[Free Article] Is "Vintage Too Fast" or in a Golden Age? SMIP

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=2333

Brian DeMars recently penned an article titled ‘Is Vintage Too Fast?‘ While the article is framed as a question, it doesn’t take a psychic to guess at the author’s answer. Brian forcefully argues that Vintage is too fast, and that the DCI should restrict Bazaar of Baghdad and Gush to slow it down.

Although Brian’s article is well written (from a rhetorical and literary perspective), and entertaining, ultimately his argument is poorly conceived, badly reasoned, and, most importantly, factually wrong.  It’s the former attributes that give it the patina of credibility and the superficial appearance of insight, when the opposite is true. As Matt Elias observed, ‘I have no doubt that your heart is in the right place, but [your article] is consistently incorrect.’

Not only is Vintage arguably slower than it has been in years, the format is more amazingly diverse, rich and deep, with more design options than ever and a rapidly evolving metagame. Far from being too fast, available tournament data suggests that this is arguably the best Vintage metagame ever. By creating a false impression of the format, Brian misleads his readers into believing that the format requires drastic, irresponsible changes to solve non-existent problems. In fact, Brian’s restriction proposals would make Vintage a significantly less diverse and dynamic format.

Not only is Brian conclusion wrong on the facts , his reasoning is flawed. Brian’s argument is based on three main points. Only one of these points supports his conclusion that the format is faster. The other two legs of his argument not only fail to support his argument regarding the speed of the format or his policy recommendations, but are factually wrong and misleading.

My article explains why....

[forests failed you]

Sell another copy of "Understanding Gush," and tell me about the "Golden Age" age of Vintage.

If you feel that Steve has an ulterior motive for his position, I think you would be better served pointing to holes in his reasoning/logic/argument or defending your own reasoning that Steve disagrees with. As it stands this is just a personal attack on Steve and is unacceptable. Full warning Issued.
-MM

[Smmenen]

No one can look at the Waterbury Top 8 and the Vintage Champs Top 8 and not say that Vintage is amazingly diverse.

The Waterbury Top 8 was about as diverse as you can possibly get with Oath, Dday, Dredge, Shop Aggro, Bobs, Snapcasters, Jaces, etc!.  Even Bob TPS made top 8!  

The Vintage Champs Top 8 was also amazing, featuring Workshop Aggro, Worldgorger Combo, Dredge, Painter Control, BUG Fish, 1 Gush Storm, and 2 Gush/Bob.

And no one can look at the metagame shifts, including the changes brought by Innistrad, and say that Vintage isn't dynamic at the moment either, constantly evolving.  

It's incredible that with Vintage tournament results suggesting an amazing and varied format, with tons of viable strategies, that you would ask the DCI to dramatically reverse all that.  I can't think of a more interesting, diverse, or interactive period in modern Vintage history.   Time Vault seems to have ebbed, and aside from BSC, the format is about as rich as its ever been.  

But, as I said in the article:

Brian repeatedly cites his Waterbury experience as a negative one, and formative in terms of the development of the ideas for his article. Yet, I think the Waterbury results exemplify just why Vintage is so amazing right now. Take a moment to hop over and review the Top 8 decklists .

This is one of the most incredibly diverse Top 8s I have ever seen. Look at the distribution of decks:
1 Oath
1 Dredge
1 Workshop
1 Doomsday
1 Tezzeret Control
1 Confidant TPS
1 Snapcaster Control
1 Confidant/Snapcaster Aggro Control

By almost any perspective, this is about as healthy as Vintage can get. Just look at the spread of strategies! You have decks trying to achieve totally different goals. But it’s not just the strategic or archetype diversity, it’s also the diversity of pillars and tactics. You have Drains, Workshops, Gush, Bazaars, and even Dark Rituals represented! Perhaps the best part is that the two non-Blue decks were the finalists!

Within the Blue decks, you have Oath, Dark Confidant, Snapcaster Mage, Gush, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Fact or Fiction, Tezzeret the Seeker, and even Nights Whisper represented as sources of card advantage! The tactical diversity is even more impressive. You have Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, Thoughtseize, Duress, Spell Pierce, Mana Drain, Red Elemental Blast, etc., all vying for spots, which underscores the options and current health of the format.

[MaximumCDawg]

You two are arguing about slightly different things; I think you're equivocating on the use of term "fast."  That's not suprising, since you both recognize it's hard to define.

But, does Diverse = Healthy?  Is being able to spend 100 hours exploring your options for brewing a deck the goal?  Or is there something else about actually playing that should be maximized?  Is there a limit to how much degeneracy a format can withstand and still be considered healthy and fun?  How SHOULD you measure this?

[Shock Wave]

No one can look at the Waterbury Top 8 and the Vintage Champs Top 8 and not say that Vintage is amazingly diverse.

The Waterbury Top 8 was about as diverse as you can possibly get with Oath, Dday, Dredge, Shop Aggro, Bobs, Snapcasters, Jaces, etc!.  Even Bob TPS made top 8!  

The Vintage Champs Top 8 was also amazing, featuring Workshop Aggro, Worldgorger Combo, Dredge, Painter Control, BUG Fish, 1 Gush Storm, and 2 Gush/Bob.

