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

[MaximumCDawg]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but is Diminishing Returns turn 0, one-sided and zero mana to cast?

Look, the only thing I am really asking for here is that people be brutally honest about the level of power that is wielded by Serum Powder as it manifests itself in manaless Dredge. Really, just describe what the card does in that context. Then do the logical thing.

Besides, Serum Powder doesn't change or alter how dredge interacts. Dredge with or without Powder still abuses the graveyard. It only makes it into a deterministic machine. Free one-sided, turn zero timetwisters tend to do that.

C'mon man, if Powder were really that busted, every list that relies on lots of 4-ofs (fish, dark times) would be packing it just like Dredge does.  It's a crappy waste of 4 slots in your deck.  It goes in Dredge because the deck is so vulnerable - needs one of its 4 ofs or it loses hard.  I love me some slow roll Dredge game one.

People don't complain about Dredge because it's a 'one-card combo' (which it patently isn't).  They complain because they don't like being forced to run graveyard hate to beat it.

Seriously, why is anyone still arguing with this?

[NicolaeAlmighty]

Blah blah blah pointless pointless

Agree to disagree. You keep your opinion, we'll keep ours.

By the way, is Timetwister turn 0, one sided and zero mana to cast? No? Odd. /facepalm

Goodnight, and good luck.

[Onslaught]

Frankly, I'm just so thankful that people are willing to play Dredge at all. Thank you committed Dredge players for punishing blue decks that try to sneak in those extra Mindbreak Traps, Flusterstorms, etc.

Personally, I could never play Dredge myself. I don't like the idea of winning games that weren't attributed to the decisions I made and losing games frequently in the same fashion. That sounds sarcastic, but really I'm just glad that people continue to play Dredge and contribute to the overall health of the format. It is a very, very good thing for our format that Dredge is the "Tax Man" as the recent Vintage Champ's article put it.

[Smmenen]

Personally, I could never play Dredge myself. I don't like the idea of winning games that weren't attributed to the decisions I made and losing games frequently in the same fashion.

Actually, Dredge games are attributable to the decisions that dredge pilots make.  

When playing a blue deck, you are faced with myriad choices: which land to play (Fetch, island, trop, volc, or sea), whether to play a mox or not, when to tutor, what to tutor for, what to put back with Brainstorm, what to shuffle with POnder/Preordain, and what to draw, etc, etc.  

Dredge doesn't feature those choices, but it features a ton of choices that require great skill. Suppose the opponent has Leyline.  You have an active Bazaar, and a 3 card hand.   When do you activate Bazaar, and what to discard?  You have to be very careful when to activate Bazaar because you'll need to discard, and you can't afford to discard key cards, like a Cabal Therapy or a Nature's Claim or a City of Brass.  If you activate it now, and draw a land and play it, when do you activate it again?  And, do you keep Cabal Therapy and Nature's Claim?  Can you afford to give your opponent more turns, or should you try to go for Nature's Claim now or Therapy now and then Claim next turn?  Some Dredge players play a second Bazaar (which is really bad).  These aren't mechanical decisions.  They require judgment about the situation, your opponent's hand, and context.  These are Pro Tour level decisions, imo.  That doesn't even get into things like playing a fetchland, and breaking it when the opponent attacks to block with a Dryad Arbor, or Therapying the opponent and reading the opponent.  

One of the great myths is that Dredge is just mechanical and not skillful.  Playing it optimally requires enormous skill.   The skills are different than manipulating Gushbond engine or Yawg Willing efficiently; but they are just as important.  

[Onslaught]

I'm more than willing to cede the point, as my experience with Dredge matchup is 100% playing against it instead of piloting it myself. I'm also glad that what you outlined is the case, because it means Dredge players are more likely to represent their archetype and continue contributing to an incredibly diverse format.

[Troy_Costisick]

So if you think the Gush/Tinker problem is afflicting Vintage right now to the point where the format is unplayable, check out this top 8 that was just posted: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43395.msg595592;boardseen#new

Granted, it's just a 19 man tournament, but there are NO Gushes and only ONE Tinker in the top 8.  Shall we call the latest dust-up over Vintage "overblown" perhaps?

[MaximumCDawg]

Personally, I could never play Dredge myself. I don't like the idea of winning games that weren't attributed to the decisions I made and losing games frequently in the same fashion.

Actually, Dredge games are attributable to the decisions that dredge pilots make.  

When playing a blue deck, you are faced with myriad choices: which land to play (Fetch, island, trop, volc, or sea), whether to play a mox or not, when to tutor, what to tutor for, what to put back with Brainstorm, what to shuffle with POnder/Preordain, and what to draw, etc, etc.  

Dredge doesn't feature those choices, but it features a ton of choices that require great skill. Suppose the opponent has Leyline.  You have an active Bazaar, and a 3 card hand.   When do you activate Bazaar, and what to discard?  You have to be very careful when to activate Bazaar because you'll need to discard, and you can't afford to discard key cards, like a Cabal Therapy or a Nature's Claim or a City of Brass.  If you activate it now, and draw a land and play it, when do you activate it again?  And, do you keep Cabal Therapy and Nature's Claim?  Can you afford to give your opponent more turns, or should you try to go for Nature's Claim now or Therapy now and then Claim next turn?  Some Dredge players play a second Bazaar (which is really bad).  These aren't mechanical decisions.  They require judgment about the situation, your opponent's hand, and context.  These are Pro Tour level decisions, imo.  That doesn't even get into things like playing a fetchland, and breaking it when the opponent attacks to block with a Dryad Arbor, or Therapying the opponent and reading the opponent.  

