[Free Article] Vintage Avant-Garde: The Power 3 Reigns Supreme

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Since it hasn't been said here yet, the Snapcasters significantly affect Bob's power level since adding more critters significantly increases that odds that you can end the game by turning 2/1s sideways. Swinging for 2 a turn you may not race the damage from him; swinging for 4 a turn, you almost certainly will unless you flip Blighty or a succession of Force of Wills.

I would agree, however I think there is something to be said on the flipside of this. You cant really attack with bob if your opponent has 1u up for fear of running it into their snapcaster. If you are under the gun and need to attack play your spell precombat so they have to snapcaster counter prior to you attacking.

Thats only if they are playing snapcaster and its really not that big of a deal if they want to trade there you've gotten at least 1 card off your bob already.

Considering the two blue decks that top8ed gencon had snapcaster, it is im your best interest to play around it going forward. It seems fairly important to note that attacking used to be a freeroll and now it isnt.

[vaughnbros]

They are consistent and revolve around cards that are not restricted.
They are turn one plays.
They are all high risk high reward.
They aggressively advance a deck's advantage toward ultimately winning the game.

Would Not sign that.
Point 1: I'm sure most confidant-decks resolve around tinker, Time-key or y.will.
Point 2: seems legit
Point 3: i'm Not sure how "High Risk" it is to Lock an Opponent Out with spheres in the First 2 turns of a game Running a Deck that is mainly filled with mana and beatz
Point 4: stands also True for every beating creature/draw spell/land/etc. in all formats. Vague phrase again

Point 2:  This does not seem legit to me at all.  Dark confidant is a 2 mana spell, can it be cast on turn 1? Yes.  Is it guaranteed? Absolutely not especially if they have a sphere out.  Lodestone golem isn't a turn 1 play either unless you have workshop + mox or some other way of getting 4 mana the odds say hes much more likely to be a turn 2 play than a turn 1 play.

Point 3:  He means that shops loses to artifact hate.  Dredge loses to graveyard hate. And bob kills you.  I'm not sure these 3 are really high risk though.  The first two are just your opponent can have hate that doesnt mean you lose.  And the last one if your deck is built correctly isn't really much of a draw back.

I agree with your analysis of his point 1 and point 4.

Since it hasn't been said here yet, the Snapcasters significantly affect Bob's power level since adding more critters significantly increases that odds that you can end the game by turning 2/1s sideways. Swinging for 2 a turn you may not race the damage from him; swinging for 4 a turn, you almost certainly will unless you flip Blighty or a succession of Force of Wills.

I would agree, however I think there is something to be said on the flipside of this. You cant really attack with bob if your opponent has 1u up for fear of running it into their snapcaster. If you are under the gun and need to attack play your spell precombat so they have to snapcaster counter prior to you attacking.

Thats only if they are playing snapcaster and its really not that big of a deal if they want to trade there you've gotten at least 1 card off your bob already.

Considering the two blue decks that top8ed gencon had snapcaster, it is im your best interest to play around it going forward. It seems fairly important to note that attacking used to be a freeroll and now it isnt.

Your right without removal or a counter magic available its probably better to hold off attacking when they have mana up.

[Prospero]

A few reminders:

1.  Very, very few people provide Vintage content, let alone content that is worth reading.  This site survives on the content that writers and tournament organizers provide.  

2.  If you disagree with the writer, do so in a civil manner.  There is absolutely no room for abusing writers on this site.  They provide a service.  If this was an article by Elias, Hornung, Steve, Brian, or anyone else, I'd say the same thing; understand that these writers were under no obligation to provide you Vintage content.  Thank them for it, and then get about your business.

3.  It is entirely possible to disagree with someone, make a point, and not turn it into a string of petty jabs and subtle slights.  The level of discourse on this site is expected to be high.  Beyond the basics (proper capitalization, spelling, grammar, tone, etc.), there remain the more serious things (the quality of your thoughts, the presentation of your argument, etc.).  Posters who participate on this site will be held to these standards.  

This site can be a resource for all players; this site should be a place where neophytes, experienced players and everyone in-between can carry on a discussion about Vintage, and all Vintage entails.  If you disagree with someone, that's great, disagree with them.  Explain your thinking, your experiences, and your logic as to why the person is wrong.  There shouldn't be an ounce of invective in any of your posts.  Understand that this is, above all things, a COMMUNITY.  Our collective power, together, is far greater than any individual.  If we're going to build a community, play, spread the format, and have a good time, we need EVERYONE to commit to do something.  These articles are certainly something; it is entirely possible that someone checked out Brian's article, someone who has never played the format before and is potentially interested.  Before you type out that next 'smart' comment, think about what message it sends, what it does to the author, and what effects it will have on the community.