And no one can look at the metagame shifts, including the changes brought by Innistrad, and say that Vintage isn't dynamic at the moment either, constantly evolving.  

It's incredible that with Vintage tournament results suggesting an amazing and varied format, with tons of viable strategies, that you would ask the DCI to dramatically reverse all that.  I can't think of a more interesting, diverse, or interactive period in modern Vintage history.   Time Vault seems to have ebbed, and aside from BSC, the format is about as rich as its ever been.

Could we not argue that in the Flash metagame of 2007, the metagame was also diverse, Vintage was blooming, dynamic, evolving, and so on... ? For example, here is the Top 8 from 2007:

GAT
GAT
GWS Pitch Long
Ichorid
Landstill
Staxless Stax
Bob Tendrils
Supreme Stax

It could be argued that despite the diversity of the Top 8 above, there was still the need for a restriction to be made. Notice that Flash was not even present in the Top 8, yet it was still heavily played in the field and extremely powerful.

In fact, I see a striking similiarity between the 2007 metagame and the current metagame, in that there exists an extremely powerful deck, capable of consistently winning the game in the first few turns in degenerate fashion.

[bisamratte]

There is a mistake in the "fast-check". Bazaar of Moxen is in France, not in Spain.

I think your are right with your argumentation. In my opinion, Vintage is very heatly with all it's decks at the moment.

[Smmenen]

There is a mistake in the "fast-check". Bazaar of Moxen is in France, not in Spain.

I think your are right with your argumentation. In my opinion, Vintage is very heatly with all it's decks at the moment.

jaco inserted that into my article.  I knew the BoM was not inSpain.

[credmond]

No one can look at the Waterbury Top 8 and the Vintage Champs Top 8 and not say that Vintage is amazingly diverse.

The Waterbury Top 8 was about as diverse as you can possibly get with Oath, Dday, Dredge, Shop Aggro, Bobs, Snapcasters, Jaces, etc!.  Even Bob TPS made top 8!  

The Vintage Champs Top 8 was also amazing, featuring Workshop Aggro, Worldgorger Combo, Dredge, Painter Control, BUG Fish, 1 Gush Storm, and 2 Gush/Bob.

And no one can look at the metagame shifts, including the changes brought by Innistrad, and say that Vintage isn't dynamic at the moment either, constantly evolving.  

It's incredible that with Vintage tournament results suggesting an amazing and varied format, with tons of viable strategies, that you would ask the DCI to dramatically reverse all that.  I can't think of a more interesting, diverse, or interactive period in modern Vintage history.   Time Vault seems to have ebbed, and aside from BSC, the format is about as rich as its ever been.  

But, as I said in the article:

Brian repeatedly cites his Waterbury experience as a negative one, and formative in terms of the development of the ideas for his article. Yet, I think the Waterbury results exemplify just why Vintage is so amazing right now. Take a moment to hop over and review the Top 8 decklists .

This is one of the most incredibly diverse Top 8s I have ever seen. Look at the distribution of decks:
1 Oath
1 Dredge
1 Workshop
1 Doomsday
1 Tezzeret Control
1 Confidant TPS
1 Snapcaster Control
1 Confidant/Snapcaster Aggro Control

By almost any perspective, this is about as healthy as Vintage can get. Just look at the spread of strategies! You have decks trying to achieve totally different goals. But it’s not just the strategic or archetype diversity, it’s also the diversity of pillars and tactics. You have Drains, Workshops, Gush, Bazaars, and even Dark Rituals represented! Perhaps the best part is that the two non-Blue decks were the finalists!

Within the Blue decks, you have Oath, Dark Confidant, Snapcaster Mage, Gush, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Fact or Fiction, Tezzeret the Seeker, and even Nights Whisper represented as sources of card advantage! The tactical diversity is even more impressive. You have Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, Thoughtseize, Duress, Spell Pierce, Mana Drain, Red Elemental Blast, etc., all vying for spots, which underscores the options and current health of the format.

Perhaps Brian should have focused his article on the question "Is Vintage too Warped?"

How you categorize the tournament results is key to analyzing the results. I take issue with your categorization scheme. With different categories we come up with strikingly different and far more telling results.

What about this listing?

6 Blue "Uber" decks with Tinker, Will, Vault and the following fourth path to victory: 1 with Oath, 1 with Doomsday, 1 with Tezzeret, 1 with Confidant TPS, 1 with Snapcaster, and 1 with Confidant and Snapcaster
1 Dredge
1 Workshop

Dredge and Workshop are distinct enough from one another to be considered separate species. Fish, which didn't make it into the top 8 is also distinct enough to be considered a separate species. But in the blue category we are really only seeing variants on the same species - basically a shifting around of a few cards to support a fourth path to victory. In fact if you track the success of this blue "Uber" species over the years you will tell a different story. One of monopoly coming from the strategic dominance of Tinker, Will, and Vault.

The enduring narrative over the years has been Blue "Uber" vs everything else. The silly one-sidedness of that narrative is great part of what alienates players who would otherwise play Type 1.

