[Free Podcast] So Many Insane Plays # 21: Gatecrash Vintage Set Review!

[MaximumCDawg]

I totally disagree with this.      I don't think it's 100% worthless.  I think it has value.  I wish we had mentioned Praetor's Grasp in our discussion/

It is 100% worthless in most circumstances.  Really. Exiling a random card has zero or negative expected value.

Exiling a card at random from your opponent's library is more likely to draw them closer to the card they need then to randomly hit the card they need.  You are correct in that Vintage decks run more singletons, so exiling cards at random from the library has more meaning than other formats.  Once you hit Lotus, now they cannot tutor for it, fine.  Problem is, you are hitting something at random, and 49 out of 50 times you just got them closer to topdecking what you're concerned about. 

When you activate this effect, they have a random card on the top of the library.  That situation is the same after the ability resolves.  A very small percentage of the time you may have changed their deck in a way that matters. But you have no control over when this happens.  The effect is useless.

Now, this changes if you have information about the top deck.  Then it's comparable to Thalia or Grasp, as you mentioned.  If they just used Vampiric, then by all means hit them with Specter.  If you have Field of Dreams and you choose when to hit them, great.  Portent and see something you want?  Fine.  If what you exile is not random, it has no expected value.  If it is random, it has no expected value.

[Smmenen]

Your entire point seems to be that Abrupt Decay is good because of how it interfaces with blue.

No, it isn't.  My point was that the card is popular because it has effective uses against a broad palette of threats. 

I got that point.   I was referring to your first comment on this subject in this thread:

For decks that don't effectively ignore the opponent, the ability to remove either Time Vault or Blightsteel at instant speed is huge and there hasn't been a competent card to play that role in two decades.  I suspect underestimating the hatred for blue's win conditions is part of the reason the predictions for Abrupt Decay also missed the mark. 

That's the quote I asked you to elaborate on.   You said that I may have been "underestimating hatred for blue's win conditions," and my response to that was to point out that Abrupt Decay basically only deals with Time Vault, in terms of what most blue decks use as win conditions or intermediate or final strategic objectives.   I guess your point still stands if we just say:  "I suspect underestimating hte hatred for Time Vault is part of the reason the predictions for Abrupt Decay missed the mark."

To me, that's utterly mystifying.  It barely interfaces with blue.  It kills Time Vault and that's pretty much it.  It doesnt stop Tinkerbot, Jace, Will, or much else...

It stops Bobs, Trygons, kills Snapcasters & Trinket Mages, Vendilion Cliques, Oath of Druids, artifact mana, sidesteps MM and negates Force of Will.  Of course blue is going to have other routes to victory; that's why it's one of the best decks in the format. 
 

This is all true.  But to me, Abrupt Decay is not worth running for these purposes.  I suppose the Oath thing is marginal, but there are enough ways to force through answer to Oath.  Fish decks don't really have trouble answering to destroying an Oath.  The problem is usually 1) the answer comes too late/ they don't have it in hand at the right time or 2) the Oath player found another oath. 

Killing Snapcaster or Bob is fine, but there are so many better ways to do that which make Abrupt Decay look like Exile. 

The fact that Abrupt Decay differs from Cage in that it only fits in decks running   doesn't negate the similarities I pointed out; they're both functioning as "answers" and the strength lies in the breadth of threats from which they defend.

It does though.  Part of the importance of Cage is that it serves as an anti-Dredge and anti-Oath tactic in decks like Workshop or White Trash that lack the colored mana to play the best black dredge hate or best anti-oath spells.  Abrupt Decay is among the hungriest colored requriement spells in the format.  Cage is the exact opposite.

That "negates" the fact that they're both "answers" to a breadth of threats?  No.  I don't see how jumping through all of these rhetorical hoops is preferable to simply saying, "Ok, your explanation made sense.  I think there are better cards to run, but that helps demystify why so many other players would be drawn to it." 

It doesn't negate the fact that its an answer to both, but it undermines the force of your broader point, which is that Abrupt Decay has marginal utlity for that funtionality.  Your last point is well taken, but I'm still not persuaded that that is it entirely or even predominantly. 

I totally disagree with this.      I don't think it's 100% worthless.  I think it has value.  I wish we had mentioned Praetor's Grasp in our discussion/

It is 100% worthless in most circumstances.  Really. Exiling a random card has zero or negative expected value.

Negative expected value?  Hyperbole?  If you have a 1/60 chance of exiling Lotus, Jace, Will, Tinker, etc those all have very high value, and when you accumulate those odds, the value is even higher.

