Meandeck Open Results -- January 8th, 2012 Columbus, Ohio - 34 Players!

[Troy_Costisick]

A lame dark times implementation is presumably better than having to blast through layers of graveyard hate and counterspells.

Also, it punishes the opponent for digging deep and hard for the leyline.

I understand the concept fine, I just don't think it's all that useful. It seems like he's spreading himself too thin. Also, how exactly does implementing the Dark Times combo protect someone from counterspells? I feel like this deck in general has no answer to the broken blue, the Oath, or the Shops decks.

It has the perfect answer.  Make them mulligan down to a no-land, 4 card hand that has LotV in it, then switch strategies to ignore it.

[Smmenen]

That's exactly what happened to me.

I mulled into Mox Jet, LotV, LotV, Force, Gush.  Keep. 

[chrispikula]

The transforming sideboard is certainly cool, but man I'm really feeling a little bit of rock-scissors-paper pain in vintage right now. So many cards are blowouts i one matchup, useless in another.  So many openings hands the same way, which makes scouting really important which I just find annoying.

[Ten-Ten]

The transforming sideboard is certainly cool, but man I'm really feeling a little bit of rock-scissors-paper pain in vintage right now. So many cards are blowouts i one matchup, useless in another.  So many openings hands the same way, which makes scouting really important which I just find annoying.

sounds like the good 'ole days of type1 to me 
...before netdecks.

[Smmenen]

The transforming sideboard is certainly cool, but man I'm really feeling a little bit of rock-scissors-paper pain in vintage right now. So many cards are blowouts i one matchup, useless in another.  So many openings hands the same way, which makes scouting really important which I just find annoying.
[/quote

Isn't that the sign of a healthy format? 

In Rock, Paper, Scissors, no strategy is capable of winning every matchup, and no deck is dominant?

 I think that is one of the keys to Vintage's diversity at the moment: every deck card choice has an opportunity cost. 

[chrispikula]

Would you enter a rock scissors paper tournament? I wouldn't.

I value diversity, but I also value skill mattering. And right now skill feels like it matters a little bit less in Vintage. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency at the top lately except for the Landstill streak at Blue Bell.  Formats where it feels like "you can play anything" aren't always good. 

[Womba]

Would you enter a rock scissors paper tournament? I wouldn't.

I value diversity, but I also value skill mattering. And right now skill feels like it matters a little bit less in Vintage. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency at the top lately except for the Landstill streak at Blue Bell.  Formats where it feels like "you can play anything" aren't always good.  

I fail to see how they are bad....


Edit:
We only have to look at WOTC's descision to ban JTMS and SFM in the Cawblade era to find they share the same opinion about diversity and skill.

[nataz]

Formats where it feels like "you can play anything" aren't always good.  

I suspect a lot of the variation comes from the fact that the format is under developed. Very few people are looking to "solve" the meta game, and there probably aren't enough players and events to create a well developed international meta game in the first place.

Things like dredge, where you need a dedicated deck with a linear game plan, will actually HELP the format condense. Things like vault/key and tinker/BSC, significantly slow the format's conversion to a few highly optimized decks because they fit into so many shells. More viable decks -> more testing needed to really push the format, which is unlikely considering the low level of dedication of most vintage players (of which there are so few to begin with) to robust and systematic testing.

Its not like standard, or even draft, where there are 1-3 top decks, and maybe another 3-6 tier two decks depending on the shifting meta. There may rationally be 2-3 optimal decks for every broad vintage strategy at any given time dependent on local meta-game. Thats an amazing amount of diversity when you think about it.

Game theory for 2 players is pretty well understood at this point. Lots of people think they can at least wrap their mind around a 3 player game, but a 15-20 person game... mathematically it becomes ridiculous.

So, again, the point is, you want strong linear strategies if you want skilled deck building to really matter. They create baselines, known threats, and therefore are solvable problems.  Who cares that dredge kills on turn 2? Lots of decks using any number of strategies can do that, and there are plenty of good counters in every color and every CC. The important part for someone who is trying to solve the format is that it does it with the same 50-55 cards as opposed to the diversity of gush/vault/tinker decks.

Really try and imagine a format without dredge and Workshops. Dredge forces decks to include gy hate, and therefore creates these interesting mini-games where you have to balance the risk/reward of the utility of MD/SB hate against the rest of the format in deck building. Either way, it takes away from the total number of slots. Similarly, workshop decks help to keep mana bases honest. The fact that your mana is vulnerable means you generally don't see true 4-5 color decks. Mostly its 2cc with a light splash. Without dredge and workshops the format would be an explosion of highlander combo-control decks. That to me sounds awful. 

