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

[MaximumCDawg]

In order to do that, they would have to move away from their precious blue counter spell decks, and then suddenly its not "vintage" anymore.

In maybe a less inflammatory way, that's what I'm saying.  Vintage seems to be defined for many people as a particular kind of degeneracy caused by known quantities - namely, the broken cards and broken win conditions typically found in Blue decks.  Allow other kinds of degeneracy - either supplementing the existing power or replacing it with a new attack entirely - maybe push the format over the brink, in the opinion of some.

EDIT - And the followup question I'm posing is: Is there a reason beyond inertia that we might allow Power to occupy so much of the degeneracy we can tolerate to the potential exclusion of other cards?

[diopter]

Playing dredge hate in Vintage maindeck should be as skill-based and decision-full as playing Wraths in other formats where fast aggro comes from having creatures and burn.

Also if you want to extend the metaphor further then the "midrange" decks that kill a fast deck like RDW would run tactically devastating cards like Walls and Spike Feeder. Shops can easily serve that purpose if the pilots didn't just use Smennen's card for card list all the time (pains me to see 3-4 Revokers in many MUD lists when Vault/Key is ebbing and Dredge is rising.)

[honestabe]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?

You don't maindeck Ravenous Traps for the same reason you don't maindeck Red Elemental Blasts, Firespouts, Jester's Caps, or Nature's Claims; their uses are limited.  Granted, a crafty metagamer might think "I feel like Blue will be popular at this tournament" and maybe run a REB or two maindeck, but you can't do that for every MU.  Also, the odds you come across your particular maindeck hate piece go up as the games go long, but Dredge's games simply don't go long, especially g1, which is why it's more realistic to run a maindeck REB or Nature's Claim and have it be usefull than a maindeck dredge hate piece.  Not to mention a REB is good against Oath, Gush, Drains, Combo, and certain fish builds; Nature's Claim is good against Shops and is decent against Oath, and has some uses in the Null Rod and Time Vault control matchups.  What good is a Ravenous Trap or Leyline of the Void against the rest of the field?  Maybe get lucky and stop a Yawg's???  Sure, you could run 4 Ravenous Traps maindeck.  Let's say you do so in a 5 round tournament.  Say you play against Dredge 2x.  There's a 40% chance you open with a Ravenous Trap in your grip.  Since G1, Dredge wins on the 2nd turn a good portion of the time, let's say by natural draws, and card manipulation, the probability you see a trap before you're dead is about 45-50%.  So, by adding 4 Dredge hate cards, you've greatly weakened your deck against everything else, to still only have a less than 50% chance of even seeing a Trap game 1.  And even if you do see a Trap; so what?  You've trapped them once; who cares?  They still probably have a bazaar in play, and you'll still probably die in a turn or 2.

[Commandant]

There's far too much personal bias in this thread for any realistic consensus to be reached. That being said my two cents...

As a person who plays both Dredge and Blue Based Control - I find it utterly ludicrous that Dredge is allowed to have the game one win percentage that it does have. In real world scenarios all Dredge has to do is hurp derp through one of the next two games to win the match, I've done it a million times. I find it rather asinine to expect people to run main deck Dredge hate when the majority of it is pretty much useless against the rest of the field and I'm almost positive that even contemplating this is a great indication of format warping and an honest reason to consider restriction. Bazaar of Baghdad is utterly insane, it's a free uncountable draw engine when you need it to be and an enabler for every other card in the deck - seriously? All this nonsense about hurting other decks like Dragon and Reanimator are half-baked. I could build a Kobald list based around Survival of the Fittest in Legacy, that doesn't change the fact that coupling Survival with Vengevine creates a format warping Tyrannosaurs Voltron Space Battleship featuring Bill Copes anti everything missiles.

After testing against Ray and others, I'm starting to think most of the current Dredge hate in the T1 pool is too slow to consistently interact with Dredge on any meaningful level - which turns the match into a coin flip which is just plain lame.

This seems like a decent start:

I would be very sad if Bazaar were restricted because it is such a fun card in general, but even I think Dredge has gone too far.

IMHO, Dredge can serve an important roll in type 1 when it is an anti combo deck and when it is an anti-control deck by dodging counters.

