[FREE ARTICLE] Vintage Avant-Garde: Is Vintage Too Fast?

[Onslaught]

After sleeping on this article overnight, I feel even more strongly about a few things.

1 - Dredge is stupid to play against, but it only gets played because "we" (the playerbase) allow for it to exist. This is a drastic example, but if blue decks starting running MD Leylines (justifiable with Helm of Obedience as your Tinker target) then Dredge would start to dry up pretty quickly. Another point that was touched upon in the Vintage Issues thread - Dredge keeps blue sideboards in check. Overall, this added diversity of the archetype is probably a net positive for Vintage (and this is coming from a person who despises Dredge). I don't want to play a blue vs. blue matchup with 4 Missteps, 3 or 4 Flusterstorms, 4 or 5 REBs, etc. being widely available, which Dredge helps prohibit. Which brings me to the next point.

2- Everyone's focus from this article seems to be on the suggested restriction of Bazaar. What I think is far more troubling is the impending rise of Mental Misstep, and to a lesser degree Flusterstorm. These create an arms race in blue that will most likely lead to mutually assured destruction. I don't want to get blown out by another blue deck that can Tinker and then Flusterstorm my Hurkyl's Recall, leaving me high and dry with a pointless REB (which can also be Misstepped) or FOW in hand. Because of this and many other similar examples, it feels like blue players are forced to run these cards in order to keep up with fellow blue players. At the same time, these cards are bad against Workshops...not to mention adding a large "random factor" to games since it is hard to account for/quantify free spells. Misstep is such a thoughtless and poorly designed card.

Misstep being a near auto-include is a bad thing for Vintage. Of course, when you sit down and make a blue deck right now there is already a long list of staples: FOW, Moxes, Lotus, Recall, Time Walk, some tutors, etc. Adding Mental Misstep x3 (or maybe even x4) just gives you a smaller piece of the pie to work with when determining the remaining cards to fill out your deck. On the bright side, those remaining slots can be filled with more options than ever before (Gush, Bob, Snapcaster, and to a lesser extent Remora, Night's Whisper, etc. - and some of these can be played in combination with each other). This is really cool and encouraging, but my enthusiasm for it is a bit dampened by the fact that they will all be Misstep mania with one hit Tinker kills. Which beings me to the next point.

3- Regarding BSC, the "Vintage is meant to be broken! U mad about BSC, play Legacy instead gahaha" mentality vs. the "Vintage is actually relatively slow right now" crowds are both right. BSC is just such a warped card that it interacts negatively in both of these spheres. It removes deckbuilding choices, it rewards variance even more than Tinker already did, and it provides an ultra efficient finisher for decks that can now pack a lot of free/cheap disruption.

I guess I'm fairly disillusioned right now. How can Vintage feel like it is at such a negative crossroads when the pool of viable cards is bigger than ever? There are so many interesting things going on with deck building right now. There's nothing I love more than tweaking a deck week after week, sculpting its personality until it feels just right. I never had that feeling with Vintage in the past, but I do now. Sometimes a change as small as moving an Ancient Grudge in or out of a deck can completely change its entire feel. I think that's just great. I'm rambling I guess.

Maybe it's not all so bad though. I was really sour about Vault/Key, and look where that is now. There are a lot of viable decks, and maybe a few more discoveries can be eked out to expand the meta even more. The best creature in Vintage right now is a 2/1 blue card...how weird is that? Just to try to assuage some of the spreading Vintage anxiety, here's an attempt to list a bunch off viable options off the top of my head. It's comforting (to me at least) to see so many good decks available and it speaks to the overall health of the format compared to some past eras.

Code:

*DRAW ENGINES
  i. Gush 
   |--------> Control
               a. "Hard Control" (ex. East Coast Wins)
               b. Combo Control (ex. Shay Champs)
   |--------> Combo
               a. Lotus Cobra
               b. Doomsday
   |--------> Aggro Control
               a. Meandeck Bob/Gush
               b. Gro 
  ii. Dark Confidant
               a. Suicide Jace Vault
               b. Bob Tendrils
  iii. Snapcaster Mage (fertile grounds for exploration)
  iv. Tertiary or Supplemental engines
               a. Mystic Remora (w/ REBs, Painter/Grindstone)
               b. Night's Whisper

*DREDGE 
  i. Mana/Sun Titan
  ii. "Manaless"

*WORKSHOPS
  |--------> Aggro MUD
              a. Cat Stax
              b. Welder (Magus of the Moon)
              c. Steel Hellkite?
  |--------> Control (i.e., Espresso Stax)
  |--------> Combo Control (European Kuldotha) 
                        
*AGGRO 
  i. Noble Fish
  ii. GW(x) Beats
  iii. Miscellaneous Hate (GR, Wizards, etc.)

This is a lot of decks! They all feature exclusive tactics, even if many of them have overlapping strategies. Every deck here has some merits, like Painter feasting on a blue heavy field. Consider a seemingly outmoded deck like Suicide Jace Vault. Isn't it just strictly worse than one of the Gush decks? No, because the rock solid mana base and Dark Confidants are good against Workshops. Can it be said that Doomsday is objectively better than Lotus Cobra? I think not, because Cobra sacrifices explosiveness for stability. And so on, and so forth. And of course, two decks lumped in the same archetype can still be vastly different based on just a few differences. For example, think about how differently a Gush Control deck with Imperial Seal and Vault/Key plays compared to a Gush Control deck without Vault/Key at all. Or a UBG Snapcaster deck compared to one with City of Brass. I didn't bother listing them, but even rogue decks are at a bit of an all time high (I've seen tier 2 playable lists with everything from Arcane Denial, to Hedron Crab/Archive Trap, to Erayo, even Glowrider...)