[chrispikula]

I like the existence of dredge and workshops. Did not mean to imply I didn't- although i will say that I find Slash Panthers to be about 100x more fun and fair than Smokestacks. 

[Smmenen]

Would you enter a rock scissors paper tournament? I wouldn't.

I value diversity, but I also value skill mattering. And right now skill feels like it matters a little bit less in Vintage. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency at the top lately except for the Landstill streak at Blue Bell.  Formats where it feels like "you can play anything" aren't always good.  

I have long believed that Magic is, at root, a far more complex R,P, S dynamic.   It's about positioning yourself among and around that dynamic.  

I think current Vintage is probably the best I've ever seen the format.  It's far more wide open than I can remember, but it's wide open at a time in which there are more tools than ever.  So this breadth of format options didn't come about by restrictions but because of the resistance to restrictions.  I love it.  People seemed energized around it.

I don't agree with you about skill.   I think the format is as skill intensive as ever.  What i think is different is that you can't just run the best U/B/x control deck and expect to make top 8 in this environment by being a great player.   You can't just play Gush or Snapcaster or Bob and Jaces and expect to make top 8 now.  you really have to figure out exactly which permutation is strongest, which 9-13 counterspells you'll run, and how not to get exposed by decks like Oath, Remora, or Shops. 

[chrispikula]

Right but which permutation of counterspells is best completely depends on what you are paired against that day. Flusterstorm and Mental Misstep are insane against some decks, trash against another.  It used to be that I could play counterspells and gain versatility while sacrificing efficiency and also agreeing to be a reactive than proactive deck.  Now rather than make counterspells versatile, they have chosen to make them narrow and efficient. I used to think that, because I was a better player than most of my opponents, I could pack my deck with versatile spells and this worked to my advantage. I was playing way more Nature's Claims and Fire/Ices in my Tezz decks 2 years ago (or whenever it was) because I felt like having versatile tools gave me an edge. Now because they have printed so many very narrow but very efficient spells, it feels like my flexible answers just aren't good enough anymore.   I feel like I'm being forced, to an extent, to decide who I want to blow out and who I want to be blown out by game 1.

[Smmenen]

Right but which permutation of counterspells is best completely depends on what you are paired against that day. Flusterstorm and Mental Misstep are insane against some decks, trash against another.  It used to be that I could play counterspells and gain versatility while sacrificing efficiency and also agreeing to be a reactive than proactive deck.  Now rather than make counterspells versatile, they have chosen to make them narrow and efficient.

I think that's a very keen observation.   I think that's exactly what's going on.  I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

 I used to think that, because I was a better player than most of my opponents, I could pack my deck with versatile spells and this worked to my advantage. I was playing way more Nature's Claims and Fire/Ices in my Tezz decks 2 years ago (or whenever it was) because I felt like having versatile tools gave me an edge. Now because they have printed so many very narrow but very efficient spells, it feels like my flexible answers just aren't good enough anymore.   I feel like I'm being forced, to an extent, to decide who I want to blow out and who I want to be blown out by game 1.

Right, but I think that's the key.   If you didn't have to decide, then you would just beat everything, and we don't want anyone or anything to be able to beat everything.   

[Troy_Costisick]

Right but which permutation of counterspells is best completely depends on what you are paired against that day. Flusterstorm and Mental Misstep are insane against some decks, trash against another.  It used to be that I could play counterspells and gain versatility while sacrificing efficiency and also agreeing to be a reactive than proactive deck.  Now rather than make counterspells versatile, they have chosen to make them narrow and efficient. I used to think that, because I was a better player than most of my opponents, I could pack my deck with versatile spells and this worked to my advantage. I was playing way more Nature's Claims and Fire/Ices in my Tezz decks 2 years ago (or whenever it was) because I felt like having versatile tools gave me an edge. Now because they have printed so many very narrow but very efficient spells, it feels like my flexible answers just aren't good enough anymore.   I feel like I'm being forced, to an extent, to decide who I want to blow out and who I want to be blown out by game 1.

Personally, I feel this is a great thing for Vintage.  It gives all types of decks (except rituals) some breathing space because there is no universal U/B/x deck deck that beats everything.  Now, every deck is vulnerable and that opens up the field for skilled deckbuilders who can take advantage of it.

[chrispikula]

Personally, I feel this is a great thing for Vintage.  It gives all types of decks (except rituals) some breathing space because there is no universal U/B/x deck deck that beats everything.  Now, every deck is vulnerable and that opens up the field for skilled deckbuilders who can take advantage of it.