When a deck has a 80%+ turn 2 goldfish with double or triple counter backup it gets silly.

When addresssing Dredge I am coming from the perspective of someone who likes Dredge in general and thinks it should be in the format, but that it should not be nearly as fast as it is now.  IMHO turn three and four goldfishes are appropriate, but consistent turn two wins are harmful.
If done "right" I would like to see a Dredge deck that can be raced by Goblins or that can be raced by Shop Aggro if they open with Waste on Bazaar.

I would go after Dredge one card at a time and I would not start with Bazaar.

First I would go after Dread Return and Fatestitcher.  Those cards are not played as more than 1 of in any other decks so there is not collateral damage and they are massive combo enablers.  Without those Dredge is looking at winning games with Bridge token beats and Ichorid beats while using Therapy and presumably other control to disrupt.  The token Dread Return can still do damage, but folks are not going to want to run 5 card Dread Return suites when they only have 1 Dread Return.  I think such a deck would play a positive roll in vintage.

Before Bazaar, I would go after Serum Powder.  That would also hit certain versions of Stax which is unfortunate and part of the reason I would rather restrict Dread Return and Fatestitcher, but Serum Power is a free, uncounterable, one sided draw 7 that can be played on turn 0 and thus has been ripe for restriction ever since it was printed.
The second reason I prefer not to restrict Serum Powder is that it allows Dredge to win without playing spells and thus dodge heavy counter decks and heavy mana denial.

[diopter]

Majority of dredge "hate" is useless in other MUs: not so.

The mere presence of Will means graveyard hate has utility against other blue decks. Is the utility dominant? No but it's not like Wrath was hot in old school control mirrors.

There was a time when the graveyard was a more important zone than the battlefield in Vintage. Maybe that's not strictly true these days but the graveyard is still a zone that Vintage players should worry about.

And there are other ways to attack Dredge too. Innovate dammit!

[MaximumCDawg]

Majority of dredge "hate" is useless in other MUs: not so.

The mere presence of Will means graveyard hate has utility against other blue decks. Is the utility dominant? No but it's not like Wrath was hot in old school control mirrors.

There was a time when the graveyard was a more important zone than the battlefield in Vintage. Maybe that's not strictly true these days but the graveyard is still a zone that Vintage players should worry about.

And there are other ways to attack Dredge too. Innovate dammit!

Werd.  Some currently under-used solutions include Platinum Angel / Emperion, Crop Rotation (for Bojuka), Elephant Grass, Mogg Fanatic, Ensnaring Bridge, etc...  Different solutions splash hate against other types of decks, of course, so meta to flavor, but there are tons of options.

[vaughnbros]

how about strong cards like Surgical Extraction and Nihil Spellbomb? they can both be effective in the blue mirror while also providing the ability to win game 1's against dredge.  It feels like it was only a few months ago that many people were complaining about how hard stax was to beat until people finally decided to put 2 cards, hurkyl's and ancient grudge, as near auto includes in every list.  now stax is not nearly as dominant of a force as it was before.  So why can't this be the case with dredge which dies an even more gruesome death than stax does to hate?

also i dont fully understand this myth that dredge wins 80%+ of its game 1's.  Dredge may win that much in game 1 against decks that refuse to interact with it, but Ive played decks that have beat dredge over 70% in game 1 if i win the die roll. If your so upset about losing to dredge then try playing a deck that doesnt give up game 1.

As far as the speed of vintage in general goes, yes its fast but so is all of magic now.  Standard is just about the only format now where a tapped land and no turn 1 plays works anymore.  Given that each format dating back gets faster and faster, so when you finally hit vintage its going to be fast.  The thing is though even with how fast vintage and how you need to be able to put yourself in a position to win on turn 1, most decks dont actually win the game until turn 5+ where nearly every deck has the ability to top deck a tide turning card.  Maybe its just me, but I like how either player can top deck a single card to save them how now matter what the game is never over until its over.  I dont get that feeling with any other format.

[voltron00x]

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

[honestabe]

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

Which is why you have the word "Adept" under your name

[A.-1.]

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

One of the most savage beatings I've ever witnessed.