Moreover, it's not the value of exiling a *single* card, but the recursive power which matters.   You get to exile many cards.   

[brianpk80]

This is all true.  But to me, Abrupt Decay is not worth running for these purposes.  I suppose the Oath thing is marginal, but there are enough ways to force through answer to Oath.  Fish decks don't really have trouble answering to destroying an Oath.  The problem is usually 1) the answer comes too late/ they don't have it in hand at the right time or 2) the Oath player found another oath. 

All of which could be said for Nature's Claim & Grafdigger's Cage, except you'd have to add 3) it got countered to the former and 3) and 4) it got destroyed to the latter.   

Killing Snapcaster or Bob is fine, but there are so many better ways to do that which make Abrupt Decay look like Exile. 

Total hyperbole.  If you think it's a weak card, feel free to take it up with the many players T8-ing with it, including one yesterday.  But I'm not persecuting you so it isn't necessary to go through these contortions by pretending its use is still utterly inexplicable or that my explanation was unreasonable or defective.  It wasn't and there's no need to discuss it further. 

[BC]

I think you guys were overly positive about Thespian's Stage.  It has a cute ability, but in my preliminary testing it is not especially good (at least in MUD).  I don't think it will see much play.  Just my gut feeling.

Small suggestion for your set reviews: Instead of each of you picking the number of appearances for each card, just have one of you set the Over/Under and the other person choose.  That way you don't have any ties.

[Smmenen]

Good suggestion.  I think I originally said 7 Thespian Stage and upped it to 11. I take it you'd take the under?

[MaximumCDawg]

It is 100% worthless in most circumstances.  Really. Exiling a random card has zero or negative expected value.

Negative expected value?  Hyperbole?  If you have a 1/60 chance of exiling Lotus, Jace, Will, Tinker, etc those all have very high value, and when you accumulate those odds, the value is even higher.

Moreover, it's not the value of exiling a *single* card, but the recursive power which matters.   You get to exile many cards.   

No, no hyperbole.

I stand by what I said: exiling the top card in a deck, without any information about that card, has no or negative expected value.  Consider the scenario you set forth.  Say you care about Lotus, Jace, Will, or Tinker.  Say pretty much everything else the opponent draws is dead to your board state, or you can deal with it.  Whatever.  

Okay, so it's mid-game, and your opponent has 45 cards left in it.  The chances of you hitting one of the cards you care about when you exile the top card without information is 4/45.  When you whiff, you don't just miss an advantage; you actually help your opponent dig past a card that you would WANT them to have.  In hindsight, you would have preferred NOT to have milled it.  If you do this repeatedly, the effect doesn't go away.  It happens every time you exile the top cards.  Say you do it again after whiffing the first time.  Now there's a 4/43 (they drew one between your attack steps) chance you hit the card you care about.  Same difference. The ability gets very relevant as the library gets down to like 6 - 10 cards, sure, but how often will that happen before they draw the juice?

Bottom line:  If you only care about a comparatively small set of cards in your opponent's deck, you are more likely to hit anything else, and therefore HELP your opponent (not by much), each time you use this.  Now, you help them very, very little in this regard.  Thinning one random card out of a 45 card deck doesn't help them get much closer to their bomb, on average. That's why I speculate that the expected value of this guy might be just zero, not negative, because I suspect the tiny amount you help the opponent in thinning, on average, cancels out the massive amount you hurt them when you do hit the card you want to hit.

Look at it another way.  Specter's mill is bad for the same reason that Arc Slogger's mill is good.  Players realized that exiling the top 10 cards in your library was actually not a cost at all, at least against most opponents and in the kind of decks that ran Arc Slogger.  So you mill ten - so what?  You're left with a randomized library, which is where you started.

I think you're going wrong on Specter because of experience with Demonic Consultation.  Common knowledge is you do not go after one-ofs with Consultation, because it might be in your top six and then you're boned.  In the senario above, Consulting for Jace will lose you the game 6/45 of the time (not often) but then mill you for an average of half your library -- with a bell curve of deviation on the high and low end.  That means you will not infrequently end up with anywhere from 10 to 30 cards in your library, and the chances are blind.  People don't want to run that risk.  Why inject so much variance into the game?  It feels bad to blow your own feet off this way unless the alternative is losing.

Specter is not Consultation.  The chances of hitting the downside of Consultation are greater than hitting the upside of Specter.