One of the great myths is that Dredge is just mechanical and not skillful.  Playing it optimally requires enormous skill.   The skills are different than manipulating Gushbond engine or Yawg Willing efficiently; but they are just as important.  

This would be an awesome and timely topic to examine in detail in your next podcast.  "Six Senarios: Dredge Edition!"

[madmanmike25]

the role that Dredge plays in the format at large: keeping Blue Decks honest

Yup.  It's important to mention that most blue decks, except the recent rise of Landstill, do NOT run five strip effects.  Maindecking five pieces of hate is soooo good, and gets better when you sb more.

Btw, am I the only one who's ever seen Dredge mull to oblivion? Or mull into 2-3 cards....and lose game 1?

Maybe it's a necessary evil, but I think Dredge NEEDS to be in Vintage.

[credmond]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but is Diminishing Returns turn 0, one-sided and zero mana to cast?

Look, the only thing I am really asking for here is that people be brutally honest about the level of power that is wielded by Serum Powder as it manifests itself in manaless Dredge. Really, just describe what the card does in that context. Then do the logical thing.

I feel like this conversation is going in circles.  Several people have pointed out that the widespread use of Serum Powder in Dredge is a direct result of the surge in Shop decks that occurred when Lodestone Golem was printed.  The popularity of Shops forces Dredge players to use Powder b/c they can't cast spells.  So, you tell me - if Shops are also "unfun" and also "aren't Magic" (b/c obviously one person never being able to cast a spell from turn one until they lose is how Magic is meant to be played, whatever that even means), and also warp sideboards (Brad Granberry had a Gush deck with NINE Shop hate cards!), and Shops are forcing Dredge to use Serum Powder, couldn't we just restrict Lodestone Golem and fix everything that's wrong?

That is, to the extent that anything is actually wrong.

PS Nothing is actually wrong, outside of the logic a lot of people are using throughout this thread.

Wow! Are you really trying to say that the use of Serum Powder is in reaction to the rise of Shops?! What a bunch of malarkey.

Serum Powder + Bazaar has long been the cornerstone of manaless Dredge lists and manaless Dredge has been the standard Dredge in Vintage.

See Smennen --> http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/14085_So_Many_Insane_Plays_8212_The_Ichorid_Blitz.html

Smennen even identifies Serum Powder + Bazaar as "The Combo" and that manaless Dredge "is utterly broken" and "really, really broken."

Serum Powder is absolutely busted in manaless Dredge, and it is a fair or meh card in non-Dredge lists.

In manaless dredge, its closest comparison in power level is to a free cost, uncounterable, turn 0, one-sided timetwister/diminishing returns.

Because it is absolutely busted in manaless Dredge, it is a candidate for restriction just like any other busted card. Of course not all busted cards require restriction. And an argument could be made that a card being busted is alone not reason for restriction, that there also needs to be metagame dominance for restriction to be pursued. But to deny the fact that Serum Powder is busted in manaless Dredge is wholly nonsensical or ignorant. Makes me wonder how many of you actually have played the card in manaless Dredge. Or how many of you are making false statements so as not to lose political ground.

[Stormanimagus]

Since when has Manaless Dredge been "The Standard" in Vintage. I'm sorry Credmond, but you're a bit out of date here.

I have ONLY seen Mana'd Dredge top 8ing at all in the past year or so. Am I wrong about this? Otherwise, how are you getting mana for your Chain of Vapors and/or Nature's Claims game 2?

I think Mana'd Dredge is almost strictly better than Manaless dredge so why are you all up in arms about Manaless?

They both use the Powder/Bazaar 1-2 punch but Mana'd Dredge casts spells and interacts on the stack during games 2 and 3 just like any other "real" Vintage deck. Can someone point me to this dominance of manaless dredge that credmond is referring to?

-Storm

[credmond]

Since when has Manaless Dredge been "The Standard" in Vintage. I'm sorry Credmond, but you're a bit out of date here.

I have ONLY seen Mana'd Dredge top 8ing at all in the past year or so. Am I wrong about this? Otherwise, how are you getting mana for your Chain of Vapors and/or Nature's Claims game 2?

I think Mana'd Dredge is almost strictly better than Manaless dredge so why are you all up in arms about Manaless?

They both use the Powder/Bazaar 1-2 punch but Mana'd Dredge casts spells and interacts on the stack during games 2 and 3 just like any other "real" Vintage deck. Can someone point me to this dominance of manaless dredge that credmond is referring to?

-Storm

Manaless ichorid is a bit of a misnomer since the variant has long had mana mixed in maindeck and sideboard for games 2 and 3, but the dredge engine of Serum Powder + bazaar remained totally manaless. The mana version of Dredge uses actual mana to fuel its dredge engine, which is some combination of cephalid coliseum, breakthrough, and careful study in addition to manaless bazaar.

The two are fairly distinct variants. See http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15567_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Ultimate_Vintage_Primer.html

[Smmenen]

That was in 2007 & early 2008...

The Manaless and Mana versions of Dredge fused long ago...