[voltron00x]

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

Which is why you have the word "Adept" under your name

Probably qualifies me for "madman" more than Adept.  Now, doing it turn one, on the play, against Sam Berse's MUD - that might be Adept-esque  

FWIW, I really like what Brian did with Nihil Spellbomb main.  I've been boarding a 1x in vs. Will decks for quite a while, but never had the cojones to play it main.  Card's really good.  Playing 2x main is why he's an Adept!

[Diakonov]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?

What?  What meta is this?  God that sounds awful.  Try: in a meta where your opponent is playing spells.

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

Which is why you have the word "Adept" under your name

Probably qualifies me for "madman" more than Adept.  Now, doing it turn one, on the play, against Sam Berse's MUD - that might be Adept-esque 

FWIW, I really like what Brian did with Nihil Spellbomb main.  I've been boarding a 1x in vs. Will decks for quite a while, but never had the cojones to play it main.  Card's really good.  Playing 2x main is why he's an Adept!

I've been playing 1 Nihil in the main for a few months now, and it's been fantastic.  Especially now that Snapcaster is apparently going to be popular.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?

What?  What meta is this?  God that sounds awful.  Try: in a meta where your opponent is playing spells.

Just pointing out that Force of Will isn't "good" in a vacuum.  Dredge appears to be under-represented in most metas.  If this were corrected, your estimation of what's "good" would change.

Remember when Mind Twist was good?  Balance?

[honestabe]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?

What?  What meta is this?  God that sounds awful.  Try: in a meta where your opponent is playing spells.

Just pointing out that Force of Will isn't "good" in a vacuum.  Dredge appears to be under-represented in most metas.  If this were corrected, your estimation of what's "good" would change.

Remember when Mind Twist was good?  Balance?

I didn't plat Vintage back then, but I can't help but think Fow was still good

[Troy_Costisick]

I won a tournament game one vs dredge by playing Entomb into Stormtide Leviathan. True story.

Which is why you have the word "Adept" under your name

Probably qualifies me for "madman" more than Adept.  Now, doing it turn one, on the play, against Sam Berse's MUD - that might be Adept-esque  

FWIW, I really like what Brian did with Nihil Spellbomb main.  I've been boarding a 1x in vs. Will decks for quite a while, but never had the cojones to play it main.  Card's really good.  Playing 2x main is why he's an Adept!

Yeah, and think about all the other main-deck cards people could play against Dredge but don't seem to be as much: Wasteland, Strip Mine, Magus of the Moon, Scavenging Ooze, or Echoing Truth.  I think it's the lack of these cards in the meta that are also allowing Dredge to win.

[voltron00x]

Agreed,  a quick Magus is usually game over.

[Smmenen]

When Brian shared an initial draft of this article, I noted by disagreement with his conclusions, and expressed criticism over the reasoning in this article.    

Throughout this article, Brian describes those exchanges.  I am disappointed that Brian decided to report on the contents of an exchange made in a private forum.  Not only that, Brian repeatedly misrepresents my views.

I've decided to set the record straight with a full length article response: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43364.0

The answer to the article title, is Vintage Too Fast?  No.  Vintage is as slow as its been in years, and the metagame is as deep and varied as ever.  The policy recommendations Brian advances are (IMO) irresponsible, and would harm Vintage far more than help.  It's pretty clear that most Vintage players disagree with his position, and hopefully my article provides an alternative point of view.

[nataz]

Why is it okay that FOW in every deck is OK, but ravenous trap isn't?

Because FoW is a good card and ravenous trap isn't.....

In a meta where you're the only "blue" deck and everyone else is on Dredge?

What?  What meta is this?  God that sounds awful.  Try: in a meta where your opponent is playing spells.

Just pointing out that Force of Will isn't "good" in a vacuum.  Dredge appears to be under-represented in most metas.  If this were corrected, your estimation of what's "good" would change.

Remember when Mind Twist was good?  Balance?

I didn't plat Vintage back then, but I can't help but think Fow was still good

And duck gets a cookie. Abe, you are missing the point.

[honestabe]

My point is, Spells are the fundemental of how we play Magic.  Force of Will is arguably the best card at stopping spells.  As long as spells are good, Force is good.

[diopter]

Was it extended or legacy that had a competitive 43 land.deck. Fundamentally, magic is about cards. Many are spells. Some are abilities. Some are lands with abilities.