What incentive does Brian have to continue writing articles if he's attacked on the premier Vintage site for it?  Why shouldn't he just go off and write Legacy articles until the end of time?  What would that do to you?  What would that do to the community?  Would it be a good thing?

Let's stop the nonsense and get back on point.  I don't want to lock this thread, but I will if I have to.

[Lemnear]

@ prospero

As i read the article (which brian doubted in a questionable way) I noticed a lot of shady or plain wrong statements beginning with listing illegal decklists to prove points. I was utter shocked how he suddenly can drop all reason and research for bold Statements like the one that confidant is "the only Good unrestricted" draw engine.

I have no idea how an experienced Player and writer can make such a claim. After my Second read-through i had the impression that he was trying to justify bis own thesis (see Headline) that Bob is One of three "pillars" of vintage. Headline, pictures, subtitles, repeating phrases and Even the questionable "Tier-List" strengthen this impression.

Instead of anything constuctive I only recieved insults and he dodged any critic by "adjusting" the way we should interpret his words beginning with "linear" which is afaik a pretty defined term and continues with another shady 4-Point-list. At this point I returned the favour he gave me.



@ vaughnbros regarding Point 2/3 on  brian's list:

With all the mana artifacts in vintage i think asuming Lodestone, bob and bazaar pretty possible Turn 1 plays. I guess taking spheres or other things into Account here is a bit unfair.

I know that he means that you likely Loose with shop if your First 2-3 threats meets removal but the nature/gameplan of todays Shop Decks is that you AREN'T able to Play the hate against them. What's the value of an ancient grudge if you are on the draw and your Shop-friend Opens with Lodestone (and/or other shit)? Where is the risk in Running lodestone against hate the Opponent can't play (except FoW obv)?

[vaughnbros]

Prospero, Nick, not sure what to call you on here,

I want to preface by saying that I know people, including myself, can go overboard a little bit on these forums, but I personally appreciate the articles and others posting and would never intentionally try to hurt someones feelings and I think a majority of people feel the same way.  I also appreciate you doing your job as a moderator by keeping us in line.

There is very little vintage content.  So when someone writes an article in my view they aren't just representing themselves, they are representing the vintage community.  For this reason I personally hold vintage writers to higher standard than I would a writer for a different magic format. 

From the articles I have read Elias and Hornung generally shy away from bold statements.  The bold statements that Menendian makes are usually well supported and he always seems to be patient and willing to explain them on this forum.  DeMars also makes bold statements a lot and he usually supports them in his article and is willing to explain them on this forum.  In this case though DeMars didn't support some of his claims at all in his article.

I'm going to leave it at that.

[Prospero]

@ prospero

As i read the article (which brian doubted in a questionable way) I noticed a lot of shady or plain wrong statements beginning with listing illegal decklists to prove points. I was utter shocked how he suddenly can drop all reason and research for bold Statements like the one that confidant is "the only Good unrestricted" draw engine.

I have no idea how an experienced Player and writer can make such a claim. After my Second read-through i had the impression that he was trying to justify bis own thesis (see Headline) that Bob is One of three "pillars" of vintage. Headline, pictures, subtitles, repeating phrases and Even the questionable "Tier-List" strengthen this impression.

Instead of anything constuctive I only recieved insults and he dodged any critic by "adjusting" the way we should interpret his words beginning with "linear" which is afaik a pretty defined term and continues with another shady 4-Point-list. At this point I returned the favour he gave me.



@ vaughnbros regarding Point 2/3 on  brian's list:

With all the mana artifacts in vintage i think asuming Lodestone, bob and bazaar pretty possible Turn 1 plays. I guess taking spheres or other things into Account here is a bit unfair.

I know that he means that you likely Loose with shop if your First 2-3 threats meets removal but the nature/gameplan of todays Shop Decks is that you AREN'T able to Play the hate against them. What's the value of an ancient grudge if you are on the draw and your Shop-friend Opens with Lodestone (and/or other shit)? Where is the risk in Running lodestone against hate the Opponent can't play (except FoW obv)?

For starters, your default assumption when reading content put up by these writers should be that their intentions are well meaning.  I read the article and didn't think anything was 'shady'.  If you're shocked as to his conclusions, then prove why you're shocked.  There is no place for wanton emotion; if you're going to react to him then respond with numbers.  Show top eights with different draw engines, talk about successful, current, lists, and do whatever else you can to factually prove him wrong.  If you can't agree, then rest on your laurels, having provided a credible argument, without emotion, that shows other points that you think were lacking.