There are also a bunch of possible combinations of some of these decks, such as the Snapcaster with Standstills that won the recent Meandeck open. Which brings to mind the fact that a Landstill deck has managed to win three straight Blue Bell tournaments without stuff like Yawgmoth's Will, Tinker, Storm cards, etc. This is encouraging and makes Vintage feel less bleak. I'm a bit calmed down now, I guess. . .

[Delha]

...Second, you imply that a slower game leads to more "resource building and interactive game play."  This isn't true at all.  Vintage is far, far, more interactive than other formats precisely because it's so fast. ...

As had been addressed previously, you are wrong.

[cvarosky80]

Let me start off by saying "very interesting article" to you Brian. It certainly has set off a very lively discussion here and I find all of this fascinating to read.

Secondly, I commend you for bringing this matter up, not just here on TMD, but by posting it on SCG for everyone to read as it's a discussion that NEEDED to be had with ALL Vintage players. It needed to be had because, as you pointed out, Brian, tournament attendance has reached some very unfortunate lows here in America (European Vintage seems to be doing just fine) and that certainly raises questions as to "What's wrong with the format?" that should be asked and addressed.

Next, I would like to take a moment to talk about your proposals:

1. Gush-bond is not as oppressive as it was back in 2007. Is it strong? Yes. Can it lead to quick and decisive victories? Yes. Is it any more overpowering than any of the other major players in the Vintage scene? No. Workshop decks can make a game unwinnable just as fast as Gush decks can win them. Dredge game-ones are goldfish machines that are consistently FASTER than the Gush-bond engine. Re-restricting Gush does nothing to improve the overall health of the format unless you severely gut-out the engines of Shops and Dredge to balance all 3 out, which leads me to...

2. Restricting Bazaar of Baghdad is a knee-jerk reaction to something special that has happened to this format. For the past few years, Vintage has been ultimately defined by the "battle", for lack of a better term, between Shop decks and Blue-based control/combo decks. Every major tournament, up until this year's GenCon, has been defined by this "battle". If you didn't play a Shop deck, or a Blue-based control-combo deck, your chances of winning a tournament were very limited. Now, we have a legitimate 3rd "Pillar" deck that has entered this "battle" and has become a serious threat to BOTH of the aforementioned "Pillars", creating some true diversity in the format. While Champs and Waterbury's diversity have both been addressed, look at the Top 8 from the Grudge Match (Which had a larger turnout than the Waterbury): 3 Shop decks, 1 Gush deck, 2 Dredge decks, 1 Ritual-Tendrils decks, and 1 Oath deck. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with the "power" of whatever deck you are running, whether it is Dredge, Gush, Shops, or even Oath or Fish, but rather, it is based more on the SKILL of the pilot in properly exploiting the openings that the raw "power" of the cards provide. If you choose not to properly prepare for Dredge, it is your own fault when you get smashed by it.

3. The Blightsteel Matter. I have already stated in Nick Detwiler's poll thread about banning this card that doing so creates a dangerous precedent for the format. And I stand by that. Blightsteel is oppressive, yes. But, it does serve a purpose in this current metagame, like it or not. The somewhat decline of Shop decks winning tournaments has been due in part to the fact that Blue-based decks now have a weapon that can exert the same kind of pressure on a Shop pilot that they had been previously able to exert on a Blue pilot via Lodestone Golem. While yes, Lodestone takes longer to win in the sense of actual turns needed to accomplish this, the fact that it's very presence on the battlefield warps the game severely in favor of the Shop pilot due to it being both a Juggernaut and Sphere wrapped-up in one 4cc monstrosity makes it just as oppressive as Blightsteel. So, if you were to ban Blightsteel, Lodestone would pretty much have to go with it, just to create a balance between the 2 deck-types. There's a reason Shop decks performed so impressively from the time it was printed until the time when Blightsteel was printed: The other Tinker-bot options just weren't adequate enough to respond to the pressure that Lodestone brought to the game once played. And in the set immediately following Scars, Shop decks were given Metamorph as a more than reasonable answer to Blightsteel.

So that covers that, at least from my perspective. Now I'd like to take this opportunity to state what I feel is wrong with the format:

1. The overwhelming cost of the "staple" cards. This has been discussed at length, so I won't over-do it here, but, I will state that, in the absence of WotC reversing it's policy on the Reserved List, there are other options that they choose to ignore as it pertains to supporting the format....

2. The fact that the DCI refuses to sanction proxy-legal events as it pertains to Vintage. This, when coupled with the previously mentioned problem, makes it much more difficult for prospective Vintages players from wanting to invest into the format as even if they DO make that investment into the "staple" cards, the only time they can play those decks are if they have to travel, sometimes significant distances, to play in tournaments. That's asking a LOT for new players who can just play Standard and Legacy every Friday night at their local shop. Because the DCI refuses to promote the format by allowing proxy-legal events at FNM events or even SCG Open events, or ANYWHERE for that matter, encouraging a new player to first invest hundreds of dollars to assemble a Vinatge-playable deck, THEN have to travel 2-4+ hours (Depending where they live) once a month just to be able to PLAY those decks in a competitive environment will net you a response of "Get the hell out of here!" more often than "Sounds like a good idea! What deck should I start building?" If a prospective player does make the investment in the non-Power staple cards, what incentive is out there for that player to play Vintage when they can just play Legacy, and be able to play Legacy way more conveniently than Vintage?