I don't want to say the card is objectively bad, because it does more than this random mill, however. Specter also lets you PLAY the card you milled.  Does that overcome the minimal thinning you are usually helping your opponent with?  Maybe.  But, as Kevin pointed out, you would be helped far more drawing a card from your own deck, and there are plenty of Ophidans who would love to help you out here if you want that effect.  Also, if you have a way of knowing the topdeck, this guy potentially becomes a fateseal soft-lock.*

Fact remains: this random one-mill appears very bad.

(*  Comedy Option: I have a casual deck built around Nightveil Specter, Lantern of Insight, Field of Dreams, and Conundrum Sphinx.  When the opponent's topdeck is good, I want to hit him with Specter.  When it's bad, I want to hit him with Sphinx.)  

[Smmenen]

Those are interesting points. I'm going to think about it some more. It might be possible to test ur points with some thought experiments. 

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I think you guys were overly positive about Thespian's Stage.  It has a cute ability, but in my preliminary testing it is not especially good (at least in MUD).  I don't think it will see much play.  Just my gut feeling.

Small suggestion for your set reviews: Instead of each of you picking the number of appearances for each card, just have one of you set the Over/Under and the other person choose.  That way you don't have any ties.

I came to the same conclusion while testing it in landstill...It was cute but the drawback of being colorless in landstill is a liability and causes unwanted mulligans, which wouldn't be the case if it were a colored source.

It is cute, no doubt. But for now it will be in the pile of potentially playable landstill cards for me...

[BC]

Good suggestion.  I think I originally said 7 Thespian Stage and upped it to 11. I take it you'd take the under?

Yes, I'll take the under.  I would have put the over/under at 3.5.

[Smmenen]

That seems reasonable.  I guess we will find out in due time.  I should have stuck with my original prediction of 7.  

I like the idea of over/under, but I'm not really concerned about ties.  We aren't actually competing, and maybe we shouldn't keep score in that way.  Our goal is accuracy.  So to the extent we are competing, we are competing against reality, not each other.   We might want to reframe our entire presentation so it appears less like I am competing against Kevin.  

This is all true.  But to me, Abrupt Decay is not worth running for these purposes.  I suppose the Oath thing is marginal, but there are enough ways to force through answer to Oath.  Fish decks don't really have trouble answering to destroying an Oath.  The problem is usually 1) the answer comes too late/ they don't have it in hand at the right time or 2) the Oath player found another oath.  

All of which could be said for Nature's Claim & Grafdigger's Cage,

Which is exactly my point. Why would anyone play Abrupt Decay over these cards?

except you'd have to add 3) it got countered to the former and 3) and 4) it got destroyed to the latter.  

That's the reason why.  But I just don't find that compelling.  It's the same reason Wipe Away, Krosan Rec, and Trickbind dont see vintage play.  Being uncounterable just isn't good enough to justify awkward or expensive mana costs.  Abrupt Decay is both.

Killing Snapcaster or Bob is fine, but there are so many better ways to do that which make Abrupt Decay look like Exile.  

Total hyperbole.  If you think it's a weak card, feel free to take it up with the many players T8-ing with it, including one yesterday.  But I'm not persecuting you so it isn't necessary to go through these contortions by pretending its use is still utterly inexplicable or that my explanation was unreasonable or defective.  It wasn't and there's no need to discuss it further.  

Ha!  Your points are well taken.  Please do not misunderstand me.  I'm not persecuting you either, and I very much appreciate your attempts to explain the both apparent popularity and success of Abrupt Decay.

But I confess being just as mystified now as I was to begin with.   I well appreciated its potential in dealing with Time Vault, Oath, Bobs, etc.   What I think is so problematic is that the card is essentially worse than lots of other cards in doing the same thing because of its awkward mana cost and extremely limited compared to those cards becuase it can't hit the rest of the most important cards in the format like BSC, Lodestone Golem, and Jace.  

The only way I could really see this card being anything is in non-blue decks that can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents.   I just don't see Abrupt Decay as a Vintage playable card based upon its mana cost and severe limitations vis-a-vis better options (Bolt, Natures Claim, Ancient Grudge, Cage), and I'm more than mystified by its production so far.  

Those are interesting points. I'm going to think about it some more. It might be possible to test ur points with some thought experiments.  

MaximumDawg:

So, let's test some thought experiments to test your proposition regarding the value of exiling a card from an opponent's library.

Let's start with this:

0 casting cost artifact:  Tap, exile the top card of an opponent's library.

Would that card have negative value?

What if it were a 1/1 creature that cost U?  How would that change the analysis?