Right. My worry is that the primary skill is going to be guessing what you will play against that day, which you will get dead wrong much of the time even if you are really good at this. 

[chrispikula]

I think that's a very keen observation.   I think that's exactly what's going on.  I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

Sure. None of my opponents played a Snapcaster on Saturday. 

When the field is very unpredictable, but you are forced to choose from cards that are fantastic in one matchup, terrible in another,it will inevitably lead to the luck of your pairings being a primary factor in your record that day. 

Note it is very possible I'm overstating my case here. I'm just basing this on two things 1) terrible results from some very good players, myself included, in recent tourneys 2) my own frustrations during deckbuildiing decisions.  I hope I'm wrong.  The diversity is really cool, I just don't want it to be diversity driven by the whole thing being a crapshoot.

[Kiriyuu]

I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

How do you mean? To have more weapons against ancestral recall, or something else? You can't change what the mage is targeting can you?

[Smmenen]

Not to be coy, but my 2012 Trends and Predictions article answers that question

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I think that's a very keen observation.   I think that's exactly what's going on.  I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

Sure. None of my opponents played a Snapcaster on Saturday.  

When the field is very unpredictable, but you are forced to choose from cards that are fantastic in one matchup, terrible in another,it will inevitably lead to the luck of your pairings being a primary factor in your record that day.  

Note it is very possible I'm overstating my case here. I'm just basing this on two things 1) terrible results from some very good players, myself included, in recent tourneys 2) my own frustrations during deckbuildiing decisions.  I hope I'm wrong.  The diversity is really cool, I just don't want it to be diversity driven by the whole thing being a crapshoot.

Why don't you innovate or play something that has better matchups in the current meta game overall. For example I feel I did a great job at that with my landstill lists recently. And not to be full of myself but I feel like if I made top 8 at this past NJ event I would have had an excellent chance at winning the event. I went 4-1-1 and all my wins were 2-0 and felt good about all of my matchups even the awkward/less played/rogue decks or matchups. Sadly I got 9th place. I personally love the meta game right now and love the diversity, it makes for more decisions in deck building and makes events more exciting/intriguing...

[chrispikula]

I think that's a very keen observation.   I think that's exactly what's going on.  I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

Sure. None of my opponents played a Snapcaster on Saturday.  

When the field is very unpredictable, but you are forced to choose from cards that are fantastic in one matchup, terrible in another,it will inevitably lead to the luck of your pairings being a primary factor in your record that day.  

Note it is very possible I'm overstating my case here. I'm just basing this on two things 1) terrible results from some very good players, myself included, in recent tourneys 2) my own frustrations during deckbuildiing decisions.  I hope I'm wrong.  The diversity is really cool, I just don't want it to be diversity driven by the whole thing being a crapshoot.

Why don't you innovate or play something that has better matchups in the current meta game overall. For example I feel I did a great job at that with my landstill lists recently. And not to be full of myself but I feel like if I made top 8 at this past NJ event I would have had an excellent chance at winning the event. I went 4-1-1 and all my wins were 2-0 and felt good about all of my matchups even the awkward/less played/rogue decks or matchups. Sadly I got 9th place. I personally love the meta game right now and love the diversity, it makes for more decisions in deck building and makes events more exciting/intriguing...

Is this basically your "I've been doing really well so the format must be awesome" post?  You don't make any real points here but your "play something better" advice is very useful.  I have to hand it to you, though, you have been doing really well and as it seems well deserved to me. 

Like I said I just feel like things are a little random right now. We are seeing a lot of people with up and down results, going 5-1 one week and 2-4 the next.  I don't think it is because they suddenly developed the powers to innovate one week. 

[chrispikula]

Also want to point out that I literally said in my post "i might be overstating my case".  I'm just making observations based off the really weird top 8s we are seeing from the past few events, my own random feeling results, and how I think some new cards (Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep mostly) can affect things. 

[nataz]

I think your point about too much diversity leading to frustration in deck design is valid. I'm not sure what you can do about that except wait for the meta game to settle.

I remember when Steve was non premium on scg his articles had the power to drive the entire format. Maybe you could take up writing about vintage .

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I think that's a very keen observation.   I think that's exactly what's going on.  I'm playing 2 Misdirections in every deck now to combat the Snapcaster Mage menace.

Sure. None of my opponents played a Snapcaster on Saturday.  