[Troy_Costisick]

Good article, Stephen.  One of the most diverse things about Vintage right now is the diverse numbers of ways you can die:

1. You can die from poison counters (BSC)
2. You can die from regular ol' damage (Bob, Clique, Golem, Snappy, Goyf, Emraukul, etc)
3. You can die from losing all your life (Tendrils)
4. You can die from getting decked (Helm of the Void combo)
5. You can die when your opponent decks himself! (Maniac combo)

That's five different lines of attack you have to prepare for in a tournament.  To me, that's pretty esciting and very reminiscent of the Golden Age that ended in 2008.

Peace,

-Troy

[JACO]

There is a mistake in the "fast-check". Bazaar of Moxen is in France, not in Spain.

I think your are right with your argumentation. In my opinion, Vintage is very heatly with all it's decks at the moment.

jaco inserted that into my article.  I knew the BoM was not inSpain.

No where in the article does it say Bazaar of Moxen is in Spain; in fact it says it's in France. From the article:

"across the ocean at the Eternal Weekend 2011 in Spain, there was one Dredge deck in the Top 8, while the Bazaar of Moxen 2011 in France (the biggest Vintage tournament of the year anywhere) had two Dredge decks in the Top 8"

Thank you for reading though!

[diopter]

I was a fool not to see it. When I was Gushing into Jaces on turn 3 to set up my poor man's Necro, I could have just instead been first turn Confidanting to get incremental resource advantages. Same difference.

Alternatively if I just scratched my balls and did nothing for 2-3 turns until blue Regrowths started doing whatever it is they do for me, that would have been the same too. It's all the same gameplan these days. Play blue... ??? ... Win.

To fix it let's restrict and ban a whole bunch of stuff ("surgical edit!") until Mana Drain into game-winning bomb is top dog again.

[Smmenen]

You two are arguing about slightly different things; I think you're equivocating on the use of term "fast."  That's not suprising, since you both recognize it's hard to define.

Brian doesn't define "speed" (at least, in his article), but I DO.

Re-read my article or read it more carefully.   Look at the section header "Defining Speed."

But, does Diverse = Healthy?  Is being able to spend 100 hours exploring your options for brewing a deck the goal?  Or is there something else about actually playing that should be maximized?  Is there a limit to how much degeneracy a format can withstand and still be considered healthy and fun?  How SHOULD you measure this?

Fun in Magic boils down to one key concept:  MEANINGFUL CHOICE.

If players don't have meaningful deck options, a format isn't fun.  

Similarly, if players don't have meaningful chances to interact -- to have their decisions influence game outcomes -- a format isn't fun.  This is why people don't like games that end on the first or second turn.

I believe that Vintage scores very well on both aspects.  While Dredge forces players to interact in a different way, the format right now is EXTREMELY interactive.  If people don't think Dredge is interactive, go watch the Vintage Championship Finals video.  

Brian takes great issue with the spate of recent free spells like Mental Misstep.  

But, as I take great pains explain in this article, spells like Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, Mindbreak Trap and Force of Will  make the format more interactive, not less.  They increase the opportunities for meaningful choice, not reduce them.

Formats that don't have meaningful choice in terms of in-game decision making or deck choice are not fun.   Vintage features plenty of both.  

 To me, that's pretty esciting and very reminiscent of the Golden Age that ended in 2008.

I agree with what you said except that I perhaps made a mistake calling the previous Gush era a golden age.  While there was alot of strategic diversity, most Top 8 decks were Gush decks or Workshops.   There were about 10% drains, almost not Rituals, and Bob and Jace hadn't seen print.

What about this listing?

6 Blue "Uber" decks with Tinker, Will, Vault and the following fourth path to victory: 1 with Oath, 1 with Doomsday, 1 with Tezzeret, 1 with Confidant TPS, 1 with Snapcaster, and 1 with Confidant and Snapcaster
1 Dredge
1 Workshop

The Dday deck has neither Tinker nor Key/Vault.  

But, the thing is, what you talk about is true, except that this is the reality with a restricted, rather than banned list.

Please do not turn this into a discussion (as you have every other thread) as to whether cards should be banned in Vintage.  The DCI has made it clear that that is not their current policy, and I do not think it's fruitful to discuss that; so I will not.

I will say this:

The fundamental construction of Vintage is such that with Alpha Dual lands and Onslaught Fetchlands, almost every deck in the format WILL be blue.  This is because it is too easy to run 3-4 colors and have a stable mana base.  Running more colors gives you more card options, and the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.   And, because cards like Ancestral, TIme Walk, and Tinker are so easy to splash, most decks that can, will.

Consequently, blue is dominant in Vintage and always will be as long as dual lands & fetchlands exist, and as long as there is no banned list.   You're barking up the wrong tree.  People who can't tolerate blue being the dominant color in a format won't enjoy Vintage anyway.

Also, to conflate Snapcaster decks, Bob/Jace decks, Oath decks, and all of the Gush decks into one category is a big mistake.   Snapcaster decks are as different from Gush decks as Gush decks are from Oath.

In fact, I see a striking similiarity between the 2007 metagame and the current metagame, in that there exists an extremely powerful deck, capable of consistently winning the game in the first few turns in degenerate fashion.