Look at the composite Dredge list from 2009 (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17613_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Prepping_for_the_Legacy_5K_Dredging_Through_Vintage.html )

Observe how it had Fatestitcher, btw.  Matt Elias 2nd place list is a good example of Serum Powder + Lands : http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1061

It's all besides the point though.  

Serum Powder is a fair card in Vintage, and almost no one thinks it should be restricted.  Is it powerful in some abstract sense?  Yes.  Enormously.  So is Mishra's Workshop and Dark Ritual.  But it's balanced in the format because it boosts decks that don't overly rely on the Restricted List.

***

The topic of this article is the logic and validity of Brian Demars article, and specifically, his claim that Vintage is too fast.  The other main topic of this article is my claim that Vintage is actually in a golden era right now in terms of diversity and design possibilities.

Just as I requested we not talk about whether to ban cards in the format, I would request that we table debates over issues that aren't squarely or otherwise pertinent to those two topics.  

[voltron00x]

Nope I am saying that manaless Dredge enjoys unrestricted one-sided turn 0 timetwisters with no consequence. Powder's power is completely unchecked in manaless dredge.
Timetwister is restricted. Logically, to enforce balance across the board, powder should be too. Otherwise lets unrestrict timetwister!
Without restriction, the game field is radically distorted, even if manaless Dredge is not the dominant deck, the distortion is still being accommodated for. Everyone warps their sideboard to keep the beast in check.

Any one degenerate deck can be ganged up on by the rest of the field and kept in check. However, that doesn't mean that that state of affairs is logically best for the format or optimal.

And if you want my position on banning, google up Smennen's own article on Banning Will. Unlike him, I don't waffle on logical courses of action.

I would actually say Powder is closer to Diminishing Returns as it exiles shit... And that's unrestricted. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but is Diminishing Returns turn 0, one-sided and zero mana to cast?

Look, the only thing I am really asking for here is that people be brutally honest about the level of power that is wielded by Serum Powder as it manifests itself in manaless Dredge. Really, just describe what the card does in that context. Then do the logical thing.

I feel like this conversation is going in circles.  Several people have pointed out that the widespread use of Serum Powder in Dredge is a direct result of the surge in Shop decks that occurred when Lodestone Golem was printed.  The popularity of Shops forces Dredge players to use Powder b/c they can't cast spells.  So, you tell me - if Shops are also "unfun" and also "aren't Magic" (b/c obviously one person never being able to cast a spell from turn one until they lose is how Magic is meant to be played, whatever that even means), and also warp sideboards (Brad Granberry had a Gush deck with NINE Shop hate cards!), and Shops are forcing Dredge to use Serum Powder, couldn't we just restrict Lodestone Golem and fix everything that's wrong?

That is, to the extent that anything is actually wrong.

PS Nothing is actually wrong, outside of the logic a lot of people are using throughout this thread.

Wow! Are you really trying to say that the use of Serum Powder is in reaction to the rise of Shops?! What a bunch of malarkey.

Serum Powder + Bazaar has long been the cornerstone of manaless Dredge lists and manaless Dredge has been the standard Dredge in Vintage.

See Smennen --> http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/14085_So_Many_Insane_Plays_8212_The_Ichorid_Blitz.html

Smennen even identifies Serum Powder + Bazaar as "The Combo" and that manaless Dredge "is utterly broken" and "really, really broken."

Serum Powder is absolutely busted in manaless Dredge, and it is a fair or meh card in non-Dredge lists.

In manaless dredge, its closest comparison in power level is to a free cost, uncounterable, turn 0, one-sided timetwister/diminishing returns.

Because it is absolutely busted in manaless Dredge, it is a candidate for restriction just like any other busted card. Of course not all busted cards require restriction. And an argument could be made that a card being busted is alone not reason for restriction, that there also needs to be metagame dominance for restriction to be pursued. But to deny the fact that Serum Powder is busted in manaless Dredge is wholly nonsensical or ignorant. Makes me wonder how many of you actually have played the card in manaless Dredge. Or how many of you are making false statements so as not to lose political ground.

I mean... I have been writing about Dredge and the history of the deck in Vintage for almost 3 years, but ok, I'll play games with you.

Here's a deck that won back-to-back NYSE/Blue Bell Events in 2009, w/out Serum Powder and with draw spells (and no Dread Return):
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1118&d=1

This deck was popular in August, Sept, and Oct 2009.

Then, Mark Hornung won the Philly Open, with this:
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1170&highlight=1#place1

From Nov 2009 and on for a few months, Mark and Jake Gans (http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1234&d=2) were running around slaughtering people with Serum Powder-less Dredge.

An examination of Dredge in Europe shows that old-school Manaless and traditional Mana variations were popular there during the same time period, with a mix of some Serum Powder decks:
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1192&d=3
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1166&d=7
http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1161&d=7
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1136&highlight=Bridge_from_Below

Below the radar of a lot of folks, this event in Manila had a surge of Dredge decks that were different than the Fatestitcher / Powder list from early 2009 (which won a TMD Open, and then did well for some months after into mid-2009 in the US), and different than the old-school Manaless OR Mana versions of Dredge (which played a mix of Careful Study, Breakthrough, Putrid Imp, Cephalid Coliseum, etc).  

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1174&highlight=Bridge_from_Below

I tweaked that build into the deck that I ran at the Philly Open in Feb 2010, which still sees play to this day.  That deck was built with the intention of pushing back against Lodestone Golem.  The current decks, which look back to ones like the deck Sean Orcutt won a TMD Open with (the Powder/FS mix), exist to punish a Gush-heavy metagame by racing and being resistant to hate in post-board games.  