Prospero, Nick, not sure what to call you on here,

I want to preface by saying that I know people, including myself, can go overboard a little bit on these forums, but I personally appreciate the articles and others posting and would never intentionally try to hurt someones feelings and I think a majority of people feel the same way.  I also appreciate you doing your job as a moderator by keeping us in line.

There is very little vintage content.  So when someone writes an article in my view they aren't just representing themselves, they are representing the vintage community.  For this reason I personally hold vintage writers to higher standard than I would a writer for a different magic format.  

From the articles I have read Elias and Hornung generally shy away from bold statements.  The bold statements that Menendian makes are usually well supported and he always seems to be patient and willing to explain them on this forum.  DeMars also makes bold statements a lot and he usually supports them in his article and is willing to explain them on this forum.  In this case though DeMars didn't support some of his claims at all in his article.

I'm going to leave it at that.

Lance, you can call me Prospero or Nick. I don't care.

Holding the writers to a high standard is more than fine.  If you feel the urge to respond, please respond to Brian with facts; results, successful lists, metagame trends, etc. that prove him wrong.  Without implicating anyone in particular I would like to point out that appeals to emotion are basically useless and foment nothing positive.

[Lemnear]

Nick, if I understand you right, I should be thankful for every written word about vintage no matter the content or if it's the truth? Second, it's my duty to prove an article wrong (with numbers) instead of the writer supporting his thesis by results (more than just 1 T8)? Do I really Need to pick up and present numbers that gush is a) unrestricted and b) well presented in vintage (won both prelims)?

I'm just kinda "shocked" Brian wrote an unusual article full of phrases and claims, imo.

If I make bold and proud claims, I should expect some harsh critic. I can take some Hits with a smile, don't Take all this too personally and will of course, looking forward to read his future articles.

I would Leave it that way

[Ten-Ten]

Great article! as always 

Funny thing is, if I could have gone to GenCon this year I would have opted to play Steve's Bob-Gush list (plus the vault/key combo) from 2011 Vintage champs. Simply because it focuses on Tinker, which is pretty good against Dredge, Shops, and aggro decks.
 
Combining the two best unrestricted draw engines in Vintage and making it work was pure genius.

Go,Go Bobby Digital!

[Prospero]

Yes, you should be thankful that someone intelligent and well spoken took the time to write an article about Vintage. The alternative was that nothing was written. Is that better? Clearly it isn't.

Yes, you are expected to present a calm, rational argument that is devoid of hyperbole and presents FACTS to make your claims. Yes, if you can't do that you will receive action on the part of the staff. Brian is expected to do the same when he replies to you.

I've had quite enough of this for the moment. This is not a topic of debate. You will be civil and your argument will have merit, or it will warrant action. I have been pretty easy going, though much of this would fall under the 'questioning staff' section of the TMD Rules and Regulations. From here on out, if you have any questions, they should be handled via PM. Mod sass won't be further tolerated. 

[Lemnear]

Never had any intention to attack you nick, Sorry if you feel like that.

First of all I want to credit JACO and the eternal-central-team for gathering and preseting the following data of the 2 prelims of GenCon-Vintage. I want to Start with the 10am prelim

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=2987

1. RUG Delver
2. URG planeswalker
3. Bomberman
4. Bomberman
5. UBR Strix
6. Bant Fish
7. Staxx
8. Griselbrand Oath

0 Confidants
0 Bazaar
4 Workshops
4 Gush
14 Jace

4pm prelim
http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=3004

1. Doomsday
2. Confidant Control
3. Staxx
4. MUD
5. RUG Delver
6. Griselbrand oath
7. UR Landstill
8. Cobra Gush

8 gush
2 confidant + 1 SB
8 Shop
4 Standstill
16 Jace

In advance of the vintage Champ final we have more gush, Jaces and Standstills as draw engines in Top performing decks than confidants. So considering non-Bob/Bazaar/Shop-decks trash isn't correct nor claiming gush or Standstill aren't viable draw engines.