I would like to close on this note: For every person that watches a first-turn Vintage kill and goes "That's just stupid!", there's another one that goes "That was awesome!" I say that because I've seen it. The "broken-ness" of the format is not what's really preventing this format from regaining momentum, as this format has ALWAYS been ridiculous in it's speed and efficiency. What's hurting it is the fact that with each passing year, the DCI just refuses to do a single thing to properly promote it. These are just my thoughts, of course, and I only speak on behalf of myself, but I do hope that these thoughts are taken into consideration as this discussion progresses. Thank you for starting this debate, Brian. I hope it leads to a positive conclusion for us and the format.

[MaximumCDawg]

...Second, you imply that a slower game leads to more "resource building and interactive game play."  This isn't true at all.  Vintage is far, far, more interactive than other formats precisely because it's so fast. ...

As had been addressed previously, you are wrong.

I assume you're talking about this:

The immediate danger, and knowing that once you both keep, one player or the other is about to come out swinging. Assuming that's the case, I can see why Eternal really does it for you. It's not that interaction and variance are lacking in other formats, it's that both of those come into play over a longer (arguably more reasonable) time period.

...and that you're arguing that other formats have the same net amount of interaction over more turns.  Maybe, maybe not - probably depends alot on the block and format in question.  I suspect Vintage has more interaction, though.  First off, Vintage has none of the dead time other formats have before the clash begins.  Second, just because the stress starts early doesn't mean it goes away in subsequent turns.  The sheer power of Vintage draw engines can easily lead to repeated thick counter wars or other intense interaction.  I mean, just look at how many cards are in a typical graveyard after a game of Vintage versus a game of Standard or Legacy (current block's mill theme or dredge decks excepted).

Now I'd like to take this opportunity to state what I feel is wrong with the format:

1. The overwhelming cost of the "staple" cards.

2. The fact that the DCI refuses to sanction proxy-legal events as it pertains to Vintage.

This man speaks the truth.

[Yare]

I thought this was an outstanding article and said basically everything I've wanted to say about the format for a few months.

The only thing I missed was a discussion of Mishra's Workshop and stax. The coin toss is so important in this matchup. As opposed to thinking about whether a deck wins consistently, what if a deck's wins are simply arbitrary? This is how I see shops right now, as whether I've won or not has hinged significantly on whether I won the die roll. The idea that the outcomes depend more and more on the die roll lately has not been discussed (though the article did indirectly touch on this in discussing the early game counter wars).

Really, it comes down to the fact that if I wanted to spend all day traveling to and from an event to roll dice, I'd go to Atlantic City. This format is in need of a major overhaul (and I don't think Brian goes far enough, though it's a good start). Until then, it's pretty unlikely I'll be going to an event any time soon. Opponents of what Brian has suggested can (and in all probability will, since I doubt changes will be made) continue to play the format as is. However, I think the Vintage community, at least in New England, has started voting with its time and money; there are just better ways to spend both.

[Delha]

The immediate danger, and knowing that once you both keep, one player or the other is about to come out swinging. Assuming that's the case, I can see why Eternal really does it for you. It's not that interaction and variance are lacking in other formats, it's that both of those come into play over a longer (arguably more reasonable) time period.

...and that you're arguing that other formats have the same net amount of interaction over more turns.  Maybe, maybe not - probably depends alot on the block and format in question.  I suspect Vintage has more interaction, though.  First off, Vintage has none of the dead time other formats have before the clash begins.  Second, just because the stress starts early doesn't mean it goes away in subsequent turns.  The sheer power of Vintage draw engines can easily lead to repeated thick counter wars or other intense interaction.  I mean, just look at how many cards are in a typical graveyard after a game of Vintage versus a game of Standard or Legacy (current block's mill theme or dredge decks excepted).

You can suspect it all you like, you are simply wrong.

Standard is a knife fight where Vintage is a lightsaber duel. In the former, you're pretty much guaranteed to take a couple nicks before you can down the other guy. There is back and forth. That said, however flashy the lightsaber duel is, once someone gets in a solid hit, it's over.

If a typical game of Standard takes an average X actions to win, that average will invariably be lower for Vintage due to the indisputable power behind our win conditions. Blowouts don't always happen, but they unquestionably bring down the average. When you Force their Tinker then get Forced back and lose, you've interacted with the opponent maybe 4 times before the game was over (including the lethal swing). That simply does not happen in Standard or Limited.

Losing an exchange in Standard can very much suck, but odds are you've still got a few turns to hopefully draw out of it. That's much less likely in Vintage. You talk about how our superior draw engines allow for repeated thick counterwars, but let's be honest. If you lost a big counterwar over his Will/Ancestral/whatever, you probably just lost the game.

[Troy_Costisick]

Standard is a knife fight where Vintage is a lightsaber duel. In the former, you're pretty much guaranteed to take a couple nicks before you can down the other guy. There is back and forth. That said, however flashy the lightsaber duel is, once someone gets in a solid hit, it's over.

That is a really great analogy.

[diopter]

The only thing I missed was a discussion of Mishra's Workshop and stax. The coin toss is so important in this matchup. As opposed to thinking about whether a deck wins consistently, what if a deck's wins are simply arbitrary? This is how I see shops right now, as whether I've won or not has hinged significantly on whether I won the die roll. The idea that the outcomes depend more and more on the die roll lately has not been discussed (though the article did indirectly touch on this in discussing the early game counter wars).

Maybe you ought to play more than just token bounce in your blue decks then. Consider having an actual game plan against Shops (aggressive Tinker - Trygons - Grim Monoliths - Tarmogoyfs - Grudge's main - Oaths). This is how they do it in those "real" formats that Vintage gets compared to.