[brianpk80]

Which is exactly my point. Why would anyone play Abrupt Decay over these cards?

They're not mutually exclusive.  Some run all three between MD & SB.  It's part of an answer suite, not a substitute for one.  Consider: why would anyone play Flusterstorm when there are so many non-instant non-sorcery spells in the format?  Why would anyone play Rest in Peace when there are so many spells that don't use the graveyard?  Why would anyone play Wasteland when there are so many basics and Moxen?  

That's the reason why.  But I just don't find that compelling.  It's the same reason Wipe Away, Krosan Rec, and Trickbind dont see vintage play.  

The reason they don't see play is that they're too narrow to justify the additional cost.  And FWIW, the Split Second is priced into those three whereas with Abrupt Decay, the Last Word effect appears to be tacked on for free.  

Being uncounterable just isn't good enough to justify awkward or expensive mana costs.  Abrupt Decay is both.

I can appreciate saying the CC is "awkward" but with a CMC of 2, "expensive" isn't the most suitable description.

The only way I could really see this card being anything is in non-blue decks that can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents.  

You're getting warmer.  It's being used in decks where its colors have a natural home.  No one is radicalizing their mana base to accomodate it.  

I just don't see Abrupt Decay as a Vintage playable card based upon its mana cost and severe limitations vis-a-vis better options (Bolt, Natures Claim, Ancient Grudge, Cage), and I'm more than mystified by its production so far.  

None of those cards are strictly better than Abrupt Decay or one another.  If you're still having trouble with this, consider the balancing act that blue decks go through when they aim to optimize their counter suite.  FoW, Drain, Mindbreak Trap, MM, Flusterstorm, maybe Misdirection, Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Steel Sabotage, etc.  They all have different strengths and weaknesses in a given match-up so one is likely to tune to an expected field.  Apply the same approach to a Fish deck building an answer suite from a palette of diverse but partially overlapping options and the popularity of Abrupt Decay may become less mystifying.    

[Smmenen]

Which is exactly my point. Why would anyone play Abrupt Decay over these cards?

They're not mutually exclusive.  Some run all three between MD & SB.  It's part of an answer suite, not a substitute for one.  Consider: why would anyone play Flusterstorm when there are so many non-instant non-sorcery spells in the format?  

 Because there are sufficient cards to hit with it to make it worthwhile. I'm positing that this isn't the case with Abrupt Decay.  

Why would anyone play Rest in Peace when there are so many spells that don't use the graveyard?  Why would anyone play Wasteland when there are so many basics and Moxen?  

I got your point.  And that is a fair answer, so let me be more specific.

Spot removal spells typically do not see much play in contemporary Vintage compared to early Type 1.  The few that do typically reside in sideboards.   Vintage decks tend to eschew spot removal in favor of either mass sweepers or bounce spells.  

Those that see play are like EE (mass removal), or spot removal, like Bolt, Nature's Claim, Shat spree, Ingot Chewer, or the like.

My basic contention still stands, and you haven't really addressed it: Fire/Ice sees  marginal play, at best.   What spot removal spell in Vintage does not get rid of two of the following three: 1) BSC, 2) Golem, 3) Time Vault, and 4) Jace?  

Bolt hits 2 of 4 and can be maindecked.  Ancient Grudge hits two of 4, and can be maindecked.  Etc.  

Abrupt Decay is particularlly narrow.   Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Flustrestorm, Misdirection, and Mindbreak Trap are also narrow, but they have great overall utility and are good in a wide enough range of situations and matchups.  I don't feel the same way about Abrupt Decay.  Agianst Dredge?  Worhtless.  Workshops?  Very weak.  Control?  Weak.  Fish: good, if you can cast it.  

While Flusterstorm might be weak against Workshops (or terrible), it's good against Fish, Control, combo, and even Dredge!  Same with Misd. 

That's the reason why.  But I just don't find that compelling.  It's the same reason Wipe Away, Krosan Rec, and Trickbind dont see vintage play.  

The reason they don't see play is that they're too narrow to justify the additional cost.  And FWIW, the Split Second is priced into those three whereas with Abrupt Decay, the Last Word effect appears to be tacked on for free.  

Being uncounterable just isn't good enough to justify awkward or expensive mana costs.  Abrupt Decay is both.

I can appreciate saying the CC is "awkward" but with a CMC of 2, "expensive" isn't the most suitable description.