When the field is very unpredictable, but you are forced to choose from cards that are fantastic in one matchup, terrible in another,it will inevitably lead to the luck of your pairings being a primary factor in your record that day.  

Note it is very possible I'm overstating my case here. I'm just basing this on two things 1) terrible results from some very good players, myself included, in recent tourneys 2) my own frustrations during deckbuildiing decisions.  I hope I'm wrong.  The diversity is really cool, I just don't want it to be diversity driven by the whole thing being a crapshoot.

Why don't you innovate or play something that has better matchups in the current meta game overall. For example I feel I did a great job at that with my landstill lists recently. And not to be full of myself but I feel like if I made top 8 at this past NJ event I would have had an excellent chance at winning the event. I went 4-1-1 and all my wins were 2-0 and felt good about all of my matchups even the awkward/less played/rogue decks or matchups. Sadly I got 9th place. I personally love the meta game right now and love the diversity, it makes for more decisions in deck building and makes events more exciting/intriguing...

Is this basically your "I've been doing really well so the format must be awesome" post?  You don't make any real points here but your "play something better" advice is very useful.  I have to hand it to you, though, you have been doing really well and as it seems well deserved to me.  

Like I said I just feel like things are a little random right now. We are seeing a lot of people with up and down results, going 5-1 one week and 2-4 the next.  I don't think it is because they suddenly developed the powers to innovate one week.  

No that's my post saying diversity in a format is good, and seeing people have to think outside the box more is good, rather ten picking up some broken blue net deck and winning. Ppl are so brainwashed as far as what decks can do well and what can't I hate it. Sorry you are frustrated with the meta game but I personally love it and love diversity. And just bc there are random decks being played, doesn't mean you can't figure out the meta and still do well it's just more confusing and difficult to build decks right now

[Onslaught]

I saw the Thurminator on a Travel Channel show yesterday, yowza. Even though I live in California, I seriously want to come to some of these non-major tournaments just to check out the scene. Some kind of Meandeck Open, Serious Open, NYSE, Blue Bell road trip circuit...

[disrupting specter]

Sorry for chiming in late on this, but I love the transformational sideboard for Dredge! I was thinking the same thing. I think there isn't a set of 6+/- best answers to Dredge that should be played. I think if conventional wisdom says to bring in 4 Leyline, and 2 _________, then Dredge should bring in 4 Nature's Claim and most like Chain of Vapor. Then as a result, Player 2 should not board in enchantments or artifacts to blank Nature's Claim and go with, say, Yixlid Jailer instead. I don't know if the particulars are correct but if Dredge is going to react with X, then Player 2 should come with Y instead. Its a big game of hate and anti-hate.

With a transformational sideboard, Dredge can sidestep all of this. Instead of thinking about what kind of hate is going to be brought against them, they can just know that it is going to be something against graveyard and go from there. I never found that I could win with just nether shadows and the like even backed up by Cabal Therapy, Unmask, Chalice of the Void, and Leyline itself but maybe it was the wrong metagame. Who knows? I tried to see where I could fit in sideboard that works with the low mana base and discard, mill, or graveyard. I looked at Psychatog, Dragon, and Madness but nothing fit. I'm still not convinced Dark Depths and nether shadows are the best way to go but its an amazing idea. Great minds think alike and are very modest too 

[Morbid-]

I played to a 3-3 finish with a UBrg Snapcaster Control list. I really wasn't prepared for Workshop (cutting back on hate) and I got rolled by it twice. Also had a quite epic match against Matt Hazard, where our third game featured such plays like:

Him: Lotus, Ancient Tomb, Spirit Guide, Magus of the Moon.
Me: Resolves, draw, land, go.
Him: Attack with Magus, pass.
Me: During your end step, Lightning Bolt your Magus.
Him: Break Lotus for blue, Mindbreak Trap it.
Me: ...


Was a good learning experience, and I'll be back for the next one.

[serracollector]

So...I really like that third place mono-blue deck.  Maindeck energy flux?  Psionic Blast?  What kinda craziness is that?

Anyways, the Thurminator is an awesome Burger, but wasn't quite big enuff IMO.  I still wanted dessert after, but everyone was ready to roll out.    Maybe next time.

The transformational dredge is very interesting.  I didn't get to play against it at a tourney, but have played a few variants on Cockatrice after the tourney results were posted online, and I must say I done the same thing as Steve, lost g1, then g2 mulled into 2 LOTV and lost horribly to hard cast ghasts and nether shadows.  Its very interesting to say the least.

[Tobi]

Awesome top 8!

One single card is missing, in Paul Blakeley's list.
--> http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1541