Rich, all due respect, you have also basically supported every single restriction that has been debated for years now.  Heck, I remember you opposing the unrestriction of Mind Twist.   No offense, but what was the last tournament you played in?  

There is a tremendous difference between Flash and Dredge.   Dredge is an easily defeated deck if you just run a sufficient amount of SB hate.  Flash was a deck that could beat all hate by turn 2.  

One of the most misleading things that is being parroted is that Dredge is a combo decks that wins by turn two.   Watch the Vintage Championship finals, and no one can say that that is true.  

One of the great disservices of Brian's article is the negative perception of the format it propagated.

People who already dislike Vintage or held negative stereotyped opinions of it, had their views validated.   People who were distant from Vintage, found in his article justification for their non-involvement.  

There are alot of chatroom enthusiasts who don't compete in Vintage tournaments, and Brian's article definitely found a following among them.  And his article has given voice to their disenchantment.  

[MaximumCDawg]

You two are arguing about slightly different things; I think you're equivocating on the use of term "fast."  That's not suprising, since you both recognize it's hard to define.

Brian doesn't define "speed" (at least, in his article), but I DO.

Re-read my article or read it more carefully.   Look at the section header "Defining Speed."

I did and you did.  I don't think Brian is using "speed" to mean the same thing you do.  He seems to be going more for a definition of speed that includes "degeneracy" or some other idea of things just being too broken, too automatic, too hard to recover from or react to.  That's a mushy definition because he left it mushy.

Mushy or not, though, he's talking about something you don't directly address in your article.  That's the concept of how much broken crap we let happen in a format.  Mind you, Steve, I AGREE with you on this issue and I think he's doing a good Chicken Little impression.  I like the measurement of format success by player choice.  But, I think you're not joining horns with him on what he really cares about.  He may have a different idea of what choices are meaningful.  Heck, maybe I'm wrong, he's here and he can speak for himself.

[Troy_Costisick]

I did and you did.  I don't think Brian is using "speed" to mean the same thing you do.  He seems to be going more for a definition of speed that includes "degeneracy" or some other idea of things just being too broken, too automatic, too hard to recover from or react to.  That's a mushy definition because he left it mushy.

Then why don't we let him define it for himself instead of speculating on what he meant.

I agree with what you said except that I perhaps made a mistake calling the previous Gush era a golden age.  While there was alot of strategic diversity, most Top 8 decks were Gush decks or Workshops.   There were about 10% drains, almost not Rituals, and Bob and Jace hadn't seen print.

Indeed.  If the current diversity persists (always a big if) then even I, the biggest champion of the 2007-2008 era, will have to concede that this era is even more diverse and dynamic than the last one.  And I will do so most happily.

Peace,

-Troy

[Smmenen]

You two are arguing about slightly different things; I think you're equivocating on the use of term "fast."  That's not suprising, since you both recognize it's hard to define.

Brian doesn't define "speed" (at least, in his article), but I DO.

Re-read my article or read it more carefully.   Look at the section header "Defining Speed."

I did and you did.  I don't think Brian is using "speed" to mean the same thing you do.  He seems to be going more for a definition of speed that includes "degeneracy" or some other idea of things just being too broken, too automatic, too hard to recover from or react to.  That's a mushy definition because he left it mushy.

Mushy or not, though, he's talking about something you don't directly address in your article.  That's the concept of how much broken crap we let happen in a format.  

This is one of the criticisms of I have of Brian's article.   

Not only does he fail to define speed (a vital concept given his claim/article title), but he does so in a very counter-intuitive way.   That's why I canvass the ways that people would ordinarily understand speed (e.g. 1) Turns, 2) Clock Time, 3) Meaningful Turns). 

His peculiar definition of speed, which has more to do with his concerns about Interaction than it does even turns, is one of the key reasons I find his article so misleading.   

Brian articulates his thesis in the other thread:

"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."

As I said in my article:

My reading is that what Brian ultimately objects to is the pressure he feels to run more and more free countermagic to compete on the stack. He then feels that if he doesn’t do so, opponents will be more likely to resolve early game broken spells. While they may or may not be the case, that doesn’t mean he’s right that Vintage is faster. The spells he cites as speeding up Vintage are actually slowing it down. I’d rather have a format with Force of Will, Mental Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Mindbreak Trap than one without them. These cards mean more opportunity to interact, not less.

And I go on to talk about this more...

[MaximumCDawg]

Yes, but whether Brian's complaint about free counterspells makes the format faster or not (using your definition of fast) is different from asking whether free counterspells makes the format "too broke, too automatic, too hard to recover from or react to."  I mean, your article defines speed and then basically attacks Brian for misleading people by using speed to me the previous quote.  Fine and dandy, but what about the actual merits of what Brian is trying to say?  Is there merit to the idea that the particular kind of interaction bred by free counterspells (or other resource skipping) is bad for the format in some way?

