[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays -- 2012 Vintage Chamnps Report & Post-Mortem

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=2965

In which I explain my view of the metagame, my deck choice, my Top 8 performance in the prelims, and my Vintage Championship report...

Enjoy!!

[serracollector]

Very nice list.  I also agree that Seal could be cut, even with 4 jace.  I have tried multiple incursions of 4 jace + 4 cobra + 4 gush + broken spells, and it has done me well.  2 questions tho:

1) Why no ancient Grudges?  I understand the 2 trygon and 1 hurk's main is "good enuff" probably, but anceint grudge is easily in the colors, and amazing versus more than just MUD.

2)  Why no Empty the warrens/Tendrils?  Y win into storm, especially with the gush engine/maindeck hurks, seems too good to not run at least 1 of if not both.


It is also very surprising you didnt force the turn 1 sphere game one so you could Lotus>cobra>merchant scroll>acall turn 1.  Thats a very overwhelming play versus MUD giving you 3 perms turn 1, including a basic, and cobra, with 3 new cards in hand (possibly more had u drawn moxen).  Why did you choose to let the sphere stay?

thanks for the report!  Better luck next year.

[quicksilvervii]

Solid read, interesting deck choice.

In general, I think that Bolt is very well positioned in the format, and you will see me playing 4 in any deck I play in the near future.

[Smmenen]

Solid read, interesting deck choice.

In general, I think that Bolt is very well positioned in the format, and you will see me playing 4 in any deck I play in the near future.

From here on out, Jace pilots will be using Fateseal first, given the prevalence of Bolt.

2 questions tho:

1) Why no ancient Grudges?  I understand the 2 trygon and 1 hurk's main is "good enuff" probably, but anceint grudge is easily in the colors, and amazing versus more than just MUD.

2)  Why no Empty the warrens/Tendrils?  Y win into storm, especially with the gush engine/maindeck hurks, seems too good to not run at least 1 of if not both.

1) Ancient Grudge is amazing, but I don't think it's better than Trygon or Ingot Chewer.   Ingot Chewer is the number one best card against Shop period.  Actually, "best" may be too strong of a word in the sense that it is not the most powerful, but it is the most necessary.  I don't honestly see how blue decks without 3 or more Ingot Chewers are viable.   Ancient Grudge is roughly the same power level as Trygon.  Because of Cobra, I prefer Trygon.

2) Tendrils tested very badly, and ETW is not better than any other card I have here.   The purpose of Necro is just to assemble Key-Vault.   The only reason I'd run ETW is like for Landstill or something.   I think Tallrand is probably around as good as ETW to be honest.   

[Smmenen]

Someone pmed me about the Ingot Chewer remark.   I've said this many times, but you have to be able to reliably defeat Lodestone Golem on the draw in a game 3 scenario without Force of Will.   Ingot Chewer does that better than any other card because it can be played through Chalice 1 & Thorn.

So your opponent can play turn 1 Golem & Chalice for 0 & 2 & Thorn, and your Ingot Chewer will still allow you to survive.   That's why, for example, Marc Lanigra had 4 Ingot Chewer in his sb.

You'll notice that I splash for red, but almost entirely for post-board action.  It also doesn't hurt that I run Lotus Cobra.

[vaughnbros]

1) Ancient Grudge is amazing, but I don't think it's better than Trygon or Ingot Chewer.   Ingot Chewer is the number one best card against Shop period.  Actually, "best" may be too strong of a word in the sense that it is not the most powerful, but it is the most necessary.  I don't honestly see how blue decks without 3 or more Ingot Chewers are viable.   Ancient Grudge is roughly the same power level as Trygon.  Because of Cobra, I prefer Trygon.

Someone pmed me about the Ingot Chewer remark.   I've said this many times, but you have to be able to reliably defeat Lodestone Golem on the draw in a game 3 scenario without Force of Will.   Ingot Chewer does that better than any other card because it can be played through Chalice 1 & Thorn.