Kevin and I have talked about this before in the podcast, but 2cc gold spells are not functionally 2cc in Vintage.  Meddling Mage is essentially a 2.5 casting cost spell because it's not a reliable turn one play, like Bob, which can be cast off an off-color Mox.  Color requirements make cards more expensive than colorless mana requirements because they are slower and harder to achieve.

The only way I could really see this card being anything is in non-blue decks that can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents.  

You're getting warmer.  It's being used in decks where its colors have a natural home.  No one is radicalizing their mana base to accomodate it.  

I'm getting warmer?  Do you, personally, believe Abrupt Decay to be a good Vintage card?  Just curious.  

I just don't see Abrupt Decay as a Vintage playable card based upon its mana cost and severe limitations vis-a-vis better options (Bolt, Natures Claim, Ancient Grudge, Cage), and I'm more than mystified by its production so far.  

None of those cards are strictly better than Abrupt Decay or one another.  If you're still having trouble with this, consider the balancing act that blue decks go through when they aim to optimize their counter suite.  FoW, Drain, Mindbreak Trap, MM, Flusterstorm, maybe Misdirection, Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Steel Sabotage, etc.  They all have different strengths and weaknesses in a given match-up so one is likely to tune to an expected field.  Apply the same approach to a Fish deck building an answer suite from a palette of diverse but partially overlapping options and the popularity of Abrupt Decay may become less mystifying.    

Yes, but what I'm saying is that every card that is played in Vintage has to at least be useful against more than one key matchup.  

 Abrupt Decay is terrible against Dredge, Workshops, Combo, and weak against Control, but good against Fish.  That doesn't strike me as a good card.  

It's also worse than Nature's Claim, Ancient Grudge, Plow, or even Ingot Chewer as a card, imo, as a general matter.  I understand diversifying between, say, nature's claims and Trygon predator.  But Abrupt Decay is so much worse than the substitutes it beggars the imagination why people would run it in lieu of the myriad other options...

[brianpk80]

Because there are sufficient cards to hit with it to make it worthwhile. I'm positing that this isn't the case with Abrupt Decay.  

That is debatable.  If that were the case however, wouldn't we expect decks running it to tank when in fact the opposite has been occurring?

Spot removal spells typically do not see much play in contemporary Vintage compared to early Type 1.  The few that do typically reside in sideboards.   Vintage decks tend to eschew spot removal in favor of either mass sweepers or bounce spells.  

Accurate overall because it describes the status quo for the majority of decks.  That said, the exceptions are concentrated near the Fish pillar, which still successfully runs multiple copies of Swords to Plowshares/Path, modern Disenchants (including Qasali), and the modern Library of Alexandria (Bob).  Maybe it is the true legacy of The Deck.   

My basic contention still stands, and you haven't really addressed it: Fire/Ice sees  marginal play, at best.   What spot removal spell in Vintage does not get rid of two of the following three: 1) BSC, 2) Golem, 3) Time Vault, and 4) Jace?  

I didn't bother with that section because the list is still arbitrary.  The entire calculus changes for each card added or removed and I can't identify a consistent directive to include those four but exclude Oath of Druids, Goblin tokens, Zombie tokens, Crucible of Worlds, Tezzeret the Seeker, Mishra's Factory, Tarmogoyf, Metalworker, Dark Confidant, etc.    

Abrupt Decay is particularlly narrow.   Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Flustrestorm, Misdirection, and Mindbreak Trap are also narrow, but they have great overall utility and are good in a wide enough range of situations and matchups.  I don't feel the same way about Abrupt Decay.  Agianst Dredge?  Worhtless.  Workshops?  Very weak.  Control?  Weak.  Fish: good, if you can cast it.  

Keep in mind that when your strategy involves early-game constriction, the ability to take out a Mox or Sol Ring has added value.  Against Workshops, yes I'd rather have a Grudge but Abrupt Decay isn't lacking for targets (Chalice, Spheres, Revokers, Crucible, and Tangle Wire, bearing in mind that Tangle Wire is the lock piece that trips up Fish the most).  Another parcel of info that may help you is the fact that of the five pillars, the Fish decks are the most vulnerable to random homebrews or Legacy-type aggro fests that otherwise occupy lower brackets.  Who's going to get more mileage out of Abrupt Decay v. Suprise! Merfolk!, a Fish list or Burning Tendrils?  

