Serious Vintage podcast, Ep. 2 - Team Serious Open, Burning Wish, and Gin

[GrandpaBelcher]

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=3191#more-3191

Welcome to the second Serious Vintage Podcast! Episode 2 features #TEAMSERIOUS members Nat Moes (@GrandpaBelcher on Twitter), Geoff Moes (@ThallidTosser on Twitter), and Josh Chapple (@joshchapple on Twitter), discussing the politics of concession, a look at some of the lists developed in the wake of Burning Wish’s unrestriction in Vintage, and Serious food and drink talk.

Here’s the timestamped table of contents for your listening ease and enjoyment:
00:33 – Team Serious Open Recap
13:53 – The Politics of Concession
26:37 – The Many Faces of Burning Wish
39:58 – Serious Eating – Water Street Bar and Grille
44:00 – Serious Drinking – Let’s Talk Gin

[Twaun007]

You had me at "Let’s Talk Gin"

[President Skroob]

You had me at "Let’s Talk Gin"

You even get a mention! Of all the people that Nat has dreamcrushed for no reason, your name stands out among them.

[GrandpaBelcher]

You had me at "Let’s Talk Gin"

You even get a mention! Of all the people that Nat has dreamcrushed for no reason, your name stands out among them.

It was at an RIW event a long time ago. You had a shot at T8, but I didn't know that. Of course, once we started playing, you didn't stand a chance. I still feel bad sometimes. (Not that bad and not that often, but still.)

[GrandpaBelcher]

Next week (if all goes according to plan), we'll have a special guest, drop the bomb on Trinisphere, and talk about Sandwich Punch.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Next week (if all goes according to plan), we'll have a special guest, drop the bomb on Trinisphere, and talk about Sandwich Punch.

YESSSS!

[Metman]

Nice ob on the podcast.  The sound was much better this time around too.

With regards to the concession talk, I have to disagree with you guys. Each player has a responsibility to play the best that he can so that the Top Eight truly is the top eight of a tournament. I never felt like me drawing with a person even if I have no chance of getting into the top eight does anybody any favors. It actually cheats somebody else out of a possibility of getting into the Top Eight. You may be helping the guy you're playing against but you may be hurting someone else's chance of getting into the top eight. My philosophy has always been to play the best and expect others to give their best.

I like the look of Martello Shops or something similar, with Lightning Greaves. My only concern is not having a target for the equipment. I'm sure drawing it off the top or having your lone creature countered must leave one wanting more. In the tournament did you find the Greaves lacking?

[GrandpaBelcher]

Nice ob on the podcast.  The sound was much better this time around too.

Thanks!

I like the look of Martello Shops or something similar, with Lightning Greaves. My only concern is not having a target for the equipment. I'm sure drawing it off the top or having your lone creature countered must leave one wanting more. In the tournament did you find the Greaves lacking?

Here's the list, so people can refer:

[Business] (35)
4 Kuldotha Forgemaster
4 Staff of Domination
4 Metalworker
4 Lodestone Golem
4 Thorn of Amethyst
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Lightning Greaves
1 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Wurmcoil Engine
1 Phyrexian Metamorph
1 Ratchet Bomb
1 Trinisphere
1 Duplicant
1 Triskelion
1 Sundering Titan

[Mana Sources] (25)
4 Buried Ruin
4 Mishra’s Workshop
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mana Vault
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
4 Ancient Tomb
3 City of Traitors

[Sideboard] (15)
4 Tormod’s Crypt
3 Jester’s Cap
2 Razormane Masticore
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Ratchet Bomb
1 Triskelion
1 Duplicant
1 Platinum Angel

The Forgemaster Staves list is pretty combo-focused, meaning getting an earlier activation out of Metalworker or Forgemaster is exciting times. Attacking earlier with Lodestone, Wurmcoil or Titan is also spicy; not to mention that they're harder to remove with Lightning Bolt and Swords to Plowshares. This has been relevant against Noble Fish, as I mentioned in the podcast. When I first built the list I had Sensei's Divining Tops in the Greaves slot. Tops were okay, but I decided that they could be almost any relatively cheap artifact to put on the board as fodder for Forgemaster. The tap-top-and-Forgemaster trick wasn't impressive enough, and I never felt I had the extra mana or shuffling to make Top activations good enough. Since then, Lightning Greaves have been great and I haven't considered switchng.

[desolutionist]

1. You should never concede to your opponent.  Often on mtgo, playskill is evenly matched and it does come down to whoever clicked "ok" quicker.  So in real life, if skill is evenly matched, time is a huge factor and is much more easily exploited.  If you're not going to win the game, it is strategically important to stall in a way that is not unreasonable.  You may know right away what is the right play, but taking the time to think about it, when you haven't taken time to think about any previous play, could add up and result in a draw.  Another reason why teams in this game are pointless and merely just political.  As far as scooping someone into top 8 goes; that depends on your values.  For every case, in my opinion, the more veteran player should concede.

When it comes down to someone beating you even though they are not in conention for top 8? To bad.  Earn your spot.

2.  Burning Wish maindeck vs Yawgmoth's Will maindeck kind of reminds me of ToA vs. Burning Wish maindeck; we know which won that battle, but the fact that you can play 4 is theoretically significant.