So your opponent can play turn 1 Golem & Chalice for 0 & 2 & Thorn, and your Ingot Chewer will still allow you to survive.   That's why, for example, Marc Lanigra had 4 Ingot Chewer in his sb.

You are only listing the scenarios in which Ingot chewer is better.  It is the hate card that is nearly impossible to be locked out of and is generally the best at counter acting a fast start for shops.  It is also mono red so there are decks that can run this that don't even have access to grudge.  However, it doesn't help with card advantage at all unless you are heavily flooded with mana.  

I think you are disregarding ancient grudge far too easily.  The card is an instant and at 2 mana making a chalice at 2 or a very heavy mana denial hand the only way shops can lock you out of it.  Because of it's ability to be recurred later in the game for less mana than the original casting cost, I think the only situation where chewer is better is the one in which you listed.  If I have access to red and green mana in my list I'm definitely playing grudges over chewers.

I feel like trygon without exalted isnt even close to the same power level as these other two cards against shops, its more easily answered, much harder to cast, and doesnt immediately affect the board state.  Trygon is just more playable because its great against other decks like landstill and oath.

[Smmenen]

1) Ancient Grudge is amazing, but I don't think it's better than Trygon or Ingot Chewer.   Ingot Chewer is the number one best card against Shop period.  Actually, "best" may be too strong of a word in the sense that it is not the most powerful, but it is the most necessary.  I don't honestly see how blue decks without 3 or more Ingot Chewers are viable.   Ancient Grudge is roughly the same power level as Trygon.  Because of Cobra, I prefer Trygon.

Someone pmed me about the Ingot Chewer remark.   I've said this many times, but you have to be able to reliably defeat Lodestone Golem on the draw in a game 3 scenario without Force of Will.   Ingot Chewer does that better than any other card because it can be played through Chalice 1 & Thorn.

So your opponent can play turn 1 Golem & Chalice for 0 & 2 & Thorn, and your Ingot Chewer will still allow you to survive.   That's why, for example, Marc Lanigra had 4 Ingot Chewer in his sb.

You are only listing the scenarios in which Ingot chewer is better.  It is the hate card that is nearly impossible to be locked out of and is generally the best at counter acting a fast start for shops.  It is also mono red so there are decks that can run this that don't even have access to grudge.  However, it doesn't help with card advantage at all unless you are heavily flooded with mana.  

The purpose of the scenario isn't to say: look at this unique scenario: Chewer is better here.  The point is that T1 Golem on the draw is probably the worst case scenario that every deck needs to have an answer to.   

If you don't have a reliable plan for Lodestone Golem resolving on the draw, don't even bother showing up to a Vintage tournament.  Ingot Chewer is by far the most reliable answer to that problem in terms of spells.

I think you are disregarding ancient grudge far too easily.  The card is an instant and at 2 mana making a chalice at 2 or a very heavy mana denial hand the only way shops can lock you out of it.  Because of it's ability to be recurred later in the game for less mana than the original casting cost, I think the only situation where chewer is better is the one in which you listed.  If I have access to red and green mana in my list I'm definitely playing grudges over chewers.

I feel like trygon without exalted isnt even close to the same power level as these other two cards against shops, its more easily answered, much harder to cast, and doesnt immediately affect the board state.  Trygon is just more playable because its great against other decks like landstill and oath.

You get mad card advantage from Trygon, and if you build your deck around it, it's really not that easy to answer.   Ancient Grudge is a fine card, but I prefer Trygon.   I run 4 Jace to bounce metamorph or blockers.   

Again, my point isn't that Ingot Chewer is better than Ancient Grudge.  It's just far more necessary.   Ancient Grudge is a luxory, like Trygon.  Ingot Chewer is a necessity. 

[vaughnbros]

The purpose of the scenario isn't to say: look at this unique scenario: Chewer is better here.  The point is that T1 Golem on the draw is probably the worst case scenario that every deck needs to have an answer to.  