[Bibendum]

I thought this was an outstanding article and said basically everything I've wanted to say about the format for a few months.

The only thing I missed was a discussion of Mishra's Workshop and stax. The coin toss is so important in this matchup. As opposed to thinking about whether a deck wins consistently, what if a deck's wins are simply arbitrary? This is how I see shops right now, as whether I've won or not has hinged significantly on whether I won the die roll. The idea that the outcomes depend more and more on the die roll lately has not been discussed (though the article did indirectly touch on this in discussing the early game counter wars).

Really, it comes down to the fact that if I wanted to spend all day traveling to and from an event to roll dice, I'd go to Atlantic City. This format is in need of a major overhaul (and I don't think Brian goes far enough, though it's a good start). Until then, it's pretty unlikely I'll be going to an event any time soon. Opponents of what Brian has suggested can (and in all probability will, since I doubt changes will be made) continue to play the format as is. However, I think the Vintage community, at least in New England, has started voting with its time and money; there are just better ways to spend both.

I have played in 3 events in the past month and a half
a 5 round event, the last Nyse
a 7 round event, Waterbury
a 6 round event, Most recent bbg

Top 8'd the NYSE
10th at waterbury
4th at Blue bell gameday

Counting top 8 matches and the swiss i won a total of 6 dice rolls in 3 events, of those 6 dice roll games 4 were wins... this shops win the dice roll to win games stuff has got to stop, sure we all like to be on the play but its not the reason shops win

[cvarosky80]

I thought this was an outstanding article and said basically everything I've wanted to say about the format for a few months.

The only thing I missed was a discussion of Mishra's Workshop and stax. The coin toss is so important in this matchup. As opposed to thinking about whether a deck wins consistently, what if a deck's wins are simply arbitrary? This is how I see shops right now, as whether I've won or not has hinged significantly on whether I won the die roll. The idea that the outcomes depend more and more on the die roll lately has not been discussed (though the article did indirectly touch on this in discussing the early game counter wars).

Really, it comes down to the fact that if I wanted to spend all day traveling to and from an event to roll dice, I'd go to Atlantic City. This format is in need of a major overhaul (and I don't think Brian goes far enough, though it's a good start). Until then, it's pretty unlikely I'll be going to an event any time soon. Opponents of what Brian has suggested can (and in all probability will, since I doubt changes will be made) continue to play the format as is. However, I think the Vintage community, at least in New England, has started voting with its time and money; there are just better ways to spend both.

I have played in 3 events in the past month and a half
a 5 round event, the last Nyse
a 7 round event, Waterbury
a 6 round event, Most recent bbg

Top 8'd the NYSE
10th at waterbury
4th at Blue bell gameday

Counting top 8 matches and the swiss i won a total of 6 dice rolls in 3 events, of those 6 dice roll games 4 were wins... this shops win the dice roll to win games stuff has got to stop, sure we all like to be on the play but its not the reason shops win

I second that sentiment! I have never won the die roll vs. Shops, and yet, I have never lost a Game 1 vs. Shops on the draw. It has nothing to do with this mythical "dice roll" theory, it comes down to good hand and mulligan decision making. Whenever I am playing someone "blind" (Meaning, I have no idea what deck they are playing whatsoever), I attempt to keep hands that can build resources in the face of early Spheres over "broken play" type of hands. Sure, if I'm facing a Gush deck, that kind of hand may not get me there in Game 1, but sometimes it's just flat-out better to be "prepared" to face a Shop deck when you're in a "blind" matchup.

[voltron00x]

While I may not agree with Steve's attempt to counter your argument before your article even went up, I have to say I agree with him, and strongly disagree with you.  A lot of the article is well written, and I have no doubt that your heart is in the right place, but it is consistently incorrect.  This is not a fast Vintage format, certainly not the fastest of the past 3 years since I've been playing.  Early Key/Vaults are at an all-time low, in my experience.  Jamming out quick Orchard, Mox, Oath, Force hands is much harder when Nature's Claim is popular.  ANT and TPS are on life support, if not already dead, between Lodestone and Mental Misstep (although its nice to see Bob TPS is perhaps still viable).  

The Doomsday deck you cite, while interesting, is not even remotely close to the power level of Flash and certainly is much more vulnerable.  In my opinion it is a fad deck that'll be done in a month.  

Gush decks of the past 6 months err on the side of control more than combo (ie the old Tropical Storm Gush lists aren't really played and Lotus Cobra Gush, while powerful, is wildly inconsistent and hasn't had much lasting success despite being a blast to play).

 Landstill is winning tournaments.  Kuldotha Forgemaster decks are winning tournaments!  

The metagame is pretty diverse, there have been plenty of large events in the US this year (NY Grudge Match, Philly Grudge Match, GenCon Champs, and admittedly the TMD Open had low attendance but overall that is plenty of large events this year compared to the previous few).  Dredge has done well at the end of the year in the US after being extremely cold in the first half.  People still don't get Dredge at all.  You can win game 1 more than 10% of the time if you have any idea what you're doing.  You need to sideboard better than just "X cards is all you need!"  Different decks want different hate.  Mental Misstep is one of the most powerful anti-Dredge weapons out there for games 2/3, but your article says it does nothing against the deck with no qualifier about post-board.  

Honestly, your version of what Dredge is, is painfully informed by your personal experience alone.  Say what you will about Menendian - and I've said plenty - he knows the format in the sense that he follows global results (and has for years) and he plays, and has played, the full range of viable decks over his time in the format, where you center on innovating decks that are blue, blue, blue, blue, or blue.