From where I sit, this interaction is what makes Vintage Vintage, and it is why I play the format in the first place.  But, I think you could defend the issue better than I could, and this whole "speed" concept is potentially a distraction from the real issue motivating Brian's article.  I deal with pro se litigants (and crappy opposing counsel) on a pretty regular basis, and one of the critical things I have to do is get through the crap and figure out what the real issue is on any given pleading.  I feel like you've filed a Motion to Dismiss based on procedural issues and really don't want to talk about the merits of the Complaint, even though that might lead to a more final and more productive Order, if that analogy makes more sense.

Put another way: why does resource skipping make Vintage special and fun?

[meadbert]

I like your analytical style of thinking!

[Smmenen]

Yes, but whether Brian's complaint about free counterspells makes the format faster or not (using your definition of fast) is different from asking whether free counterspells makes the format "too broke, too automatic, too hard to recover from or react to."  I mean, your article defines speed and then basically attacks Brian for misleading people by using speed to me the previous quote.

Yes, but it doesn't stop there.  I go on to address the other points, by talking about how the presence of these free spells, like Mental Misstep & Gush, slows down the format, rather than speeds it up.   I didn't feel it was appropriate to restate that here, since that's the main body of my article.

Fine and dandy, but what about the actual merits of what Brian is trying to say?  Is there merit to the idea that the particular kind of interaction bred by free counterspells (or other resource skipping) is bad for the format in some way?

Again, I talk about how -- while it's true that free counterspells can speed up games -- they just as often slow down games.   As I said, otherwise banning Force of Will would slow down the format.  

In a sense, your questions ask me to restate my article.

One of the things I didn't mention in the article, though, is that playing cards for free doesn't mean there are not resources being spent.  Playing Mental Misstep does reduce your hand size by a card.  Same with Mindbreak Trap.

[forests failed you]

The top 8 of the Modern PT in Philadelphia was diverse, so does that mean that Cloudpost wasn't oppressive?

I had a conversation with Chapin while we were testing for Pro Tour Philadelphia.  After about five minutes of testing the format it became very clear that Cloudpost strategies were obnoxiously powerful and that their mere existence was going to warp everything around the fact that they existed.  I said:  "Why is this reasonable to exist, it is obviously way overpowered?  If it is so obviously warping to us after three games how could they miss this?"  And he said:  "Something had to be the best and every card deserves its chance to shine.  This is Cloudpost's moment to be the best and after they event they'll ban it."

I feel as though this scenerio is largely applicable to Bazaar, and especially Gush.  They have had their moment to shine and demonstrated that they are better than everything else and won events, but at what point is it time to move on?

Speak of the devil, I just got off the phone after having a long conversation with Chapin about my article and playing Vintage in general. 

He drew a comparison between my trigectory as a Magic player and his own, in the sense that there was once a time where he placed a high value on being the best at Type 1 and cared that the format was healthy, balanced, and playable format.  He also suggested that perhaps more than Vintage changing, what had actually changed was me and my perception of what is acceptable in Magic and what happens in Vintage as a result of playing professional level Magic at a high level for the past year.  He said that me trying to convince people who didn't want to accept that Gush was too good now, was basically the same useless battle that he argued a decade ago when Gush was too good.

Chapin asked me: "Why do you even play Vintage anymore, now that you actually know what the joke is?"  I said:   "Because Black Lotus exists, and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend so much time playing Magic and never play with the best cards!  Nostalgia?  Love of the game?"  There is nothing else like it in all of Magic, playing with cards that are clearly too good for constructed play, and sleaving up the physical copy of a Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall that has been cast thousands of times over the course of almost two decades. 

Chapin also made another interesting point when I was talking to him, he said:  "I understand how you feel, wanting to apply everything you have learned about Magic and play Vintage at a similarly high level, but trying to reconcile what it means to play at a high level in a format where Blightsteel Colossus exists.  After all, I was in your position when they printed Yawgmoth's Will..."

Perhaps I am wrong to assume that players, exemplified by the Mattendien braintrust, see the same kind of value in trying to create balance in Vintage; or maybe it is false to assume that creating balance is even possible in a format where Black Lotus is legal.  I 100% stand behind the critique I made of Vintage, understanding that my assumpion of what I sought to accomplish was to create a Vintage meta-game less oppressed by linear strategies that are stupidly good and give decks more opportunities and more variety in answering one card combos, a line of arguementation that presumes a player would want to play games where the decisions they make significantly impact games more than the cards they draw in their opening hand.  I don't doubt that Steven disagrees with me, as I don't believe he has enough experience playing non-vintage Magic to understand why I take issue with elements of Vintage I find unsatisfactory. 

Maybe I have outgrown Vintage and the fanboy attitude of "Vintage is supposed to be broken, so if you don't like it play Legacy."  And maybe I will, just like everybody else did...

[Troy_Costisick]

The top 8 of the Modern PT in Philadelphia was diverse, so does that mean that Cloudpost wasn't oppressive?