If you don't have a reliable plan for Lodestone Golem resolving on the draw, don't even bother showing up to a Vintage tournament.  Ingot Chewer is by far the most reliable answer to that problem in terms of spells.

I couldn't agree with you more on these two points.  However...

You get mad card advantage from Trygon, and if you build your deck around it, it's really not that easy to answer.   Ancient Grudge is a fine card, but I prefer Trygon.   I run 4 Jace to bounce metamorph or blockers.  

Again, my point isn't that Ingot Chewer is better than Ancient Grudge.  It's just far more necessary.   Ancient Grudge is a luxory, like Trygon.  Ingot Chewer is a necessity.  

I agree Trygon is amazing if supported with lots of removal, but when I'm relying on that as one of my key hate cards I don't want to have to struggle to get it down and then on top of that have to clear the way with another removal spell.  Grudge doesn't really need support other than the mana to cast it.  If you can resolve a Trygon and Jace against a shops deck I'd say they haven't really done their job.

Ingot chewer is not necessary at all.  There are other ways to answer a first turn lodestone.  Lightning bolt, path, swords, claim, snuff out, baleful strix (to a degree), mishra's factory (to a smaller degree) and my personal favorite Dismember because I can fetch my basic island and still use it.  Chewer is easier to get through if they play thorn and/or chalice, but its certainly not the only answer to first turn lodestone.

In certain lists Ancient grudge is far from a luxury if you need to generate card advantage against stax there isn't a better card you can find.

[Smmenen]

Thorn is the second most popular unrestricted Sphere.  Ingot Chewer is the only card that can kill a Lodestone in the worst of scenarios -- when you are facing Chalices, Thorn, and Golem.   That makes it, imo, necessary.   It's the most reliable way to defeat a turn one Lodestone in worst case scenarios.   Both Lightning Bolt and Dismember cost 3 with Thorn and Golem in play, and neither Bolt nor PLow can be resolved with Chalice 1 in play.  

I do not believe Workshops can be reliably defeated without Ingot Chewer.   It's simply necessary in my view. 

[median]

Ingot Chewer is also splash hate against dredge.

[vaughnbros]

Thorn is the second most popular unrestricted Sphere.  Ingot Chewer is the only card that can kill a Lodestone in the worst of scenarios -- when you are facing Chalices, Thorn, and Golem.   That makes it, imo, necessary.   It's the most reliable way to defeat a turn one Lodestone in worst case scenarios.   Both Lightning Bolt and Dismember cost 3 with Thorn and Golem in play, and neither Bolt nor PLow can be resolved with Chalice 1 in play.  

Even with chewer, you can't answer lodestone + chalice/thorn on turn 1.  The other spells are much better against other decks making them much better main deck options allowing you to win game 1's through such scenarios.  Having this improved game 1 percentage means you don't need such an overwhelming game 3 percentage.

I do not believe Workshops can be reliably defeated without Ingot Chewer.   It's simply necessary in my view.  

If you choose to have a very mana intensive deck I am inclined to agree with you, lots of cards like snapcasters, jaces, and trygons, especially in a 4+ color mana base.  If you cut it down to 2 or 3 colors and reduce the mana curve again you will improve your game 1 percentage.  And again you won't be forced to win that game 3 on the draw.

As great as decks with 4+ colors and 4 jaces in them are against other blue decks I personally don't think its a good idea because of how weak this combination is against creature decks and shops.

Ingot Chewer is also splash hate against dredge.

It has very minimal splash damage.  Most decks can't really beat dredge by just removing their bridges at sorcery speed.  In the deck that won worlds I saw chewers as much more necessary for the fish match up than the stax one.  Seeing as it blows up cages, shardless agents and is a house at a 3/3.  Most other removal also doubles to fight that match up though.

