically, in particular since you do not even need to draw the Blessing to take effect (actually you don't even want to).

Thanks.

BTW is there a card that Painter pilots would run to remove Gaeas's Blessing from the opposing library? If so then in theory, depending on the cost of course, is it really any different then a Tez player having to fetch a bounce spell to beat Null Rod? (except for that Null Rod can also be countered i guess).

[LotusHead]

Meanwhile Time Vault wrecks the format by being a colorless artifact that allows for the most compact kill mechanism we've ever seen in this format. Vault-Key fucks the format over because it doesn't take any commitment to run, all that's happened is the one mildly unique aspect left in making Vintage decks (the optimal kill condition and cards which enable said kill condition) and completely removed it.

While I agree that Vault Key Tez is the most compact kill in the format, but it does die to normal hate. (Needle, Rod, faster combo, etc)

But my question is, historically, what has been a faster/comperable kill mechanisme?

Shop Trinisphere
Tendrils 9 Spells
Belcher 1 or 2 or 0 lands
WorldGorger Dragon
Salvagers Lotus Spellbomb

Is anything comperable?

Oath Forbidden Orchard?
Painter Grindstone?

I myself rock the Leyline Helm of Obedience combo.

All of these seem fair to me.

I don't see what the problem is (unless Smemmen's article is all about erasing TimeVault combo from the picture (I don't have premium, I don't know)...

Steve: Maybe a two sentence summary of the premise/conclusion could help us freeloaders out with the discussion? Just a thought. Not like I'm asking you to post one of your excell graphs for us to see.

[BruiZar]

Why is everybody ALWAYS complaining about DCI actions? For god's sake, leave the restrictions alone.

If the DCI starts restricting cards like mana drain, there is no more reason for me to play vintage. I'd probably spend all my card gaming time on poker instead.

[wiley]

4: Ichorid is just as broken or worse. If I'm wrong then why does it take up so much more space in the sideboard? Let me know when people will start boarding in 8-10 anti-Tez cards.

I still don't get how anyone can have this thought process.  Decks run those 8-10 anti Tez cards in their main deck all the time.  What do you think rod, chalice, force, mana drain, duress, thoughtsieze, sphere of resistance, trinisphere, smokestack etc. are for?  They aren't there to fight ichorid, most of them suck at doing that.  When 16 cards in your main deck are dead against an archetype then you probably need a large chunk of sideboard space to beat that deck.

Try playing your post sideboard ichorid crushing deck against a tez deck and see what happens.

I'll echo here what I said in the br thread:  If Doomsday is the most elegant win condition in Magic, then Time Vault is the best.