First off, yes it does mean it wasn't oppressive and second (and more importantly) what happened to Modern after they banned Cloudpost?  What happened to the Modern Daily events on MTGO?  What happened to the local support?  What happened to the number of articles written each week on SCG and CFB about Modern?  If you're going to hold up the banning announcement of Sept 2011 for Modern as a model of what you want to have happen to Vintage, then I'm out from the get-go.  That announcment killed the format, drove a stake through its heart, stuffed garlic in its mouth, and then chopped off its head.  If the tournament schedule weren't forcing people to play Modern at Worlds and the upcoming PTQ season, the format would have nose-dived into oblivion faster than Extended did when they turned it into DoubleStandard.  I can't think of a more frightening example of what can happen to a format with an over-active DCI than what has happened to Modern.  That is certainly NOT what I want to happen to Vintage.

[MaximumCDawg]

@Steve - As far as I can tell, your article addresses the speed issue, then goes on to say that free counterspells slow the format down and that diversity is at an all time high.  There isn't really a discussion about, for example: (1) what makes something broken or degenerate; (2) whether it is good or bad for the format to have the level of brokenness we do have; (2) why the current format is better than a new hypothetical format, etc.  These questions are important because...

@Brian - ...this gentleman is clearly complaining about the dominance of particular broken cards and interactions moreso than the actual speed of the format.  But, Brian, have you stopped to really think precisely about what is causing your grief over the format?  It really isn't "speed" in any real sense; Steve demolishes that idea pretty thorougly.  You use the word "oppressive" now.  Sure, there's a category of a few hundred Vintage playables out of ten thousand cards, but that seems like a bizzare definition of oppressive.  Are you just annoyed that you feel like one or two particular engines are objectively the best, so you can't innovate?  That doesn't seem supported by the data.  

Put another way, why do you think you cannot play at a high level in a format where Blightsteel exists?  What is it about having to pack answers for Dredge in order to play the rock-paper-sissors game that turns you off?  Do you really just feel like competitive Vintage is simply determined by opening hands?  Cuz I sure dont.

At the end of the day, if you like Vintage for Vintage's sake and don't want to deal with the hypercompetitive stuff, come play with us in Colorado.  Even the powered players enjoy weekly poopdeck Vintage sanctioned, and you wouldn't believe the crap we come up with.  We'll welcome you

[Smmenen]

Perhaps I am wrong to assume that players, exemplified by the Mattendien braintrust, see the same kind of value in trying to create balance in Vintage; or maybe it is false to assume that creating balance is even possible in a format where Black Lotus is legal.

Brian,

I think that you fundamentally misunderstand my position and my critique of your article.   I actually want the same things you do: I want a format that is diverse, dynamic, and interactive. As I've said several times now (both here and in private), everyone wants a format where the decisions they make influence game outcomes.  Of course I don't want a format where the opponent can just play something broken, protect it, and win the game.  That would be bad.

Where I take issue -- and what I disagree with -- is your assertion that Vintage has slid into a format where this is the case more often than it was in the recent past.  In fact, all of the available evidence points in the opposite direction.  You  point to cards like Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, and Gush as cards that make the format so.   Rather than making it faster, these cards have made the format slower.  That's why Landstill is winning tournaments.  

Vintage is slower, not faster, than it has been in recent years.  And, what's more,the format is as diverse and interactive as its ever been.  There are more opportunities than ever to interact, thanks to the printings and B&R list policy you decry.  The one exception is BSC.  

 I 100% stand behind the critique I made of Vintage, understanding that my assumpion of what I sought to accomplish was to create a Vintage meta-game less oppressed by linear strategies that are stupidly good and give decks more opportunities and more variety in answering one card combos, a line of arguementation that presumes a player would want to play games where the decisions they make significantly impact games more than the cards they draw in their opening hand.  

I don't doubt that Steven disagrees with me, as I don't believe he has enough experience playing non-vintage Magic to understand why I take issue with elements of Vintage I find unsatisfactory.  

I actually I completely agree with you; what I disagree with is the idea that this is the case in Vintage.  

As I said, "I’d rather have a format with Force of Will, Mental Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Mindbreak Trap than one without them. These cards mean more opportunity to interact, not less"

Chapin asked me: "Why do you even play Vintage anymore, now that you actually know what the joke is?"  I said:   "Because Black Lotus exists, and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend so much time playing Magic and never play with the best cards!  Nostalgia?  Love of the game?"  There is nothing else like it in all of Magic, playing with cards that are clearly too good for constructed play, and sleaving up the physical copy of a Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall that has been cast thousands of times over the course of almost two decades.

Chapin also made another interesting point when I was talking to him, he said:  "I understand how you feel, wanting to apply everything you have learned about Magic and play Vintage at a similarly high level, but trying to reconcile what it means to play at a high level in a format where Blightsteel Colossus exists.  After all, I was in your position when they printed Yawgmoth's Will..."

The reality is that we live with a Restricted List, not a Banned list.

As a consequence, Vintage has an inherent speed that a certain segment of the Magic population will always find unacceptable.  There will be games where the opponent just 'goes broken.'  The reason the format produces tournament results where stronger players consistently outperform weaker players is because tournament points are scored by matches, not individual games.   Matches are decided by skill, even if some individual games are decided by luck.   This is true of non-Vintage formats as well.  

Far from simply having observed non-Vintage formats in the last year, I would say that the opposite is the problem.  You just haven't played enough Vintage recently.  You've played in a record low number of Vintage tournaments this year.  