However, no one is playing Careful Study, or Breakthrough, or Cephalid Coliseum.  If it isn't Lodestone Golem, then what do you propose changed to push out all of the draw spells?  Obviously Serum Powder was already seeing play, so it wasn't new tech.


EDIT - Steve, sorry, read your post after the fact, and it's a valid request.  I won't post about this anymore in this thread.  Anyone who wants to debate me on this, feel free to open a new thread.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

I mean... I have been writing about Dredge and the history of the deck in Vintage for almost 3 years, but ok, I'll play games with you.

LOL seriously? Don't you know what happens when you give a mouse a cookie??

[credmond]

That was in 2007 & early 2008...

The Manaless and Mana versions of Dredge fused long ago...

That's another way of saying that manaless Dredge evolved and added some maindeck mana to be able to activate fatestitcher to untap bazaar and run sb cards in games 2 and 3 while keeping the dredge engine distinctly manaless and remained the standard version of Dredge for Vintage. All the while the mana version of Dredge, which is clearly distinguishable by the presence of breakthrough, careful study, ancestral recall, and/or cephalid coliseum, remained a non-Standard variant that features a mana-driven dredge engine and currently sees little play.

Let's be clear here. Your use of categories is self-serving.

Voltron: Your claim was that Serum Powder arose in reaction to Lodestone. That is false and I called you out on that specific claim, and you said as much in your summary by switching your statement to be about draw spells. Serum Powder has been there from the beginning and defines the predominant variant. One could still play the mana version with all the draw spells as a distinguishable variant but I doubt it would do that well, much like Ad Nauseum wouldn't do that well.

[Smmenen]

That was in 2007 & early 2008...

The Manaless and Mana versions of Dredge fused long ago...

That's another way of saying that manaless Dredge evolved and added some maindeck mana to be able to activate fatestitcher to untap bazaar and run sb cards in games 2 and 3 while keeping the dredge engine distinctly manaless and remained the standard version of Dredge for Vintage. All the while the mana version of Dredge, which is clearly distinguishable by the presence of breakthrough, careful study, ancestral recall, and/or cephalid coliseum, remained a non-Standard variant that features a mana-driven dredge engine and currently sees little play.

Let's be clear here. Your use of categories is self-serving.

Huh?  I'm not trying to make up categories.  I understand that there were once Dredge builds that used Careful Study (i.e. the first one I ever created and played to a SCG Top 8), but those haven't existed for years...

Most Dredge builds run 7-8 rainbow lands maindeck and 4 Serum Powders, and have for years.  No?

In any case, this is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic at this point...

[credmond]

That was in 2007 & early 2008...

The Manaless and Mana versions of Dredge fused long ago...

That's another way of saying that manaless Dredge evolved and added some maindeck mana to be able to activate fatestitcher to untap bazaar and run sb cards in games 2 and 3 while keeping the dredge engine distinctly manaless and remained the standard version of Dredge for Vintage. All the while the mana version of Dredge, which is clearly distinguishable by the presence of breakthrough, careful study, ancestral recall, and/or cephalid coliseum, remained a non-Standard variant that features a mana-driven dredge engine and currently sees little play.

Let's be clear here. Your use of categories is self-serving.

Huh?  I'm not trying to make up categories.  I understand that there were once Dredge builds that used Careful Study (i.e. the first one I ever created and played to a SCG Top 8), but those haven't existed for years...

Most Dredge builds run 7-8 rainbow lands maindeck and 4 Serum Powders, and have for years.  No?

In any case, this is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic at this point...

I saw someone play a mana version of Dredge with cephalid coliseums not too long ago at a tournament. It didn't do well. But I dare say the deck existed!

[MaximumCDawg]

Here's an on-topic question.

Is a condition of Vintage experiencing a "golden age" a steady stream of new playables, or changes to the B/R list, to keep the format shaken up?  If we go through a Mercadian Masques style slump in new sets, will people "solve" Vintage as a format and start narrowing the diversity?

I wonder this because it feels like alot of the exciting stuff happening in Vintage is the result of such astounding new printings in the last few years.  Starting with Alara, mostly, when Noble Fish was born as a new contender, and continuing with the printings of Lodestone, Vampire Hexmage, Bloodghast, and then recently the huge printings of Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Snapcaster while the B/R list slowly gets smaller.  Is it all of this "kid in a candy store" exploration that is making the format fun?  Will it settle into a rut if WotC doesn't keep blessing us?

[Delha]

Here's an on-topic question.

Is a condition of Vintage experiencing a "golden age" a steady stream of new playables, or changes to the B/R list, to keep the format shaken up?  If we go through a Mercadian Masques style slump in new sets, will people "solve" Vintage as a format and start narrowing the diversity?

I wonder this because it feels like alot of the exciting stuff happening in Vintage is the result of such astounding new printings in the last few years.  Starting with Alara, mostly, when Noble Fish was born as a new contender, and continuing with the printings of Lodestone, Vampire Hexmage, Bloodghast, and then recently the huge printings of Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Snapcaster while the B/R list slowly gets smaller.  Is it all of this "kid in a candy store" exploration that is making the format fun?  Will it settle into a rut if WotC doesn't keep blessing us?