[cvarosky80]

I'd really like to hear more from the European players as to what they think about the state of Vintage. Especially since their tournaments, especially their "big" events are doubling and tripling the attendance-rate of our "big" events. The perceived "speed" of the format doesn't seem to be affecting their events negatively, which leads me back to the point I made earlier that rather than the problem being the "broken" nature of the format (All of a sudden Vintage became "Too Broken" ?), the problem with our events and their smaller attendance lies in the inaccessibility of the format in general here in America.

By the way, kudos to you Matt for mentioning the Forgemaster decks that are running rampant over in Europe. Considering that the Europeans were months ahead of our metagame in identifying Gush as a strong deck, even in a Workshop-heavy metagame, they may be ahead of us in the curve once again as it relates to now dealing with all of the Gush decks (And Blue decks in general) as well as the Dredge decks (Which had a strong showing over there months before Hornung won Champs. A fact that was emphasized by you, Matt, in one of your articles leading into Champs with the development of the Sun Titan-Fatestitcher deck that was initially developed in Europe). Perhaps rather than calling for cards to be restricted, we should take a look as to what they are doing on the other side of the Atlantic before such drastic moves are petitioned. I could be wrong, but considering they seem to have an EXTREMELY vibrant and lively Vintage environment over there, more of us should perhaps pay more attention to the results of their tourneys...

[Marske]

@cvarosky80,
I know I've not posted here in a while but I wanted to chime in, seeing as I am European... and have a strong opinion about Vintage (and Magic in general).

@Brian, everybody in this thread.
There's a lot to be said about Vintage at this point, but saying any deck needs to go (especially dredge, LOL!) is a joke. Same as saying Blightsteel is a problem. I get where Nick is coming from, he's a shop player that wants shop to have tools to beat other decks. But in all fairness Tinker - Bot has been a very very solid go to plan for people against shops (when Welder is at a low) for years.

Giving the fact that Shop decks have gotten faster at doing their thing, it's only fair Tinker bots get faster as well. Every other deck should have at least A) answers to a resolved bot or B) a way to not let tinker resolve (are we forgetting Tinker is the real issue not the artifact it gets?!) Shop decks, have plenty answers to a resolved Blightsteel (why is your opponent even able to resolve a 3 mana sorcery that needs an artifact in play ?!!!!) Metamorph, Welder, Sculpting Steel etc etc. The only frustrating thing would be Turn 1 tinker (the odds of this is very very low, it's not going to happen 10 straight games in a row, if it does I'd check my opponents shuffling techniques with a judge)

Looking at big time European events, dredge plays a role, it was there at Bazaar of Moxen, it was there at Ovino, it didn't dominate either of those events like for example Tezzerret with 4x Thrist did a couple of years back. Take a look at the LCV events in Barcelona, Yes Dredge made top 8 but it didn't win (as always). I think Mark and to a degree Brian where spot on saying people just don't prepare / test the matchup and lose accordingly. I've once sat down to playtest and promptly have my testing partner start sideboarding because "he doesn't play game 1's against dredge"..... Then I showed him how you're able to beat Dredge even game 1. (Storm combo can actually do it)

I do agree the Ritual pillar (shocking I know ) is kept down really hard in last years. I wish it was playable, I wish TPS, Doomsday, Grim long, ANT etc all where real decks. They are not, however because of various cards being in print at the moment.

Overall I think Vintage is in a fine place, although I actually dislike the fact that Gush got unrestricted (again) and opresses other decks (again) and the people at WoTC / DCI don't really get it (again).

I haven't played Vintage in well over 6 month's because of several factors, I am however looking forward to battling in the format again very soon, just because I think the formats is at a decent place.

[heiner]

I'd really like to hear more from the European players as to what they think about the state of Vintage.

I believe many of us share Brians thoughts that Vintage currently is too fast and non-interactive. A lot of players are prefering Legacy right now. On the other hand I also believe that Vintage currently is more diverse than at most other times. Keep in mind that diversity does not contradict low interaction and speediness. So I believe that the current format has its Pros and Cons. The restrictions that Brian proposes would maybe make the format slower but could also lead to less diversity. The problem is that if you hit all these cards workshop will run wild (which it already does in Europe). There is a lot of risk in restricting all these cards, as it would significanlty change the format (to the worse or the better?, I believe that cant be said easily.)

Furthermore, restrictions have the purpose of keepin specific decks in check and to balance the format. Introducing (global) restrictions to slow down the format as a whole would be whole new approach.

Summing up: I don't think the current format is great (too fast for me), but it has been worse and I do not have a good idea to fix it. So leave it as it is.

Some more thoughts about dredge:
I don't think that its so easy to be hated out as most in here claim. In Europe Dredge is a much more played and also well respected deck than in the US. Everybody tests a lot against it and either plays 4 LotV+3 needle or 4+2 (which are definitely the best SB plans). Furhermore, nobody overhere plays stitchers, which makes the list one turn slower but much more resilent against hate. The dredge matchup gets much more complicated after SB, if both players know what they are doing. There are much more decisions (slow dredge, draw hate vs. dredge, mulligan decisions, play out lands or not etc..) I have to admit that I had some very exciting games vs. dredge where both players had to play out numerous decisions correctly to win. On the other hand I also think that 2/3 off all my games vs. dredge where quite boring and non-interactive. BTW: Mental Misstep is the nuts against dredge

You know what actually keeps dredge in check? Almost all good players that have access to power prefer to play a blue (or maybe stax) because its just so much more fun. There is only a handful of excellent dredge players who play it because they are so good with it fighting through hate and who prefer winning tournaments instead of having more fun.