[cvarosky80]

I think you are misunderstanding the point Brian was making. The point was not that Gush and Standstill aren't viable engines, because they clearly are. The point was that, at this moment, Bob is the better choice in his opinion. And when you look at the last 4 years of this particular tournament, he's correct. For the last 4 years, Bob has made it to the finals in each of those tournaments. Now granted, Gush was restricted for 2 of those 4 years, so it can be a little skewed, but in the 2 years since Gush's unrestriction, Bob-based decks have still been the decks that the finals of Vintage Champs (While last year Paul made the finals with Bob-Gush, that deck was essentially a Bob deck that used Gush the way Owen and Bob's finalist decks used Jace the previous year). Bob presents certain advantages over Gush and Standstill in the current metagame in that, while it is not as explosive as Gush or Standstill can be, it's consistent. Bob presents the dual role of being a steady draw engine and board presence, which makes it very strong when facing Workshops, and at a tournament like Vintage Champs, where as the day goes on, you become more likely to face Workshop decks repeatedly in the higher Swiss brackets, having that consistency is very important. And in addition to that, with RUG Delver being one of the more popular deck choices, Bob provides that same dual role against it that will consistently buy you the time you need to execute your broken play to beat that deck. In the matchups vs. Landstill and Bomberman, Bob's dual role is just as pronounced, where Gush can be somewhat diminished as Gush generally cannot execute its "Gush Plays" consistently against Landstill and Bomberman, simply because both decks pack so much counter to stifle those plays. The only times where Bob is the weaker of the choices is in the Dredge and Broken-Gush (ECW, Doomsday, Cobra) matchups just because those decks are generally faster and can explode out of the gates more consistently against a Bob deck, which are designed for the long game. So, when you look at the scoreboard, its 4-2 in favor of Bob in the current metagame, meaning Brian's statement is actually not that bold at this time. In fact, it's quite accurate, all things considered.

[Samoht]

I think you are misunderstanding the point Brian was making. The point was not that Gush and Standstill aren't viable engines, because they clearly are. The point was that, at this moment, Bob is the better choice in his opinion. And when you look at the last 4 years of this particular tournament, he's correct. For the last 4 years, Bob has made it to the finals in each of those tournaments. Now granted, Gush was restricted for 2 of those 4 years, so it can be a little skewed, but in the 2 years since Gush's unrestriction, Bob-based decks have still been the decks that the finals of Vintage Champs (While last year Paul made the finals with Bob-Gush, that deck was essentially a Bob deck that used Gush the way Owen and Bob's finalist decks used Jace the previous year). Bob presents certain advantages over Gush and Standstill in the current metagame in that, while it is not as explosive as Gush or Standstill can be, it's consistent. Bob presents the dual role of being a steady draw engine and board presence, which makes it very strong when facing Workshops, and at a tournament like Vintage Champs, where as the day goes on, you become more likely to face Workshop decks repeatedly in the higher Swiss brackets, having that consistency is very important. And in addition to that, with RUG Delver being one of the more popular deck choices, Bob provides that same dual role against it that will consistently buy you the time you need to execute your broken play to beat that deck. In the matchups vs. Landstill and Bomberman, Bob's dual role is just as pronounced, where Gush can be somewhat diminished as Gush generally cannot execute its "Gush Plays" consistently against Landstill and Bomberman, simply because both decks pack so much counter to stifle those plays. The only times where Bob is the weaker of the choices is in the Dredge and Broken-Gush (ECW, Doomsday, Cobra) matchups just because those decks are generally faster and can explode out of the gates more consistently against a Bob deck, which are designed for the long game. So, when you look at the scoreboard, its 4-2 in favor of Bob in the current metagame, meaning Brian's statement is actually not that bold at this time. In fact, it's quite accurate, all things considered.

Chris,

Brian didn't do those things, you inferred that from Brian's writing. There is a difference.

Brian boldly claimed that anyone not starting their Blue deck with 4 black creatures was flat out wrong to be playing in Champs, and from that he added that Bob is the supreme card engine in the game right now by putting it next to Bazaar/Workshop. Do I think that Brian is getting a harder time about it than perhaps even he deserves, sure. But in the defense of his detractors, his claim overlooks the non 100+ man events. In these significantly larger events, with many more rounds, variance is something that comes into play. As such, winning/top 8'ing can not be the only merit that we judge builds/engines on.  That is result oriented gaming, and is not an actual proof of anything. Not only what you draw, but also pairings and opponent's skill level can greatly affect a players performance in a major event. Just looking solely at the top 8 of the last 5 major events, Brian has hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient enough to determine universal truths in the manner in which was proclaimed. If you are to look back at all of the NEV events and any other 5 round tournament held this year in America, you would be surprised to see that many more copies of Gush are there as opposed to Dark Confidant. Now, that doesn't mean that Gush is superior either, it just shows that it isn't quite as one-sided a debate as Brian would lead you to believe.

Also, Bob is much worse against RUG Delver. It is a deck designed to do 15-17 damage very quickly, and Bob will do the rest of it himself more often than not. I also disagree with your assessment of Gush's value in the Blue match ups. Getting added value from your land drops once you start to miss them is amazing, as well as dodging Lightning Bolt/Swords to Plowshares.