I'd say yes. As decks are refined and the number of unexplored possibilities diminishes, the format will naturally stagnate. That's the way of pretty much all games. There will certainly be those happy with the status quo and the enjoyment to be drawn from honing personal performance in a stable environment. There will also be those who get bored unless something new comes along to spice things up.

[credmond]

Here's an on-topic question.

Is a condition of Vintage experiencing a "golden age" a steady stream of new playables, or changes to the B/R list, to keep the format shaken up?  If we go through a Mercadian Masques style slump in new sets, will people "solve" Vintage as a format and start narrowing the diversity?

I wonder this because it feels like alot of the exciting stuff happening in Vintage is the result of such astounding new printings in the last few years.  Starting with Alara, mostly, when Noble Fish was born as a new contender, and continuing with the printings of Lodestone, Vampire Hexmage, Bloodghast, and then recently the huge printings of Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Snapcaster while the B/R list slowly gets smaller.  Is it all of this "kid in a candy store" exploration that is making the format fun?  Will it settle into a rut if WotC doesn't keep blessing us?

The flip side of WotC blessing us with new printings is WotC lousing things up. How do you fix the BSC problem? And is the BSC problem a sign that more fault lines in Vintage will become more exposed in the future?

[diopter]

The restriction of Brainstorm, the printing of Jace, the unrestriction of Gush and the continuing support of Dredge in Vintage has earned WotC all the goodwill they could ask for.

[Smmenen]

Here's an on-topic question.

Is a condition of Vintage experiencing a "golden age" a steady stream of new playables, or changes to the B/R list, to keep the format shaken up?  If we go through a Mercadian Masques style slump in new sets, will people "solve" Vintage as a format and start narrowing the diversity?

I wonder this because it feels like alot of the exciting stuff happening in Vintage is the result of such astounding new printings in the last few years.  Starting with Alara, mostly, when Noble Fish was born as a new contender, and continuing with the printings of Lodestone, Vampire Hexmage, Bloodghast, and then recently the huge printings of Misstep, Flusterstorm, and Snapcaster while the B/R list slowly gets smaller.  Is it all of this "kid in a candy store" exploration that is making the format fun?  Will it settle into a rut if WotC doesn't keep blessing us?

I'd say yes. As decks are refined and the number of unexplored possibilities diminishes, the format will naturally stagnate. That's the way of pretty much all games.

I'd challenge that.  Is Chess like that?  Is War (as in, real life war) like that? I don't think so.

I think magic metagames are alot like markets.  If you buy into equilibria theory (i.e. classical economices), then you may think that Magic metagames eventually approach an equilibiria (or multiple possible equilibria).  I don't think so. 

I actually think that- that Magic metagames are infinitely dynamic, even without any new printings.  One reason for this is that player preferences will change even without new printings.   This is true of chess openings. 

Chess has had no new pieces introduced for hundreds of years, yet the game remains dynamic, people innovating creative scenarios, etc.

Think about it this way: what's optimal in a metagame is purely a consequence of what others choose to play -- not some objective or abstract notion of what's best.  That makes magic always deeply contextual and dynamic

[Delha]

I'd say yes. As decks are refined and the number of unexplored possibilities diminishes, the format will naturally stagnate. That's the way of pretty much all games.

I'd challenge that.  Is Chess like that?  Is War (as in, real life war) like that? I don't think so.

How much groundbreaking new strategy has appeared in chess lately? I'm not being facetious, I honestly don't know much about high end chess. From my understanding, a great deal of top end chess play has turned into memorization of board states. I'm not claiming that grand masters are just sitting down and going on autopilot, but shortcutting like that is certainly an effective way for people to speed up their play while on the spot. Humans may not be good at analysis of complex systems, but we have proven to be good at pattern recognition.

Without commenting the notion of war as a game, it has a constant influx of new "cards". 20 years ago, we didn't have Predators. 10 years ago, we didn't have Raptors. In a few years, we should have the Lightning II. That's just a few off the top of my head, and doesn't even touch on the gains we've made in terms of information and communications technology.

I think magic metagames are alot like markets.  If you buy into equilibria theory (i.e. classical economices), then you may think that Magic metagames eventually approach an equilibiria (or multiple possible equilibria).  I don't think so. 

I actually think that- that Magic metagames are infinitely dynamic, even without any new printings.  One reason for this is that player preferences will change even without new printings.   This is true of chess openings. 

Chess has had no new pieces introduced for hundreds of years, yet the game remains dynamic, people innovating creative scenarios, etc.

Think about it this way: what's optimal in a metagame is purely a consequence of what others choose to play -- not some objective or abstract notion of what's best.  That makes magic always deeply contextual and dynamic

How do you explain the slumps that have occurred in Vintage then? The cardpool has never even been truly stagnant, new expansions have always kept rolling out. There have indisputably been relatively long periods where metagames have sat without seeing any major change occurring.

Player preferences may indeed change, but I think you highly overestimate this effect. For every player who happily jumps from deck to deck, there is another who will stubbornly cling to an archetype of choice. Thirst Tezz didn't go away because people just felt like putting down the decklists that were winning for them. It did so because Thirst got the axe, and even then the first reaction wasn't to brew up something completely new. It was to just cram in a new draw engine. That doesn't sound like an inherently dynamic system. It sounds more like people trying to stick with a variant of what worked for them before.