Its actually really selfish for a player who wants the format to be "fun" to continue to believe that their zero mana spell should be able to answer everything.

[Troy_Costisick]

Was it extended or legacy that had a competitive 43 land.deck.

Both, I think.

[Delha]

For all of these reasons, yes, I think Vintage is more interactive.

Reponded here to avoid derail.

We do mean different things by PLE, but I'm happy to use another term so I'm not stepping on toes.

This is a pefect example of why I give you so much crap. You still refuse to accept that your usage of PLE is flat out wrong. As a clearly established term (by WOTC no less) there is a set meaning. Even with this the single most relevant authority against you, you dance around it and act as if your use of a different term is a kindness on your part, an accomodation being made for the sole purpose of not offending my sensibilities. By saying "we mean different things", you are pretending that both interpretations are equally valid, when yours has already been proven to be incorrect. I'd respect you a lot more (and treat you accordingly) if you weren't so hellbent on maintaining your stance beyond the point of reasonable debate. Ignorance (my own included) grates on me, and willful ignorance doubly so. You said earlier that you don't understand why I'm so hostile. Hopefully this clears that up a bit.

...Call it "anti-degeneracy bias."  That is, if the Oracle has a choice of different defensible interpretations of an older card - like Lotus Vale - then there is a bias in favor of the interpretation that is not degenerate.  Mr. Tebek admitted this is exactly what is going on with Vale - the text approach is certainly possible, but not used out of concerns for degeneracy. This is also at work when DCI is looking at the Banned and Restricted List, in a more overt way.  Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for the game is not what I'm getting at here.

First, your claim that power level is the key determining factor when multiple interpretations exist is refuted by cases where functionality errata was implemented to restore lost power to cards rather. Look at how Substance affected Armor of Thorns as an example. Second, please show me where Tabak said that the textualist approach was nixed for Lotus Vale (and that the errata remains in place today) specifically for power reasons. Third, Tabak appears to have been rather inconsistent about adhering to the policies instituted before he took over. His views may well reflect a new direction the Rules Teams is taking (which appears to unfortunately consist of arbitrary case-by-case decisions rather than a structured consistent approach), but they do not appear to represent the long standing approaches of his predecessors, and certainly not the player base.

(1) I suggest everyone including WotC has an anti-degeneracy bias, perhaps not conciously and perhaps for very good reason;
(2) This bias suggests that, all else being equal, a card will be interpreted in a non-degenerate way; and
(3) This bias also suggests that even Vintage has a tolerance for degeneracy, of which the Power 9 consume most.

1. Yes, that bias exists. Yes, it is for a good reason. However, this wasn't the point you were making initially. You said that the reason Bazaar was getting attention was because of "plain and simple institutional bias in favor of the Alpha power and against more recent decks of similar power level". By that logic, these same people should be pushing for Workshops to get restricted as well.

2. This is irrelevant. The interpretation of new cards is deliberately thought out by development, there is no need to interpret them. The official stated criteria for errata is based on maintaining original functionality. That context inherently creates differrences from card to card (since different cards generally don't do the same thing).

3. Vintage indisputably has a tolerance for degeneracy. It comes with the territory when one of the principles is that this is the format where "you can play with all your cards". The second half of your point however, is an unjustified leap in logic and betrays a fundamentally unsound approach. There is no justification for your claim that P9 somehow consumes the bulk of this tolerancy. There is not a collective reserve which is somehow depleted as powerful cards enter the format. Having Mishra's Workshop available does not mean the format is somehow less tolerant of Ancestral or Time Walk.

Tolerance is expressed on a deck/archetype level, as can be easily seen by the number of times Drain as a pillar has been weakened. Lotus and the Moxen DO indeed interact with most decks, and in this sense limit the additional degeneracy a given deck can have before being considered problematic, but as you stated yourself, the deck that started this whole discussion does not abuse these staples in the same way most Vintage decks do.

[nataz]

Was it extended or legacy that had a competitive 43 land.deck. Fundamentally, magic is about cards. Many are spells. Some are abilities. Some are lands with abilities.

Its actually really selfish for a player who wants the format to be "fun" to continue to believe that their zero mana spell should be able to answer everything.

yay, diopter gets it also.