[cvarosky80]

I think you are misunderstanding the point Brian was making. The point was not that Gush and Standstill aren't viable engines, because they clearly are. The point was that, at this moment, Bob is the better choice in his opinion. And when you look at the last 4 years of this particular tournament, he's correct. For the last 4 years, Bob has made it to the finals in each of those tournaments. Now granted, Gush was restricted for 2 of those 4 years, so it can be a little skewed, but in the 2 years since Gush's unrestriction, Bob-based decks have still been the decks that the finals of Vintage Champs (While last year Paul made the finals with Bob-Gush, that deck was essentially a Bob deck that used Gush the way Owen and Bob's finalist decks used Jace the previous year). Bob presents certain advantages over Gush and Standstill in the current metagame in that, while it is not as explosive as Gush or Standstill can be, it's consistent. Bob presents the dual role of being a steady draw engine and board presence, which makes it very strong when facing Workshops, and at a tournament like Vintage Champs, where as the day goes on, you become more likely to face Workshop decks repeatedly in the higher Swiss brackets, having that consistency is very important. And in addition to that, with RUG Delver being one of the more popular deck choices, Bob provides that same dual role against it that will consistently buy you the time you need to execute your broken play to beat that deck. In the matchups vs. Landstill and Bomberman, Bob's dual role is just as pronounced, where Gush can be somewhat diminished as Gush generally cannot execute its "Gush Plays" consistently against Landstill and Bomberman, simply because both decks pack so much counter to stifle those plays. The only times where Bob is the weaker of the choices is in the Dredge and Broken-Gush (ECW, Doomsday, Cobra) matchups just because those decks are generally faster and can explode out of the gates more consistently against a Bob deck, which are designed for the long game. So, when you look at the scoreboard, its 4-2 in favor of Bob in the current metagame, meaning Brian's statement is actually not that bold at this time. In fact, it's quite accurate, all things considered.

Chris,

Brian didn't do those things, you inferred that from Brian's writing. There is a difference.

Brian boldly claimed that anyone not starting their Blue deck with 4 black creatures was flat out wrong to be playing in Champs, and from that he added that Bob is the supreme card engine in the game right now by putting it next to Bazaar/Workshop. Do I think that Brian is getting a harder time about it than perhaps even he deserves, sure. But in the defense of his detractors, his claim overlooks the non 100+ man events. In these significantly larger events, with many more rounds, variance is something that comes into play. As such, winning/top 8'ing can not be the only merit that we judge builds/engines on.  That is result oriented gaming, and is not an actual proof of anything. Not only what you draw, but also pairings and opponent's skill level can greatly affect a players performance in a major event. Just looking solely at the top 8 of the last 5 major events, Brian has hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient enough to determine universal truths in the manner in which was proclaimed. If you are to look back at all of the NEV events and any other 5 round tournament held this year in America, you would be surprised to see that many more copies of Gush are there as opposed to Dark Confidant. Now, that doesn't mean that Gush is superior either, it just shows that it isn't quite as one-sided a debate as Brian would lead you to believe.

Also, Bob is much worse against RUG Delver. It is a deck designed to do 15-17 damage very quickly, and Bob will do the rest of it himself more often than not. I also disagree with your assessment of Gush's value in the Blue match ups. Getting added value from your land drops once you start to miss them is amazing, as well as dodging Lightning Bolt/Swords to Plowshares.

Fair enough. I do think, however, you somewhat misunderstood my assessment of Gush in the Blue matchup. In most Blue matchups, Gush is the superior engine. It is the Landstill matchup that I think it is somewhat weaker simply because of the sheer volume of counterspells that deck packs to keep a traditional Gush deck from properly exploiting the Gushbond engine. I did mention the same for Bomberman, but in retrospect, that was an incorrect statement on my part as it pertains to Gush's value compared to Bob in that matchup.

[Samoht]