It seems many of the circumstances that work in favor of Abrupt Decay are very specific to an archetype outside your concentrations of interest.  This isn't meant pejoratively; it goes without saying that you discover and contribute abundantly when you put your mind to it, but I think in this case, the creature pillar is out-of-sight, out-of-mind.  Just since January 27, 14 copies of Abrupt Decay have appeared in T8's and I'm hearing you insist not that this is a little bit surprising but rather that it's an utterly indecipherable sphinx.  In the same period of time, the T4's contained no less than 7 copies of Mayor of Avabruck.  Is that also an insoluble enigma?  

Kevin and I have talked about this before in the podcast, but 2cc gold spells are not functionally 2cc in Vintage.  Meddling Mage is essentially a 2.5 casting cost spell because it's not a reliable turn one play, like Bob, which can be cast off an off-color Mox.  Color requirements make cards more expensive than colorless mana requirements because they are slower and harder to achieve.

Yes, I heard that section and understood it, but I think it's more descriptive of a Meddling Mage's relationship to the standard blue deck mana base (fetches, Islands, a few duals, full Moxen) than something with Caverns, Cities, Noble Hierarchs, and Deathrite Shamans.  Gold and double colored cards are slower in general not primarily because they can't be rushed out on Turn 1, but because the second mana of the correct color might be available on Turn 2 or later.  However, a deck running Meddling Mage is more likely to have a mana base utilizing some of the cards above to offset that virtual tax on the casting cost so a one-size-fits-all estimation of 0.5 isn't going to work.  

I'm getting warmer?  Do you, personally, believe Abrupt Decay to be a good Vintage card?  Just curious.  

In the right deck or sideboard, sure.  It may also be a conventionally "good" card for which there is currently no room, like Intuition.  

[Stormanimagus]

Stephen, Abrupt Decay also kills the card Oath of Druids. To me this seems pretty key for a BUG Deathrite Shaman list to have a good answer to (cause they often run creatures they really WANT to play like Bob, Trgyon, Snap etc), especially one that is uncounterable.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

Stephen, Abrupt Decay also kills the card Oath of Druids. To me this seems pretty key for a BUG Deathrite Shaman list to have a good answer to (cause they often run creatures they really WANT to play like Bob, Trgyon, Snap etc), especially one that is uncounterable.

-Storm

I think you hit the nail of the head.   I just reviewed Morphling.de top 8 archives, and most of the most recent decklists with Abrupt Decay are of this variety.   I had assumed or perhaps misunderstood Kevin when I thought I heard him say that Abrupt Decay was predominantly appearing in Keeper variants.  

As I said above, I can understand its use in Fish or Beats decks because, as I said earlier, these decks "can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents."  It makes sense that a deck like BUG would use Abrupt Decay.   BUG can use it to hit a key menace, Oath, and also stop Time Vault combo.   The fact that it is limited against Workshop doesn't matter as much because these decks probably don't have alot of dead Workshop cards like most blue decks.  And, Abrupt Decay, in these decks, can still be played through Chalice @ 2.  

Because there are sufficient cards to hit with it to make it worthwhile. I'm positing that this isn't the case with Abrupt Decay.  

That is debatable.  If that were the case however, wouldn't we expect decks running it to tank when in fact the opposite has been occurring?

Well, I wouldn't say that Abrupt Decay decks have been tearing up the tournament scene, but they have been making top 8 appearances.  It seems much clearer to me why now: they are being used by Fish/Beats decks, where they get max value.  Chalice at 2 and Oath are far more menacing, and Abrupt Decay deals with both. A Grixis control deck isn't going to waste a slot on a narrow removal spell that doesn't also generate card advantage, but a Fish deck is going to have to contend with Time Vault.   Hitting Bob isn't maybe all that important in the control mirror, but it's huge for a Fish deck, since it not only stops a source of card advantage, but destroys a blocker.  

Spot removal spells typically do not see much play in contemporary Vintage compared to early Type 1.  The few that do typically reside in sideboards.   Vintage decks tend to eschew spot removal in favor of either mass sweepers or bounce spells.  

Accurate overall because it describes the status quo for the majority of decks.  

Is there another way of to be accurate?    Or do you find my observation too broad for your taste

That said, the exceptions are concentrated near the Fish pillar, which still successfully runs multiple copies of Swords to Plowshares/Path, modern Disenchants (including Qasali), and the modern Library of Alexandria (Bob).  Maybe it is the true legacy of The Deck.    

Grixis Control is the clear inheritor of The Deck, imo.   Bolts >> STP.  Jace >> Tome.  Etc.

My basic contention still stands, and you haven't really addressed it: Fire/Ice sees  marginal play, at best.   What spot removal spell in Vintage does not get rid of two of the following three: 1) BSC, 2) Golem, 3) Time Vault, and 4) Jace?  