[median]

Up until BoM this passed summer I felt the same way, what made the difference was seeing how the whole meta had shifted to be focused around shops and dredge, instead of normal blue and shops. I felt that if I wanted to win at a large tournament I would have to beat those decks head on and make Time Vault/Jace/Tinker a secondary concern. I currently have 2 Lightning Bolt, 3 Ingot Chewer, and 1 Hurkyls for those matches in my main deck and this has made my side board much more flexible for the rest of the gauntlet. The lightning bolts also keep my confidant from killing me and the hurkyls is an enabler for EtW, so they're not without synergy.
The wonderful thing about this configuration is that ingot chewer contributes interaction to my two worst match ups, Work Shop Aggro and Dredge. While Bolt contributes to the Blue and Workshop Aggo matches.
If there were no Aggro workshop variants in my area and the MUD field was full of control strategies I would be much more inclined to splash green and add ancient grudge instead of Ingot Chewer. But that's not the case.
For what it's worth on how poorly Ingot Chewer does against Dredge I agree whole heartedly. But I'll take anything in that match, it's not like my Flusterstorms and Spell Pierces are doing much and I would rather be able to do something in game 1 and more in games 2 and 3 than the nothing I would normally have.

[bluemage55]

Why 4x Flusterstorm as opposed to a more general counterspell?  Seems like a fairly key design choice since it's 4 dead cards every game 1 versus Shops and Dredge, yet it wasn't really explained in the article.  This isn't to say that I disagree with the choice, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

[Bill Copes]

Why 4x Flusterstorm as opposed to a more general counterspell?  Seems like a fairly key design choice since it's 4 dead cards every game 1 versus Shops and Dredge, yet it wasn't really explained in the article.  This isn't to say that I disagree with the choice, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

Echoing this. It appears that your only way to prevent an enemy jace from wrecking you is to have force of will or play one of your four through theirs and then hope to follow it up with a second.  With Lotus Cobra being an enabler, could a couple of the Flusterstorms be Drains?

I like the deck - I have something similar sleeved up.  My only problem with is is that it feels very, "go broke or go home."  You don't recover well when something goes wrong.

[Onslaught]

Any thought given to a few copies of Spell Pierce over Flusterstorm? It can protect a Jace almost as well as Flusterstorm, while also being able to counter opposing Jaces.

[mgouthro]

Flusterstorm is really a back breaking counterspell in blue matchups and functions as a good trump in any counter war. If you played Spell Pierce over it, you'd be lowering your percentage against the rest of the blue decks in the field. I won't deny that Spell Pierce is good, I did manage to pierce a Jace during the event, but Flusterstorm was better for half the field. If the only reason Spell Pierce would be better is countering Jace, it's not enough of a reason to run it instead. I didn't lose any games to Jace, and I played Flusterstorms main, and a Spell Pierce in the side. Anecdotal experience, I know, but still.

As for Dredge, in game one, are a massive underdog to start with, so siding out Flusterstorms for relevant sideboard cards is easy enough. Against shops, you are lucky if you can put them under the gun to resolve spells into your counters. At least 50% of the time, you are using Force and paying an additional mana for a Sphere if you are lucky enough to have open mana. Flusterstorms can still be pitched to FoW in game one, and sided out afterwards.

There are good arguments both ways, but I agree with his choices.

[Smmenen]

Thorn is the second most popular unrestricted Sphere.  Ingot Chewer is the only card that can kill a Lodestone in the worst of scenarios -- when you are facing Chalices, Thorn, and Golem.   That makes it, imo, necessary.   It's the most reliable way to defeat a turn one Lodestone in worst case scenarios.   Both Lightning Bolt and Dismember cost 3 with Thorn and Golem in play, and neither Bolt nor PLow can be resolved with Chalice 1 in play.  

Even with chewer, you can't answer lodestone + chalice/thorn on turn 1.  

No, but you can on turn 2.   

The sequence:

T1:

Opponent: Shop, Mox, Golem, Chalice 0

You: Fetchland, go

T2:

Opponent: Attack for 5.   Thorn.