[bisamratte]

I agree that the problem with Dredge is that many people don't test against it. Their sideboard is weak against the deck and they don't know how to board out or play. There are so many options how to board against this deck. Shall you take out winconditions and try to completely shutdown your opponent's action with massive control? Or is it better to board out control elements and stall the dredge player until your are able to win? This strategy is fully dependent on your deck choice and the slots you are able to fill in your sideboard.

In my opinion, a control deck for example shoud have a good position against blue and an acceptable MU against Shops (50% would be great). To fight Dredge preboard weakens your own strategy. What if you play some Nihil Spellbombs main? You have a 20% MU instead of a 10%? That's really crappy... I'd never try that. You will get bashed by Null Rod decks, if you do that. Rather ignore Dredge in game1 and have a good SB-plan. I agree with Heiner, that Leylines and Needles are the best Hate against Dredge, followed by Jailer. Jailer gets much weaker if the Dredgeman plays well and Needle can be boarded against MUD as well. Needle for Wasteland is soo good guys! And if they play Welder or Kuldothas - fine! More targets.

Against Nulll Rods and Workshops, a good manabase is all. That's why I often run a non-island basic in the maindeck (in Confidant/Jace, not in Gushdecks!) and 3 Islands. Paired with 1-2 Hurkyl's, Jaces and all the broken stuff in your deck, that's enough to get an acceptable preboard-MU. Postboard a good SB fixed the MU. 4-5 a- or c-removals (Claim, Chewer, Bolt, Trygon), a 2nd or 3rd Massbounce (and perhaps 2 Neeldes) is more than enough. Another 7 cards against Dredge (including the 2 Needles) leaves 2 Slots against Controldecks. This could for example be Missteps or Flusterstorms, if you are not running them in the main (i prefer those 2, because they are number 8 and 9 against dredge).

But: This plan just works, if you win against blue preboard and 2 cards in the SB are enough. Decks like the Italian Remora, Dark Painter or the Spanish Speed-Gush or Turbotezzeret decks can do that even in a Gushcontrol-heavy meta.

Euro-lists for reference:
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1500&d=1
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1496&d=3
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1506&d=4
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1506&d=5

[Onslaught]

I had no idea so many people felt that Gush was oppressive. I still don't think its objectively better than Bob or Snapcaster based decks, though I guess of those three engines only Gush enables an unlikely "oops I win" Storm kill without setup very early in the game. I would be extremely disappointed to see another Gush restriction, and I hadn't even considered that as a possibility. Is that really a road we might be heading down?  

[hitman]

Who knows.  I think a lot of expressed opinions online are a bunch of sheep following whatever an influential writer/player expressed first.  I would bet that far fewer people had strong beliefs on either side of the argument before Brian and Steve started going at it. 

[Ufactor]

The other thing that I find bizarre (bazaar) is that a lot of people in response to the article are saying: "Vintage is the place broken stuff happens and we like it that way."  To me, commending a format for being broken seems really foolish, as broken implies that it doesn't work or requires "fixing," which is exactly the point that my article is suggesting in the first place. 

I think that this speaks to an intangible quality, to what quantifies enjoyability.  There are many people that are drawn to Vintage specifically because it's a broken format and you can play as many cards as possible.  Other people are equally repulsed by Vintage because the large card pool allows for non-interactive wins.  I don't think that you can restrict cards without taking away from that in some way.  Limiting what cards are available are what other formats do, whereas Vintage only limits cards by their viability.  Each restriction, in a sweeping generalization, brings Vintage one card closer to Legacy.

Another way to look at is that baseball and boxing are both sports, each with their critics.  Some would say that boxing is violent, senseless and lacking in complexity, others would say that baseball is just plain boring.  Yet both sports exist for a reason and to try to eliminate one or try to harmonize their differences would just be wrong on many levels.

[forests failed you]

Let me start off by saying that I have been very impressed by the quality of the discussion that has been generated here, and also the respectful way that people have been able to discuss their ideas has also been most impressive.  So far as I have observed no flames, which is most excellent given the strong opinions many people have for this topic!

The most difficult part about writing this article, for me, was knowing that I was writing a dissenting opinion (at least among active Vintage posters) that was going to be put into the public domain.  The other problem with writing this kind of article is that my argument has a lot of parts, and on the internet people are much more inclined to argue with a part, rather than try to understand how the part works within the entirety of the whole.

What I did not argue in my article, that many people seems to be specifically my point, is that Vintage is a turn one combo format.  On the contrary, I expounded that the closest things the format has to offer that attempts to be turn one combo decks (ex. Belcher) are relatively poor decks in Vintage right now.  Specifically, the overarching thesis of my article was that because of the nature of the blue decks EVERY deck is forced to produce more relevant interactions more quickly because decks are capable of producing and protecting one and two card combos that are easier to protect than defend against and do something else.  A critical mass of spells that don't require Mana to be cast further fosters a format where people are just putting cards onto the stack without needing to develop or utilize a fundamental element of the game, cultivating, conserving, and managing resources.

Gush decks are oppressive not because they always win on the first turn, (although, I would also argue that I have never been "bob-bonded," or "Preordain-bonded" on the first turn...), but because they are so efficient at forcing specific kinds of interactions in the first few turns and use their namesake card "Gush" to create an opportunistic turn where they have more cards and an overwhelming position to fight over a one card combo (ex. Fastbond, Tinker, etc.).  When Gush got unrestricted, I was of the opinion that it wasn't very good at that specific moment, but that it would probably need to be re-restricted once people figured out exactly what to do with it.  The printing of cards like Mental Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Blightsteel Colossus have from my perspective created such a meta game.   