I think you are misunderstanding the point Brian was making. The point was not that Gush and Standstill aren't viable engines, because they clearly are. The point was that, at this moment, Bob is the better choice in his opinion. And when you look at the last 4 years of this particular tournament, he's correct. For the last 4 years, Bob has made it to the finals in each of those tournaments. Now granted, Gush was restricted for 2 of those 4 years, so it can be a little skewed, but in the 2 years since Gush's unrestriction, Bob-based decks have still been the decks that the finals of Vintage Champs (While last year Paul made the finals with Bob-Gush, that deck was essentially a Bob deck that used Gush the way Owen and Bob's finalist decks used Jace the previous year). Bob presents certain advantages over Gush and Standstill in the current metagame in that, while it is not as explosive as Gush or Standstill can be, it's consistent. Bob presents the dual role of being a steady draw engine and board presence, which makes it very strong when facing Workshops, and at a tournament like Vintage Champs, where as the day goes on, you become more likely to face Workshop decks repeatedly in the higher Swiss brackets, having that consistency is very important. And in addition to that, with RUG Delver being one of the more popular deck choices, Bob provides that same dual role against it that will consistently buy you the time you need to execute your broken play to beat that deck. In the matchups vs. Landstill and Bomberman, Bob's dual role is just as pronounced, where Gush can be somewhat diminished as Gush generally cannot execute its "Gush Plays" consistently against Landstill and Bomberman, simply because both decks pack so much counter to stifle those plays. The only times where Bob is the weaker of the choices is in the Dredge and Broken-Gush (ECW, Doomsday, Cobra) matchups just because those decks are generally faster and can explode out of the gates more consistently against a Bob deck, which are designed for the long game. So, when you look at the scoreboard, its 4-2 in favor of Bob in the current metagame, meaning Brian's statement is actually not that bold at this time. In fact, it's quite accurate, all things considered.

Chris,

Brian didn't do those things, you inferred that from Brian's writing. There is a difference.

Brian boldly claimed that anyone not starting their Blue deck with 4 black creatures was flat out wrong to be playing in Champs, and from that he added that Bob is the supreme card engine in the game right now by putting it next to Bazaar/Workshop. Do I think that Brian is getting a harder time about it than perhaps even he deserves, sure. But in the defense of his detractors, his claim overlooks the non 100+ man events. In these significantly larger events, with many more rounds, variance is something that comes into play. As such, winning/top 8'ing can not be the only merit that we judge builds/engines on.  That is result oriented gaming, and is not an actual proof of anything. Not only what you draw, but also pairings and opponent's skill level can greatly affect a players performance in a major event. Just looking solely at the top 8 of the last 5 major events, Brian has hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient enough to determine universal truths in the manner in which was proclaimed. If you are to look back at all of the NEV events and any other 5 round tournament held this year in America, you would be surprised to see that many more copies of Gush are there as opposed to Dark Confidant. Now, that doesn't mean that Gush is superior either, it just shows that it isn't quite as one-sided a debate as Brian would lead you to believe.

Also, Bob is much worse against RUG Delver. It is a deck designed to do 15-17 damage very quickly, and Bob will do the rest of it himself more often than not. I also disagree with your assessment of Gush's value in the Blue match ups. Getting added value from your land drops once you start to miss them is amazing, as well as dodging Lightning Bolt/Swords to Plowshares.

Fair enough. I do think, however, you somewhat misunderstood my assessment of Gush in the Blue matchup. In most Blue matchups, Gush is the superior engine. It is the Landstill matchup that I think it is somewhat weaker simply because of the sheer volume of counterspells that deck packs to keep a traditional Gush deck from properly exploiting the Gushbond engine. I did mention the same for Bomberman, but in retrospect, that was an incorrect statement on my part as it pertains to Gush's value compared to Bob in that matchup.

The only counters that stop Gush that don't also hit Bob are Flusterstorm and REB. Against Landstill, Gush saves your lands from Wasteland/Strip Mine at the cost of drawing cards/forcing counters. Countering Gush in a U match up when there is not action on the stack is often a trap anyway. If we're playing draw go you have to value your counter versus the two cards being drawn. Most times you want your counter. Bob also turns on their Bolts as stronger cards, where Gush puts them to the counter test, either getting you gas or drawing out counters.

[cvarosky80]

Excellent point, Tom. I did not look at it from that angle.

[boggyb]

I loved this article, Brian -- very seldom does anybody write at such length, in such detail, and with such eloquence about Vintage. The literature on it is sparse and usually poor -- thanks for improving the quality of the dialog piece by piece.

I was surprised that you didn't mention Gush at all, not once, except to say, simply, that there were in fact people who played it at Gen Con. I thought at least you'd put it in your "Tier 1.5" list, though I'm not sure it's that relatively weak. In any case, I'd like to hear your assessment of Gush vs. Bob, and both vs. Standstill, as well.

I believe your point is (correct me where I go wrong) that Vintage is inherently a brutal, extremely fast format, and especially so nowadays, in which the natural tendency of a game is to turn on decisions and interactions made in the first two or three turns. Workshops and Bazaars naturally have the ability to execute their linear strategy immediately, and so to keep up, a blue deck's best bet is to cram its strategic focal point into the game at the earliest opportunity. Bob is the best way to do this, since he can come down on turn 1, while Gush isn't profitably active until turn 3, nor is Standstill very relevant until turns 2 or 3 at the earliest. So, in tournaments where you expect a lot of Workshops and Bazaars, and especially large ones where variance decreases and exposes the 'natural' tendency of a game more readily, Bob is just the best option to keep up.