You: Land, Evoke Chewer.

This allows you to survive a turn one Golem followed by a combination of Chalice and Thorn.   It, obviously, does not allow you to survive a T2 Metamorph or Tangle Wire.  Unfortunately, nothing does. 

Without a Chalice at 0, you could obviously evoke Ingot Chewer on turn one if you have a Mox:

T1:

Opponent: Shop, Mox, Golem

You: Land, Mox, Evoke Chewer

The problem, however, is if you don't have a Mox. 

Even with full 0 artifact mana acceleration (5 Moxen, Lotus, Petal, and Crypt) for turn one plays, there is a non-trivial chance you won't have one on turn one on the draw.   This can happen in a number of ways, but is especially troubling on a mulligan.

There is little worse than being on the draw against Shops and being forced to mulligan because you have a super slow hand or no answers.   

Thus, even if the opponent doesn't have a Chalice, you'll need to evoke turn two Ingot Chewer in many game 3 scenarios, like this:

T1:

Opponent: Shop, Mox, Golem

You: Land, go

T2:

Opponent: Attack with Golem, and play Thorn OR Chalice 1 (or both!)

You: Land, Evoke Chewer

It's for these reasons that Chewer isn't just important, it's necessary.   It's the only card that maximizes your chances of winning game 3s under the worst conditions. 

Thorn is the second most popular Sphere, and although Disemember dodges Chalice, it does not dodge Thorn.   It is also a very costly play in terms of life totals and doesn't even kill some threats.   

Listen to Marc Lanigra's interview where he talks about Ingot Chewer for more, but he feels the same way I do about it...

The other spells are much better against other decks making them much better main deck options allowing you to win game 1's through such scenarios.  Having this improved game 1 percentage means you don't need such an overwhelming game 3 percentage.

That's fantasy land imo.   Even if you have a great game 1 against Shops, you have to be prepared to win game 3 on the draw or you aren't preparing for real tournament vintage.

Any thought given to a few copies of Spell Pierce over Flusterstorm? It can protect a Jace almost as well as Flusterstorm, while also being able to counter opposing Jaces.

Spell Pierce is also hit by Mental Misstep.  Spell Pierce is terrible in modern vintage.

This list began as Doomsday, and Flusterstorms are part of that legacy.  However, I view both Jace and Doomsday as similar cards: resolve them and win. 

[TheProfessor]

Great article. I almost went with Cobra Gush the night before the Vintage Championships, but decided to stick with my original deck after hours of testing. I really like the list that you played, and I am definitely going to give it a try.

[vaughnbros]

I appreciate you laying out all the scenarios.  I've been agreeing with you though that chewer is the best to overcome a fast start against shops.  I'm not sure its really possible to lay out scenarios for when grudge is better since it would need to be deeper into the game.  After seeing this though I am inclined to agree with you that you need chewer to be favored when shops is on the play and your playing a traditional blue deck.

The other spells are much better against other decks making them much better main deck options allowing you to win game 1's through such scenarios.  Having this improved game 1 percentage means you don't need such an overwhelming game 3 percentage.

That's fantasy land imo.   Even if you have a great game 1 against Shops, you have to be prepared to win game 3 on the draw or you aren't preparing for real tournament vintage.

I'm not saying to that I'd have no chance game 3 just that I dont need to be favored when I'm on the draw.

To illustrate this I'm going to make up some odds these could be way off, but just bear with me.  Lets say the game 1/2/3 odds for my decks and your decks are as follows yours: .35/.6/.55 and mine: .45/.55/.5  Both of these game odds result in a 50% chance of winning.  Now obviously your deck is going to need much more sideboard hate to make a 20% jump, and mine is going to need to look a lot different main deck to have 10% better chance of winning than yours.  But basically this should illustrate that having a higher game 1 percentage means and you shouldnt need to be as focused game 2 and 3.