As for Bazaar of Baghdad, I simply cannot wrap my mind around how having a land where if a player plays it on the first, the card all by itself facilitates the conditions for victory without my needing to play another card from my hand.  I never said that Dredge couldn't be beaten through understanding the match up, quite the contrary I believed that the deck could never win a big event because of the fact that it was beatable, so long as people were willing to go through the excessive but necessary motions to beat it.  In my opinion, the problem with the argument "the problem isn't Bazaar of Baghdad, it is that people don't play enough hate," is that this potential explanation overlooks the fact that ANYTHING can be beaten if you try to beat it.  The question, in my mind, boils down to is it desirable to have a one card combo that CAN be beaten, if and only if, I am willing to throw 10-15% of my available slots in my deck at specifically beating it?  It isn't even the same as the argument somebody brought up about a control deck trying to beat a mono burn deck; in that metagame you might have midrange decks that actually beat a mono red deck, so saying a specific deck has a long ways to go to turn a specifically bad match up is different.  So far as I can tell, Dredge really don't have any specific predatory game one match ups, which only compounds the problem I see with Bazaar as a one card combo.

Realistically, the point of the article was to point out what I viewed as problematic aspects of Vintage, rather than to suggest that my solutions were the only viable ones.  I put much more stock in my analysis of cards and strategies that I believe to be oppressive than the fact that I think without my solutions the format is unsalvageable.  As I have said numerous times, if Dredge and Graveyard based combos are in fact viable strategies they will be able to survive with one Bazaar the same as with four, they would simply need to seek out new ways to enable the graveyard--which, to be fair could also be done through new printings.


I think that using the outlet of Commander decks as a potential place to print Vintage and Legacy specific cards offers great potential as a way of creating diversity through the printing of Vintage and Legacy specific staple cards.   

The other thing that I specifically asked for was the DCI to take more of a vested interest in Vintage and commit some time and resources to provide a better, more balanced, and better format than is currently available.  If somebody actually cared to take the time, who is to say that Bazaar as a one card combo and thusly restricted, couldn't lead to the printing of a commander style deck that sought to pick up some of the slack?  Blindly suggesting possible printings I realize doesn't solve any problems, but as a hypothetical:

Unsettling Landfill:  Land
Tap, Draw a card and then discard three cards.  Use this ability only if you have three or more cards in hand.

Unsettling Landfill:  Land
Unsettling Landfill enters the battlefield tapped.
Tap, Draw to cards and then discard three cards.

Grave Grow:  B
Sorcery:  Put the top four cards of your library into your graveyard, and then draw a card.

If Wizards specifically cared to do things that would directly impact Vintage there is a ton of potential to move Vintage forward as a much more diverse and balanced format. 

My suggestion actually isn't to create a place where only blue decks are playable, it is quite the opposite.  Id like to see a version of Vintage where lots of different possibilities are relevant and played.  The biggest barrier I see to such a world existing is the one card combos and the fact that they are easier to protect than stop + win without them.  Ideally, I would like to see a version of Vintage where creatures are not only playable, but actively good.  I think if Vintage wants to port new players, there is no shortage of gamers with money that would be interested in playing our format if it were more user friendly, look to Legacy as proof that people have the $ to spend on a hobby.  If people wanted to play there would be tournaments to play in, the amount of tournaments must reflect the interest of the people who play. 

I am willing to concede the argument that Vintage is playable, that many people will play it if nothing changes, and that there are different options with regard to decks currently available.  However, my entire point is that having played Block, Standard, Extended, Modern, as well as every Limited format at a professional level event this year, I felt that of all these formats Vintage was actually the most unbalanced, most random, and the one where my cards (particularly my opening hand) and not my decisions had the biggest impact on the outcome of my games.  I would also venture that many players who could be drawn into the allure of playing with Black Lotus and Time Walk, would tend to share my opinion that such a format isn't as rewarding as one where the decisions, less than the cards, are important.

One last point:  I think it is completely ABSURD ABSURD ABSURD to make the argument:  "Restricting this or that in Vintage just makes it more like Legacy..."  or, "If you don't like broken plays go play Legacy..."  Vintage, no matter how many cards one restricts will NEVER EVER be anything like Legacy, or even remotely close.  If ever card were restricted it wouldn't be like Legacy.  Vintage is defined by Moxes, Black Lotus, Mishra's Workshop, and a whole slew of cards that are unacceptably powerful by Legacy standards.  I don't want the format to look like Legacy, not that it is even possible.  It is also pretty ridiculous to think that if Gush or Bazaar were to be restricted that broken things wouldn't still happen in Vintage.  My main problem with these two cards is that they greatly constrict how people build decks, and reward linear design and strategy where only specific types of interaction become relevant. 

[forests failed you]

My biggest critique of Bazaar of Baghdad is that it is essentially a one card combo and whether or not that is acceptable, all things considered. 

[Delha]

It occurs to me that I never actually responded to the original content, which reading the above post reminded of. First off, thank you for a well written article. I greatly enjoyed reading it, and felt it did an excellent job describing regarding the impact of certain cards on the format as a whole. While I disagreed with the solutions proposed there, seeing that they weren't intended as a rallying cry helped the whole package sit a bit better with me (and reminded me that I still hadn't gotten around to posting my thoughts here).