I didn't bother with that section because the list is still arbitrary.  

It's actually far from arbitrary.  

Blue decks tends to be the most popular decks in the format.   Almost every major blue deck runs Jace, and just a few less than that run Time Vault and Tinker/BSC.   These are the dominant strategic objectives of the format.   It is because of Time Vault and Golem that Ancient Grudge rose to prominence briefly a few years ago.    Had it not been for both, Ancient Grudge would not have seen the rise it did.  

These are the permanents that every Vintage will have to deal with at every Vintage tournament.   You can't ignore them.

The entire calculus changes for each card added or removed and I can't identify a consistent directive to include those four but exclude Oath of Druids, Goblin tokens, Zombie tokens, Crucible of Worlds, Tezzeret the Seeker, Mishra's Factory, Tarmogoyf, Metalworker, Dark Confidant, etc.    

That's the difference between my list and yours.   Your list is a list of cards that not every Vintage player will inevitably have to face and deal with at every non-trivial Vintage tournament.   You don't actually remove Zombie tokens with spot removal.   You don't remove Goblin tokens with spot removal either.  You either ignore them and win first, or you use mass removal to deal with them, like Pyroclasm.  

Most decks don't actually feel compelled to remove Bob or Oath either, for similar reasons, although they aren't quite as far down the scale as the other cards you listed.  Grixis Control decks or Bob Gush decks don't really plan to removal opposing Bobs per se.  If they run Bolt, it's becuase of its versatility in hitting Bobs, Jaces, Golems, and the like, not because of just Bob.  

The difference is that the list of cards I listed are cards you actually run removal specifically for.   That's the other reason my list is not arbitrary.  Your list neither represents the cards that every Vintage players will face at every non-trivial Vintage tournament, it also represents the list of cards commonly run that you actually wouldn't mind maindecking Spot Removal for (being that Spot Removal is so rare in Vintage).  

[tito del monte]

Stephen, Abrupt Decay also kills the card Oath of Druids. To me this seems pretty key for a BUG Deathrite Shaman list to have a good answer to (cause they often run creatures they really WANT to play like Bob, Trgyon, Snap etc), especially one that is uncounterable.

-Storm

I think you hit the nail of the head.   I just reviewed Morphling.de top 8 archives, and most of the most recent decklists with Abrupt Decay are of this variety.   I had assumed or perhaps misunderstood Kevin when I thought I heard him say that Abrupt Decay was predominantly appearing in Keeper variants.  

As I said above, I can understand its use in Fish or Beats decks because, as I said earlier, these decks "can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents."  It makes sense that a deck like BUG would use Abrupt Decay.   BUG can use it to hit a key menace, Oath, and also stop Time Vault combo.   The fact that it is limited against Workshop doesn't matter as much because these decks probably don't have alot of dead Workshop cards like most blue decks.  And, Abrupt Decay, in these decks, can still be played through Chalice @ 2.  

I've been enjoying it a lot in BUG and being able to hit Oath with it is really a huge boon for the card. The other thing I like about it, is that it really streamlines what you're focusing the rest of your disruption on: I mean, Vintage has become a format full of conditional counters where once Mana Drain ruled the roost. If I know with my BUG build I can handle anything that hits the board EXCEPT Jace, I know that in my counter suite, I want to playing Spell Pierces rather Flusterstorms - and to be pointing them at the nearest planeswalker.

I think they also represent the move in fish decks away from Null Rod, which has suffered splash damage from blue players preparing to face Workshops with more land and/or cheap artifact removal. I guess that's why the Spanish BUG list that Top 8ed first didn't bother with Wastelands as the deck's mana denial component really isn't as potent as at previous times.

[brianpk80]

I think you hit the nail of the head. ... These decks "can't afford to use counterprotection or rely on Duresses to clear the path to destroy these few permanents."  It makes sense that a deck like BUG would use Abrupt Decay.   BUG can use it to hit a key menace, Oath, and also stop Time Vault combo.   The fact that it is limited against Workshop doesn't matter as much because these decks probably don't have alot [sic] of dead Workshop cards like most blue decks.  And, Abrupt Decay, in these decks, can still be played through Chalice @ 2. 

I wasn't sure if you were genuinely "mystified" and making a good faith attempt to understand the role of the card or simply arguing for argument's sake.  This sudden epiphany removes all doubt.  I'm glad your confusion has subsided.

[MaximumCDawg]

MaximumDawg:

So, let's test some thought experiments to test your proposition regarding the value of exiling a card from an opponent's library.