Innovation is almost invariably driven by change, be it in the form of a change to the B/R list or a new printing. What's the last new deck you can name that wasn't born as a result of new printings or B/R changes? For that matter, how many competitive decks can you think of that weren't simply the evolution of another deck? I'm not saying that innovation can't occur within the context of a given decklist, but the word dynamic carries a connotation of significant change, not just minor tweaks to the execution of a well established gameplan.

[Onslaught]

Even if no new Vintage playable cards were printed and no new restrictions/un-restrictions occurred, you would probably still have an evolving metagame. There are non-collectible CCGs that just have one set cardpool, and people often use different decks in "competitive" play for those games. So if we had a permanent format of what we have right now, you'd still have to decide which pillar to use. Then, you'd have to choose which of the viable flavors of that pillar to use, like Kuldotha/Cat Stax/Marinara/Magus etc. for Workshops. Then after you pick one of those, you sideboard and blah blah. The point is, you'd do things like add in REB maindeck when you noticed the meta shifting towards blue, or put in that 8th anti-Dredge card if it started becoming too dominant, or decide to run Remora since the meta had been trending towards Gush decks recently, etc.

All of those are significant deckbuilding decisions (that come with harsh penalties if you incorrectly predicted the environment) that would take place without any new cards being released, so things would probably still be interesting.

[Troy_Costisick]

So if you think the Gush/Tinker problem is afflicting Vintage right now to the point where the format is unplayable, check out this top 8 that was just posted: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43395.msg595592;boardseen#new

Granted, it's just a 19 man tournament, but there are NO Gushes and only ONE Tinker in the top 8.  Shall we call the latest dust-up over Vintage "overblown" perhaps?

I guess I should have mentioned this tournament too: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43384.msg595793;boardseen#new

50 Players, only 4 Gushes and 2 Tinkers in the top 8.  No Bazaars incidentally.  I'm having trouble seeing how those three cards are really oppressing the format right now.

[Smmenen]

I'd say yes. As decks are refined and the number of unexplored possibilities diminishes, the format will naturally stagnate. That's the way of pretty much all games.

I'd challenge that.  Is Chess like that?  Is War (as in, real life war) like that? I don't think so.

How much groundbreaking new strategy has appeared in chess lately?

In the last 100 years (in a game that is hundreds of years old), there have been dramatic changes in the preferences various people have for certain opening sequences.  These openings are basically like a metagame.  

 What's the last new deck you can name that wasn't born as a result of new printings or B/R changes? For that matter, how many competitive decks can you think of that weren't simply the evolution of another deck?

Actually TONS.

When I created Stax in 2003, all of the lock parts had been printed long before. Workshop was unrestricted in 1998.  Stacker and TNT had been popular, but no one had put 4 Smokestack, 4 Spheres, 4 Tangle Wires and 4 Welders together into the same deck.   None of those cards were recent printings.   I was the first to put those 4 cards together in quantities of 4 each.  

When Rich Shay created the Remora deck a few years ago, all of the key cards -- Remora/meditate - etc. had been printed in the previous decade!  (Even the Psychatogs and Old mans of the seas!)

The Meandeck Tendrils deck was created by parts that had already long seen print.

The list goes on and on...

***

Instead of responding to what you said, let me put it in affirmative terms:

Even with a defined, static card pool, Magic metagames are infinitely dynamic.   The main reason for this is that people don't devise strategies based on abstract power, but to beat expected opponents.

Let's just start with a hypothetical.  Suppose you only have the Alpha card pool, and it is November 1, 1993.   Suppose you have the modern B/R list.   Let's say a best deck emerges.  Another deck will emerge to beat that best deck.  Then another deck will emerge to beat that deck.

That's the essence of Magic: a complex, dynamic Rock, Paper, Scissors.  It's complex because another deck will emerge to beat two of the three decks, with weak matchup against the third.   And so on.  

It is undoubtedly true that one of the great drivers of change in Vintage is new printings and changes to B/R list.  I've asserted this before many times.  But it's not the only driver.   New printings by themselves dont create metagame change.   Even new printings that create highly synergistic combos.  

***It's only when those synergies interface positively with the extant metagame that the metagame changes***

You have, what I consider to be a naive view of Magic:  The "there are objectively best decks/strategies,etc" view.  Instead, Magic is HIGHLY contextual. You can take the same card pool and produce totally different results.  

That's because In Magic, you don't play to beat the card pool, you play to beat what other players are playing!  

Put simply: Even without changes to the card pool, as tournament results become known, players WILL devise new ways of defeating what's there.     That's because, in order to maximize your chances for winning, you want to be able to defeat what your opponent's throw at you.  

That's what drives change.  There is no equilibria point in Magic because the Magic card pool is sufficiently large that you can always create new niches.    that is, if Deck A, B, and C are best performing, you can devise strategy D.  And once you do that, then people will have to beat ABC & D, and then devise strategy E, and so on, ad infinitum.  

yes, B&R list changes and new printings drive change faster, but that's because they dramatically expand the range of possibilties (because each new printing creates thousands of new synergies), but even without those changes, Magic metagames are infinitely dynamic.  

Metagames in Magic don't stagnate.   That's one of the great myths of Magic.   As long as people want to win, they will be trying new approaches, and when those approaches are successful (as they inevitably will be), the metagame evolves. 