3.  You can have a balanced metagame.  If you're playing a deck that has 1 bad matchup, that's a balanced metagame.

4.  Muligans. A+ I've been on that topic myself.

5.  Food and Drink? C'mon man.

 

[Commandant]

1. You should never concede to your opponent.  Often on mtgo, playskill is evenly matched and it does come down to whoever clicked "ok" quicker.  So in real life, if skill is evenly matched, time is a huge factor and is much more easily exploited.  If you're not going to win the game, it is strategically important to stall in a way that is not unreasonable.  You may know right away what is the right play, but taking the time to think about it, when you haven't taken time to think about any previous play, could add up and result in a draw.

I question the morality of someone who would legitimize this line of thought.

[CoffeeCup]

  If you're not going to win the game, it is strategically important to stall in a way that is not unreasonable.  You may know right away what is the right play, but taking the time to think about it, when you haven't taken time to think about any previous play, could add up and result in a draw. 

 

I didn't really think about MTGO during this discussion.  I think, at least speaking for myself, that we were talking about in person tournament magic.  And I'm not entirely sure this is legal.  That aside, to me playing to a draw in a game you can't win is even worse than a loss.  At least with the loss you can pick up your cards and head to happy hour fifteen minutes earlier.

[desolutionist]

On second thought don't do it in Vintage.  The competitive level on MTGO is ruthless and I forgot how friendly these Mox tournaments are.

[MaximumCDawg]

1. You should never concede to your opponent.  Often on mtgo, playskill is evenly matched and it does come down to whoever clicked "ok" quicker.  So in real life, if skill is evenly matched, time is a huge factor and is much more easily exploited.  If you're not going to win the game, it is strategically important to stall in a way that is not unreasonable.  You may know right away what is the right play, but taking the time to think about it, when you haven't taken time to think about any previous play, could add up and result in a draw.

I question the morality of someone who would legitimize this line of thought.

Why?

Magic is a game of rules.  Creatures cannot attack when tapped.  Mana pools empty at the end of phases.  You must determine who chooses whether to go first randomly (usually).  Ranking in a sanctioned tournament is determined according to specific formulas.  Another rule, no less real, is that a game that isn't done after 5 turns at time is a draw.  This has very real consequences.  Stasis and Turbofog decks are not seen in Legacy because they have a hard time winning in time, and no one seems to complain about that.

In the game you talk about in the podcast, your decision to play it out seems entirely appropriate.  His win condition was Key-Vault.  Would he have won in a hypothetical world where he had unlimited time?  Sure, so what?  We don't play in hypotheticals.  His deck was unable to win within the time permitted, exactly as Turbofog or Statsis would fall down.  Indeed, this is a seldom-relevant but very important restriction on Key-Vault as a win condition.  It's so cheap anyway, it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that it has SOME weakness (the only others being Bob and Crypt).  The result you reached was the result the rules require, and was better for your standings than a loss would be.  If I were your opponent, I would see nothing wrong with what you did.

Now, it may be nice to concede when you're dead on the board, but doing so is charity.  It's a gift to your opponent.  Is it nice to be charitable? Sure.  In a casual tournament, maybe the benefit to you of being nice to someone is more important to you than your standings.  That's completely fair, but it's a PERSONAL decision.  It's not something others should expect of you any more than they expect you to charitably not Plow the Blightsteel who is about to kill you.  The problem I heard from your podcast is that your opponent (or observers) expected a handout from you.  That engenders bad feelings without justification.

In fact, making a practice of conceding when defeat appears inevitable has a serious problem; what if you're wrong?  I don't have then on tap, but there are a few widely publicized matches decided by "jedi mind tricks" where the opponent THINKS he's lost, but he hasn't.  Im sure you can find some online.  The best way to avoid this is not to assume the worst and play it out.

[Commandant]

Why?

Why?

There is a clear difference between playing it out at pace - eventually going to time, and advocating slow play to force a draw.

[MaximumCDawg]

Why?

Why?

There is a clear difference between playing it out at pace - eventually going to time, and advocating slow play to force a draw.

The way I read desolutionist's post, he's not advocating for slow play.  He's just saying you don't roll over.  He says: "If you're not going to win the game, it is strategically important to stall in a way that is not unreasonable."

Take the example in the podcast.  It's turns, and the player with a Key-Vault lock tries to Tinker Blightsteel.  You can counter it, though you have no way to win afterwards and would lose eventually but for the time limit.  That's not slow play.  It's just a decision that you make to play for the draw rather than give your opponent the gift of a win.

Consider a different situation, where you are playing Oath or something and get capped enough that you have no win conditions left.  I dunno, someone used Bitter Ordeal for 5 or something and you lost your fatties and Jace and whatever.  I read desolutionist to suggest (and I agree) that you then basically play aiming to draw the game.  You don't go slow, but you try to stop your opponent anyway, knowing you can't win, because you might still get a draw.  (Of course, you might make different choices in a given matchup, like going to game 2 fast against Dredge, etc).

[Bill Copes]

Slightly relevant per discussion:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=8977

[hitman]

The rules say you have a certain amount of time to complete actions. Why don't they just incorporate clocks and do away with retarded stalling rules?  They're hard to enforce and subjective. If you say a player is allowed a certain amount of time per play, let him use it all. Even if you've been stripped of all win conditions, you shouldn't be forced to concede so who cares if your opponent stripped your deck of any way to win. That doesn't mean you can't prevent him from killing you. Maybe he screws up and draws enough cards so be would deck first or something. If your opponent can't actually kill you, that's their own fault.