Is that close to your thinking? The question that arises from it for me is, when are the other options better? And why? In which metas? Clearly Standstill has proven its chops vs. bob decks, as has Gush, and vice versa, etc. etc., and each has proven its mettle vs. Workshops and Bazaars. We've seen each beat the other countless times-- I agree with you wholeheartedly in your assessment as it applies to huge tournaments defined by speed and with roughly the meta breakdown you saw over the weekend (i.e. pretty much just Gen Con and one or two others), but am not so certain this applies wholly, in the "abstract", to the three draw engines in general, given the wide variety of metagames we see around the world, so much so that you can crown Bob one of the three kings of the format today.



Also, for what it's worth, I'd submit this hierarchy:

Tier 1:
Workshop
Bazaar
Bob and/or Gush

Tier 1.5:
Oath
Delver
Standstill
Fish

Tier 2:
Everything else

.. with each entry naming its strategic focal point and marquee card. (I'd say "Thalia" or something for the "Fish" entry, but as that's an archetype of such variety and strategic multifariousness, I don't think it'd be appropriate to name one card as its focal point.)

[disrupting specter]

Thanks for writing this, Brian. This squares with my observations and feelings that I had in the weeks before Champs. I have lots of experience with metagamed, "mox killer" decks and I know their weaknesses. They lose to anything that wasn't predicted and rogue decks. I've been in similar situations like where you talked about RUG Delver losing to the wise guy with Affinity. These decks often lack the ability to "just win" and need to rely on niche hate cards and incremental advantages. These are not the kinds of decks I expect to see at such a high level event unless the player is a master with it and can call the metagame perfectly. Even then, it is a risk. I would not think that these are the types of decks that a player should pick up if they are way out of their normal scope without a lot of practice.

Mishra's Workshop and Bazaar of Baghdad have the ability to "just win". Blue decks have the ability to just win too but I don't have much experience with them. From what I understand, blue wants to pair indispensable cards with the best unrestricted draw engine (or in some cases, restricted draw 7's). So I would think blue would want to play something like this...

Power 8, Mana Crypt, Time Vault, Voltaic Key, Tinker+artifact creature, Yawgmoth's Will, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm, Force of Will

These cards should be included unless there is a really good reason. I think that is the main point I'm taking away from this. Many of the decks that did not make top 8 at Champs did not play these. What should the primary draw engine be? My understanding is Bob is it. The advantages Gush has are taken away by Mishra's Workshop. Mystic Remora is less good with so many creatures around. Jace is great but comes out a little late to be the focus. I don't know much about Baleful Strix/Goblin Welder but if it had a chance, I'm sure you of all people would have jumped on it. [EDIT: Mental Misstep and Grafdigger's Cage are probably issues]Snapcaster Mage suffers in a similar way to Gush but is worth at least a small include because it says, "deal 2 damage to target attacking creature without flying".

Great job, Brian. This article is dead on.

 

[Smmenen]

I don't necessarily agree with the thesis being advanced (that's why I played Cobra instead of Bob Gush!), but I almost always find Brian's essay entertaining and challenging...

[Lemnear]

Power 8, Mana Crypt, Time Vault, Voltaic Key, Tinker+artifact creature, Yawgmoth's Will, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm, Force of Will

These cards should be included unless there is a really good reason. I think that is the main point I'm taking away from this. Many of the decks that did not make top 8 at Champs did not play these. What should the primary draw engine be? My understanding is Bob is it. The advantages Gush has are taken away by Mishra's Workshop.

Please check the metagame-breakdown. It isn't, that Decks that failed T8, played unpowered or the like. That idea is off Reality. I'm still sure gush-Decks won both prelims ...

[Twiedel]

The only way I can really complain about this article is that Brian is giving me way too much credit

To Topic: I am 100% with Brian as to Dark Confidant being Tier 1, and other blue engines being 1.5 at best!
I really fell in love with Gush a long time ago, and I had a good bit of sucess with it, but ever since the printing of flusterstorm it seems a) way too easy to shut gush down with it + snapcaster for even more storms and b) very hard to counter a dark confidant when everythng but force of will in your deck only counters instants, sorcereis or stuff for 1.
That for me was the main reason for playing with bob. I like my spells resolving a lot. Sure, you can totally get behind other strategies that can easily be executed as well, but in a field of shops und dredge (which I expected for champs) you have to admit that gushing to desperately find answers is not very good, whereas dark confidant can even be a valueable blocker vs these decks.
On the other hand, when I play gush (which I did a lot before flusterstorm) it seems I never really lost a blue vs blue when my opponent had bobs. To be honest, it is probably because I preferred gush list that als ran repeal, and that just makes dark confidant look like a joke - repeal him, then gush, repeal him again ? very nice. But when facing workshops and dredge there is just no room for fancy stuff like that.