Thanks again for the article, as well as your thorough followups.

[Womba]

So far as I can tell, Dredge really don't have any specific predatory game one match ups, which only compounds the problem I see with Bazaar as a one card combo.

Looking at this point first the main reason Dredge has shifted so strongly to a one card combo is due to the metagame. Cards like Mental Misstep and Lodestone Golem have pushed the deck to a point where relying on spells such as Breakthrough and Careful Study aren't an option for it at the moment. Trust me I HATE having Serum Powders, I used Breakthrough/Careful Study versions until Lodestone really began to dominate. I think its a valid arguement but why restrict a card that is an easily taken care of engine. Workshop decks in my recent battles with Dredge for the most part are able to beat Dredge with careful play and 5-6 card sideboards.

The question, in my mind, boils down to is it desirable to have a one card combo that CAN be beaten, if and only if, I am willing to throw 10-15% of my available slots in my deck at specifically beating it? So far as I can tell, Dredge really don't have any specific predatory game one match ups, which only compounds the problem I see with Bazaar as a one card combo.

Another fair point but the question then becomes with less Dredge hate becomes more sideboard space for blue or workshop decks...It looks like a slippery slope in a sense people (not necessarily you) complain that they need X amount of cards to beat Dredge as any sort of argument. Lets say Dredge didn't exist and everyone was playing 8 cards to beat Workshops....should me do something about Workshops?!?! I just think that this is a poor argument.

As for the game one matchups, I feel its actually a result of Mental Misstep. I would like to see that card restricted to see if we would have a influx of Dark Ritual decks, Dredge's natural preadator, back in the metagame.

If Wizards specifically cared to do things that would directly impact Vintage there is a ton of potential to move Vintage forward as a much more diverse and balanced format.  

My suggestion actually isn't to create a place where only blue decks are playable, it is quite the opposite.  Id like to see a version of Vintage where lots of different possibilities are relevant and played.  

RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS!!! I would say Vintage is more diverse and balanced than it has been in a long time...The number of archetypes in each Top 8 continue to prove this to be the case...

[Onslaught]

According to thecouncil.es, Gush has been in 35 first place decks going back to September of 2010. There are a bunch of different flavors in those 35 decks, some of them with vastly differing strategies. In that same period, Workshop has been in 47 first place decks, Dark Confidant has been in 53, and Bazaar has been in 20 (not all Dredge). Does the rise of Misstep and Flusterstorm really validate the claim that Gush is "oppressive," or is it just speculation that a metagame shift will cause it to become oppressive?

I think that's a bold claim to make, especially considering that Snapcaster Mage is an upcoming archetype that competes for slots with Gush (and they are unlikely to appear in the same deck, at least for now).

[credmond]

I don't understand how people are bemoaning the presence of Blightsteel in the format when it's Tinker that is clearly and indisputably the problem. Let's use clear logic and put all "pet" and "fondness" considerations aside when we evaluate brokenness.

[Onslaught]

I don't understand how people are bemoaning the presence of Blightsteel in the format when it's Tinker that is clearly and indisputably the problem. Let's use clear logic and put all "pet" and "fondness" considerations aside when we evaluate brokenness.

Tinker is obviously broken, but so are most other cards in Vintage. It's the opinion of some people (myself included) that Tinker was more acceptable when you were forced to choose between a few different bots that at best won the game in two turns. I don't recall any threads that bemoaned the existence of DSC, Inkwell, Sphinx, Myr Battlesphere, etc. If you let your opponent play a three mana sorcery and untap twice without being able to answer a bot, you probably deserved to lose. It's also extremely noteworthy that BSC/Time Walk is an automatic game winning play, whereas your opponent used to get at least one turn even after a huge Yawgmoth's into Tinker/Time Walk.

I think the best illustration of why BSC is the problem (and not Tinker) is the random factor. Would you ever blindly make a turn one play of land, Crypt, Tinker for Inkwell? Pretty unlikely. Meanwhile, this is a somewhat viable tactic with BSC.

[credmond]

Let's pretend Tinker never existed, how broken is BSC?

Let's pretend BSC never existed, how broken is Tinker?


BSC is nothing without Tinker.

If not BSC, then some other robot costing 40 with haste and shroud and trample becomes the problem in the future.

There is no cap on Tinker's brokenness.

People are so used to tinker and so fond of tinker that you aren't actually looking at tinker and what tinker does to the format. I mean really looking at tinker. Really, really looking at it, like with goggles that display in red the degree of format warping attached to a card.

I agree with the sentiment of the article but not the solutions. I think solutions need to start with those cards that are uber-red in the degree of format warping, namely tinker, will, and vault.

[diopter]

If you really go down the path of power level banning then it will start and end with Black Lotus. Start because Lotus is the most broken of broken plays, and end because everybody would simultaneously check out of this format.

[credmond]

The slippery slope counter-argument is silly.

Power level bannings happened before with mind twist.

When they banned mindtwist it didn't open up the gates of hell. Only mindtwist was banned. Vintage was still vintage.


And .. vintage will still be vintage with tinker, will, and vault banned. The gates of hell will not open. Only those cards would be banned.

[diopter]

Mind Twist was banned.
It was kind of insane and senseless.
Then WotC came to their senses.

Now, in ucidity, if one were to actually "take off the red goggles" as you put it, and ban hammer something to stop the degenaracy, the first card you would target is actually the king of all broken, the most one sided turn 1 play of them all, Black Lotus.

The slope doesn't start at Tinker. It starts long before Tinker.

[Troy_Costisick]

Only mindtwist was banned.

And Time Vault.