I personally observed much of your Vintage tournament preparation this year.   You hadn't played in a Vintage tournament in months, and then played in the Sunday Gencon Vintage tournament and went, what, 1-3?  

Then, you didn't do any testing whatsoever until the very night before the Waterbury, brewed your deck up in the middle of the night, and then were disappointed with the results?  By your own admission you told me you have no one to test with.     Alot of what's been driving your distaste for the format, and prompted this article -- by your own admissions -- was your Waterbury experience.  

Before the Vintage Champs, I played in two tournaments where I got destroyed (Team Serious Open & Meandeck Open in July). Since then, I've top8ed the last 5 tournaments I've played in (Vintage Champs Prelims, Vintage Champs, Team Serious Open, Waterbury, Meandeck Open).  

I don't disagree with you that broken things can happen in Vintage.  Where I part company is the idea that something has changed recently in Vintage, in a negative way.  In fact, I think the opposite has happened: The DCI has carefully unrestricted cards to give players new toys, and new printings have brought about new innovations, making for a dynamic, varied, and diverse format. 

***

I understand that alot of people don't like Dredg, but most of us can distinguish between our personal dislike of Dredge, and what it does for the format.   Dredge does win a ridiculous amount of Game 1s.  But, this is nothing new.  This was the case since 2008.  The fact that Dredge has now won two major Vintage tournaments doesn't make Dredge suddenly more oppressive than it was in 2009.  

More importantly, the dredge match is usually very interactive and skill intensive.  Any one who watches the Vintage Champs finals video can see this.    But restricting Bazaar would be damaging to the diversity of the format.

As I said in the article:

Dredge may have a very good game 1 win percentage against the field, but that is because of the nature of how most decks are built. Blue decks are generally beat to built other Blue decks game 1 (see: Flusterstorm, Red Elemental Blast, and Mental Misstep main deck), and Workshop decks are built to beat Blue decks game 1 (see: a million Sphere of Resistance effects). These decks currently do not have main deck hate for graveyard based strategies generally, so Dredge is a natural predator for these decks game 1. But games 2 and 3 post sideboard are an entirely different story. Virtually every deck in the metagame is capable of defeating Dredge in games 2 and 3 if they are prepared, as there are a ton of different options for fighting graveyard strategies now (many of which can be cast for “free” or using colorless mana). Dredge is hardly a one-card combo deck, and is certainly not some kind of juggernaut. This is all of course moot if people designed their maindeck differently to fight other strategies besides just Blue.

In fact, the arms race that is currently going on in Vintage would reach entirely new levels if Bazaar was restricted. Currently, Blue decks devote large portions of their maindecks for each other, a few cards for the Workshop matchup, with more in the board. The largest remainder of the sideboard is devoted to Dredge. If Dredge were wiped out of the field, 40% of Blue sideboards would be freed up to ratchet up the arms race against each other, making Vintage less diverse, and less interesting.

The presence of Bazaar of Baghdad is a necessary constraint in Vintage and a critical part of the Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic in Vintage. Restricting Bazaar would be Vintage less diverse and a lot more Blue.

It's for those reasons that most Vintage players (80% in the poll I posted) oppose the restriction of Bazaar of Baghdad, even though many of the people who voted that way don't think Dredge is fun to play against!  Vintage players are more sophisticated than you might give them credit for...

[diopter]

I don't find your repeated references to your conversations with Chapin or your professional, high level play at all convincing. As if your successes in other formats and your collaboration with other successful players in other formats makes you an authority in today's Vintage format.

Basically this discussion is happening firmly in the context of a format which does not really resemble any of the other ones due to the presence of fast mana. Add to that the fact that you made your complaint public after an event that you didn't even prepare for until the night before.  Maybe there's a reason more people are agreeing with Steve.

And that's beside the fact that your position when left to stand alone is not defensible.

[Shock Wave]

Rich, all due respect, you have also basically supported every single restriction that has been debated for years now. Heck, I remember you opposing the unrestriction of Mind Twist.   No offense, but what was the last tournament you played in?

I would say that I have supported the majority of calls for restriction (Trinisphere, Flash). I also opposed the unrestriction of Mind Twist and Balance. I also have argued against the restriction of many cards (Mana Drain, Workshop, Bazaar, Dark Ritual). I am not sure what the relevance of your statement is. I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance? I still play Vintage regularly against all the archetypes represented in these large events. Perhaps you mean to suggest that the validity of a question related to Vintage is only relevant if a player has attended X Vintage events within a certain time window?

There is a tremendous difference between Flash and Dredge.   Dredge is an easily defeated deck if you just run a sufficient amount of SB hate.  Flash was a deck that could beat all hate by turn 2.

Really? I see people packing up to 7 cards against Dredge and still losing. Dredge, while less resilient to hate than Flash, is still very difficult to hedge against, specifically because one of the best options against it (Leyline) requires that you mulligan into it. It is not as if you can afford to wait and cast Leyline, so players are forced to continue the mulligan shenanigans until they get their hate piece or just lose almost immediately. There is very little time to actually mount a defence.