[DubDub]

Let me put it in affirmative terms:

Even with a defined, static card pool, Magic metagames are infinitely dynamic.   The main reason for this is that people don't devise strategies based on abstract power, but to beat expected opponents.
...
That's the essence of Magic: a complex, dynamic Rock, Paper, Scissors.  It's complex because another deck will emerge to beat two of the three decks, with weak matchup against the third.   And so on.  

Steve, I think you might be overstating this claim a bit.  I feel you may need to additionally take as given that the card pool engender non-degenerate metagames, which you haven't done as far as I can see.  How do you reconcile your claim that metagames don't stagnate with having said that Thirst for Knowledge was rightfully restricted?  Do you contest that metagames can be broken, and that it is possible the best way to attack the metagame is to play the unbalanced best deck yourself?  (See, again, Thirst for Knowledge fueled Tezzeret decks in 2009, or Stoneblade decks in Standard in 2011.)

I also don't feel you've adequately made the leap from: 'for a given semi-equilibria point found within a bounded amount of time a metagame predatory deck will emerge to shift the metagame' (a paraphrase and restatement I hope you'll allow) to "infintely dynamic."  You're sure that after 200 iterations of metagame predators being discovered and incorporated into the metagame there will continue to be new predators?  After 200,000 iterations?  I think possibly you might want to take as given as well a limitation on the number of actors determining the metagame.  If you do you could claim that no real metagame can fully incorporate all distinct strategies, and hence that any real metagame will have a remaining weakness as a flawed approximation of a theoretically possible perfectly-balanced meta.

You have, what I consider to be a naive view of Magic:  The "there are objectively best decks/strategies,etc" view.  Instead, Magic is HIGHLY contextual. You can take the same card pool and produce totally different results.  

But, supposing that we pitted decks from the same card pool developed within different metagames against one another, one is still going to emerge on top, right?  Merging any two independently developed metagames is going to cause refinement and the elimination of no-longer-viable decks, is going to produce a new more robust meta.  Wouldn't you agree?  This is again why I feel you need to take as given a limitation on the number of actors.  That the same card pool can achieve different equilibria with different finite numbers of actors is irrelevant if we allow an infinite number of actors an infinite number of iterations.

That's because In Magic, you don't play to beat the card pool, you play to beat what other players are playing!  

Put simply: Even without changes to the card pool, as tournament results become known, players WILL devise new ways of defeating what's there.     That's because, in order to maximize your chances for winning, you want to be able to defeat what your opponent's throw at you.  

I still feel there's a missing step between this claim and the claim that thus Magic is "infinitely dynamic."

There is no equilibria point in Magic because the Magic card pool is sufficiently large that you can always create new niches.    that is, if Deck A, B, and C are best performing, you can devise strategy D.  And once you do that, then people will have to beat ABC & D, and then devise strategy E, and so on, ad infinitum.
...
Metagames in Magic don't stagnate.   That's one of the great myths of Magic.   As long as people want to win, they will be trying new approaches, and when those approaches are successful (as they inevitably will be), the metagame evolves. 

Again, I wonder how you reconcile this view with having said that Thirst for Knowledge was rightfully and deservedly restricted (or any other card you may have said that about).  Perhaps you are drawing a distinction between absolute stagnation, which you claim is never achieved, and oppressive metagame dominance?  Why would it be relevant that absolute stagnation not be achievable if there's a lesser threshold for metagame dominance justifying a B&R change?  Unless you're making a claim about a subset of all potential metagames, ones that are balanced and never stagnate while never being oppressively dominated either.

I feel in some way you need to add to your givens, or reduce the scope of your claim.

[Smmenen]

How do you reconcile your claim that metagames don't stagnate with having said that Thirst for Knowledge was rightfully restricted? 

Basically, what Sirlin says:

There are times -- very rare -- when a tactic (strategy) can't actually be answered (meaning, consistently defeated).   Or, when it can be, the constraints are such on the system that the answer deck can't actually do so in such a way as to change tournament outcomes.

So, to take the Thirst example -- a tactic that was creating 40% of Tournament Top 8s dominance -- you could devise decks that beat Thrist decks, but those decks couldn't reliably beat other decks.

Put in terms of the hypothetical I created, Deck D could beat Deck A, but not Deck B or Deck C.   

But, supposing that we pitted decks from the same card pool developed within different metagames against one another, one is still going to emerge on top, right?  Merging any two independently developed metagames is going to cause refinement and the elimination of no-longer-viable decks, is going to produce a new more robust meta.  Wouldn't you agree? 

I'm glad you asked this question.

The answer is simple.  Compare the Meadbert Metagame (i.e. when Meadbert creates a 90 deck tournament) to the real Vintage metagame. 

Yes, if we pit decks against each other, in a narrow way, one will end up on top, but that’s not how Magic TOURNAMENTS define winners.

The context here, as always, is Magic tournaments .   In a Magic tournament, decks have to be able to beat, not just top decks, but a broad range of decks, usually in an expected pattern (i.e. 20% Shops, 15 % Bazaars, 40% big blue, etc.). 

The “best’ decks (defining best as those which perform best in those conditions) aren’t the decks that have the best matchup against the best deck, but the strategy that performs best against a the field as it is constituted under tournament conditions. 

You're sure that after 200 iterations of metagame predators being discovered and incorporated into the metagame there will continue to be new predators?  After 200,000 iterations?