Also, I disrespect Delver and Landstill for the same reasons. I think delver is just too much of a Legacy deck for me, and Landstill is just too unbroken. Don't get me wrong, I totally love the card Standstill (in fact it was in my first vintage decks ever!) but I can't face having everything vs a dredge deck and then not killing them for 20 turns - modern Vintage doesn't work like that, at least in my opinion.

Anyway, good article as always! Hope to meet you again next year whenI have some more time at GenCon for a nice talk!

best regards, Marc

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Landstill doesn't beat dredge by attacking lol it beats dredge by protecting hate. I was 3-0 vs dredge before I lost to it on my win and in round and the 3 previous opponents were good dredge pilots. The guy I lost to asked me what factory did lol...

Twiedel...I am the guy who played vs you on cockatrice like a week before gencon (I am the known player on the east coast for playing landstill). I went 2-1 vs you in a match and we played a 4th game for fun and I won that as well. I think landstill is one of te best decks in the format hands down. Weather people like the deck or not it's an excellent choice in the format, and will be for a while IMO. Anyways congrats on your win and hope to see/meet you next year!

[Twiedel]

Hey,

yeah I really remember our games, I was playing another one with Landstill and lost as well - I was like 3-1 vs you and 3-0 vs the other landstill. But my point is: I did not face a single Landstill, but 4 Shops and 4 Dredge. My primary goal was to beat those decks, and I figured that my percentage for that would be way too low when switching to Landstill. I just cannot see winning 4 Games in a row vs each of those decks with your list.

Again, I really like Landstill and I think it's very cool that it is finally a part of our metagame again. I'll most certainly give it a try over here in Europe, where blue makes for about 60+ % of the field in nearly all tournaments - but I'm sure it would have been the wrong choice for this tournament based on raw strength vs the two bad boys.

To put it simple: When I booked my trip, I had no problems to loosing to other blue decks. My opponent could be a better player, or sometimes someone can get lucky and just beat you out (even if your deck has a better matchup in the blue mirror). What I didn't want to do is droping off the tournament for loosing to dredge oder workshops as I feel if you prepare enough against those decks, you can almost surely win against them. So I sticked to a "standard" blue control deck as it felt that would give me the highest overall percentage.

Anyway, thanks for your congrats, hope to play you again soon via cockatrice, and hopefully meet up with you next year!

[forests failed you]

Lemnear, sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of the criticism you posted this weekend -- I was really busy winning GP Boston.  You should probably contact SCG and ask them for a refund on the free content that you didn't like.

[desolutionist]

I agree Dark Confidant has been proven to be tier 1.  It definitely has a better record than Gush.  Gush may be a better card but it really limits what you can play in your deck (few lands, etc.) bob can just go into anything

[brokenbacon]

Lemnear, sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of the criticism you posted this weekend -- I was really busy winning GP Boston.  You should probably contact SCG and ask them for a refund on the free content that you didn't like.

Hahaha this sounds like something Elias would say. Nicely done btw Brian, great articles. Keep them coming please!

[voltron00x]

Lemnear, sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of the criticism you posted this weekend -- I was really busy winning GP Boston.  You should probably contact SCG and ask them for a refund on the free content that you didn't like.

Hahaha this sounds like something Elias would say. Nicely done btw Brian, great articles. Keep them coming please!

Is it really?  That's disappointing to me.

(And not just b/c I'm incapable of winning GP Boston)

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Lemnear, sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of the criticism you posted this weekend -- I was really busy winning GP Boston.  You should probably contact SCG and ask them for a refund on the free content that you didn't like.

Hahaha this sounds like something Elias would say. Nicely done btw Brian, great articles. Keep them coming please!

Is it really?  That's disappointing to me.

(And not just b/c I'm incapable of winning GP Boston)

Money is paper kid.

[voltron00x]

Lemnear, sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of the criticism you posted this weekend -- I was really busy winning GP Boston.  You should probably contact SCG and ask them for a refund on the free content that you didn't like.

Hahaha this sounds like something Elias would say. Nicely done btw Brian, great articles. Keep them coming please!

Is it really?  That's disappointing to me.

(And not just b/c I'm incapable of winning GP Boston)

Money is paper kid.

Touche.