One of the most misleading things that is being parroted is that Dredge is a combo decks that wins by turn two.   Watch the Vintage Championship finals, and no one can say that that is true.

I watched the Vintage finals. I watched a match where I saw Paul draw what looked like an unbeatable hand and still lose. To me, that was an example of Dredge's incredible resiliency.

There are alot of chatroom enthusiasts who don't compete in Vintage tournaments, and Brian's article definitely found a following among them.  And his article has given voice to their disenchantment.

I find it arrogant to suggest that Brian's general sentiment (of there being something wrong with Vintage) is supported by unwashed, ignorant chat room enthusiasts, while the Vintage elite look down from their omniscient position and shake their heads. Perhaps that is not what you intended to imply, but that is the way it comes across.

[Smmenen]

I suppose by "last tournament" you mean the last "major tournament"? It's been a while, probably 3 years. Again, what is the relevance?

The relevance is that it takes tournament preparation, focus, and recent experience to get a true handle on the format.   Even people with tremendous experience in the format cannot just jump in and get a true sense of it without swimming for a while.

I watched the Vintage finals. I watched a match where I saw Paul draw what looked like an unbeatable hand and still lose. To me, that was an example of Dredge's incredible resiliency.

No doubt.  But the fact of the matter is that 1) the match went many, many turns, and 2) the outcome of the game was in doubt until the final turn.  

If the argument is that Vintage is too fast, too degenerate or that Dredge is non-interactive, that match proves the opposite.  Both players have plenty of meaningful opportunities to act to influence the game outcomes.   Paul made at least one play error, and, what's more, a decision to skimp on Dredge hate.   I had a Jailer in my SB; Paul didn't. 

There are alot of chatroom enthusiasts who don't compete in Vintage tournaments, and Brian's article definitely found a following among them.  And his article has given voice to their disenchantment.

I find it arrogant to suggest that Brian's general sentiment (of there being something wrong with Vintage) is supported by unwashed, ignorant chat room enthusiasts, while the Vintage elite look down from their omniscient position and shake their heads. Perhaps that is not what you intended to imply, but that is the way it comes across.

That's not at all what I was saying.   What I was saying is that Brian paints a picture of a format from which its easy for people to rationalize their non-engagement with the format on the basis of his sketch.  

[CorwinB]

No where in the article does it say Bazaar of Moxen is in Spain; in fact it says it's in France. From the article:

"across the ocean at the Eternal Weekend 2011 in Spain, there was one Dredge deck in the Top 8, while the Bazaar of Moxen 2011 in France (the biggest Vintage tournament of the year anywhere) had two Dredge decks in the Top 8"

Thank you for reading though!

The article was edited since it was released, I noticed the error when I read it. It's nice that the error was corrected, but don't pretend it wasn't there in the first place.

[Onslaught]

This was a very comforting read, and I hope it gets as much attention/discussion/contemplation as the opposing viewpoint did. Regardless of which side you agree with, you have to admit that both articles are well written and worthy of deep reflection. Ultimately, this kind of lively and respectful discourse can only be a good thing for the format (especially since the DCI's miniscule Vintage resources tend to lead to decisions that appear to be heavily influenced by our community).

Anyway, any other thoughts I have at the moment would just be retreading topics that have already been well covered over the last week. The main point though is that the diversity of blue engines is a really good thing for Vintage, and gives you a lot of flexibility in making "your" own deck. There is so much push and pull between Gush, Bob, Snapcaster, etc. - and in the cases where they overlap they seem to create new interactions entirely instead of just "more and more good stuff." If you were to restrict any of the engines, you would just make the format more homogenized, less diverse, and more predictable - which would compress the tiers and allow for more focused sideboards. That's bad, so let's hope the next Restricted list features a card coming off (Burning Wish) and no cards being added.

[Troy_Costisick]

I don't find your repeated references to your conversations with Chapin or your professional, high level play at all convincing.

Yeah.  If those quotes are true, it sounds like Chapin wishes that Vintage was stuck in 1999 forever.  The format has changed.  It will change further. 

If the argument is that Vintage is too fast, too degenerate or that Dredge is non-interactive, that match proves the opposite.

It seems to me that there are maybe several different things at play that some people aren't liking:

1. They don't like the rise in the number of permission spells in a given deck.
2. They don't like the rise in the number of 0 or 1 mana spells in a given deck.
3. They don't like graveyard based decks.

The thing is, all three of these items are transitory.  Their popularity is going to wax and wane as the meta demands.  I don't see anything here that is degenerate or unhealthy at all.  All I see is an evolving meta.  It's not 1999.  It's not 2009.  It's a whole new thing with many many possiblities.

[diopter]

Like I think Snapcaster Mage is terrible and slow and under-powered but if I'm wrong and it ends up enabling a viable strategy then what else can we say about how good Vintage is? A deck that really does not start its action until turn 3 (sounds like Gush) and consumes a ton of mana (does not sound like Gush), is making top 8 alongside Gush? Vintage is awesome!

[voltron00x]

Perhaps I am wrong to assume that players, exemplified by the Mattendien braintrust

I love this part of your post more than words can explain