Think of it like a market.   You have thousands of entrepreneurs, all trying to find a niche in the market.   Only a few succeed.  There will be thousands of attempts to predate the metagame, and very few that actually succeed in doing so.   The most successful versions – the leading tip – drives metagame change. 

That’s usually a role I see myself in, when I develop new decks.   

I still feel there's a missing step between this claim and the claim that thus Magic is "infinitely dynamic."

There are a couple of implicit steps, but they should be apparent by now.   Magic is only infinitely dynamic because this process recurs indefinitely: 1) there are best decks (i.e decks that perform best against the field under tournament conditions), and 2) people will devise new strategies to beat the best decks as well as the extant field.   Most of the time, they will fail.  Sometimes, they will succeed.   This starts the process all over again 1->2 ad infinitum. 

Perhaps my claim is a bit broad -- but I'm merely illustrating a basic point here: which is that, barring really extreme circumstances, magic metagames are naturally dynamic, without changes in the card pool.   Yes, the card pool creates change faster, but that's far from the only way in which Magic metagames evolve. Magic metagames are complex systems that are constantly evolving based upon the natural dynamics of predator/prey relationships throughout them, and almost never reach static equilibria.

[DubDub]

How do you reconcile your claim that metagames don't stagnate with having said that Thirst for Knowledge was rightfully restricted? 

Basically, what Sirlin says:

There are times -- very rare -- when a tactic (strategy) can't actually be answered (meaning, consistently defeated).   Or, when it can be, the constraints are such on the system that the answer deck can't actually do so in such a way as to change tournament outcomes.

So, to take the Thirst example -- a tactic that was creating 40% of Tournament Top 8s dominance -- you could devise decks that beat Thrist decks, but those decks couldn't reliably beat other decks.

Put in terms of the hypothetical I created, Deck D could beat Deck A, but not Deck B or Deck C.

Then, with a usable definition of 'stagnant' instead of an absolute you would say the Thirst metagame was stagnant, right?  The variations explored in Decks A, B and C, and the attempts to prey on them (D, D*, D', etc.) did not substantially shift the metagame.  Thankfully such situations have been rare.
 

But, supposing that we pitted decks from the same card pool developed within different metagames against one another, one is still going to emerge on top, right?  Merging any two independently developed metagames is going to cause refinement and the elimination of no-longer-viable decks, is going to produce a new more robust meta.  Wouldn't you agree? 

I'm glad you asked this question.

The answer is simple.  Compare the Meadbert Metagame (i.e. when Meadbert creates a 90 deck tournament) to the real Vintage metagame. 

Yes, if we pit decks against each other, in a narrow way, one will end up on top, but that’s not how Magic TOURNAMENTS define winners.

The context here, as always, is Magic tournaments .   In a Magic tournament, decks have to be able to beat, not just top decks, but a broad range of decks, usually in an expected pattern (i.e. 20% Shops, 15 % Bazaars, 40% big blue, etc.).

The “best’ decks (defining best as those which perform best in those conditions) aren’t the decks that have the best matchup against the best deck, but the strategy that performs best against a the field as it is constituted under tournament conditions.

This is essentially one possible additional given that I was asking you to add.  Within the limited context of tournaments with a finite number of players I'm willing to accept the general claim that the metagame will never stagnate in an absolute sense.  As I said above: "I think possibly you might want to take as given as well a limitation on the number of actors determining the metagame.  If you do you could claim that no real metagame can fully incorporate all distinct strategies, and hence that any real metagame will have a remaining weakness as a flawed approximation of a theoretically possible perfectly-balanced meta."

Perhaps my claim is a bit broad -- but I'm merely illustrating a basic point here: which is that, barring really extreme circumstances, magic metagames are naturally dynamic, without changes in the card pool.   Yes, the card pool creates change faster, but that's far from the only way in which Magic metagames evolve. Magic metagames are complex systems that are constantly evolving based upon the natural dynamics of predator/prey relationships throughout them, and almost never reach static equilibria.

You see that this is a claim much reduced in scope, yes?

I would argue as well that you can't just write off changes in the card pool.  Changes in the card pool arrive approximately every three months.  We would probably feel very differently if new sets were released once every ten years.  I mean, is anyone going to sign up to play Invasion block constructed for the next ten years straight?  I doubt it.

Another consideration that should be taken into account are the returns to innovation, which are much less for Vintage than other better supported formats.  I'm not actually sure which way this cuts; for Vintage one may feel the format is stagnant because it's not worth the time to innovate (infrequency of tournaments, low prize support compared to GPs and Pro Tour feeding events), while for Legacy or other formats the additional incentives to innovate may cause a format to be 'solved' more quickly.  Look at the way the SCG circuit of Legacy opens has homogenized the American Legacy metagame, or the way the SCG circuit of Standard Opens pushed Stoneblade from being a simple 'best deck' to being the most dominant deck of all time.  This same effect is probably most visible on Magic Online, where the phrase 'hive mind' is fitting.

[credmond]

When there is a defined static card pool, the overall system actually becomes quite stagnant as compared to when there is an influx of new cards.

The economy works in the same way, when there is a lack of social mobility and lack of influx of new capital and lack of new markets being developed, the resulting system is an economy in depression or recession.

Yes, an economy in depression is still "infinitely dynamic" but it is still experienced as stagnant by the participants, even though it is very far removed from being totally stagnant. People experience more saliently the rate of change of a system and are not content with a trickling rate of change.