Let's start with this:

0 casting cost artifact:  Tap, exile the top card of an opponent's library.

Would that card have negative value?

What if it were a 1/1 creature that cost U?  How would that change the analysis?

You keep maxing the Dawg and missing the "C," bro.

Anyway, I don't think any of your thought experiments matter because you havn't changed the functionality of Specter that I was talking about.  All of your other cards still do the same thing: they randomly exile a card from your opponent.  Replacing one random draw with another accomplishes nothing.  You point out that hitting the lottery and exiling Tinker is a good thing.  Fine, but for every 1 time you hit Tinker, there are 59 other times you do not.  Anytime you do not, you are drawing them closer to Tinker.

When I say this specific effect has negative or no value, what I mean is only this.  It might be true that, in the very long term (like, after you use the ability 1000 times) the value you gain from occasionally exiling the opponents bomb might offset the value you lose each time you just draw them closer to their bomb.  That's because exiling one card at random is probably only moving them incrementally closer, but exiling what otherwise would have been a win condition has large value.  So, even if one event is hugely more common, they might even out.  However, MOST OF THE TIME when you use this ability,you will wish you had not.

Once you add other abilities into the mix, like Specter's ability to let you cast the card, then those other abilities might have legitimate value.

Addressing your specific cards: I think they're both unplayable, but your cards do one thing very important that Specter does not do: they can be activated in response to topdeck tutors / jace / brainstorm / ponder / etc.  My analysis above (the ability is worthless) only holds if the top card is random.  If you get information about the topdeck, either because you looked at it or you watched your opponent make a decision after he or she looked at it, then the ability gets much, much better. 

Since your cards activate at instant speed, they implement this ability fine.  If we ever need to answer an oppressive deck built out of topdeck tutors, this is your way out!

[Smmenen]

How about this then: my card exiles the bottom card of a library?  That way there is no interaction with topdeck tutors.

I bring up this example to test your proposition about the negative value of exiling an opponent's card. 

Even if exiling a random opponent's card has slightly negative value at the median, that doesn't mean that the average value is negative.  It could be that, for example, exiling 20 cards has positive value while 40 has negative, but the value of exiling one of the 20 is so high that the average value of exiling a random card is positive.   This is mathematically possible. 

[hitman]

Drawing them closer to Tinker isn't necessarily a good thing.  There are also other cards in an opponent's deck that are very good to exile that aren't bombs.  If a Mana Drain were to be removed by the Specter, it would blank them drawing a Tinker anyway.  If you exiled the Tinker targets, it would blank Tinker as well.  It's arguably better than a draw engine because you're taking cards your opponent obviously wanted in his deck since he included them in his deck.  You might say it's not optimal since they could be running a stronger card but it's doing something the opponent doesn't want you to do and increasing your options.  Unless they have a Top in play, I don't see how there is no value.

[MaximumCDawg]

How about this then: my card exiles the bottom card of a library?  That way there is no interaction with topdeck tutors.

I bring up this example to test your proposition about the negative value of exiling an opponent's card. 

Even if exiling a random opponent's card has slightly negative value at the median, that doesn't mean that the average value is negative.  It could be that, for example, exiling 20 cards has positive value while 40 has negative, but the value of exiling one of the 20 is so high that the average value of exiling a random card is positive.   This is mathematically possible. 

Well, if you exile something off the bottom, you do avoid the problem of helping them mill past chaff.  But, the cards you care about milling this way are going to be exclusively tutor targets, so your subset of good hits is smaller.

To your other point, I don't agree necessarily.  Let's break down what you mean when you talk about positive value out of random exile:

(1) You hit a card that would otherwise have cost you the game THAT TURN.  Tinker / Jace / Will off the top, maybe Colossus off the bottom.  Clear positive value.  This card will be better for the opponent than whatever else they draw at that time.  This will be extremely unlikely, however.  We're talking 2 - 5 cards in the enemy's deck, tops.

(2) You hit a card that would have prevented you from winning THAT TURN.  Chain of Vapor / Stony Silence / Swords to Plowshares.  Positive value.  This card will be better for the opponent than whatever else they draw at that time. Probably more likely to hit these than win conditions.

(3) You hit something that would be useful to your opponent to have generally: removal without a specific current target / countermagic.  Is this positive value?  Maybe? Hard to say.  Sure, you don't want you opponent to draw Swords to Plowshares.  But is this really going to be better than whatever else they could have drawn?  Exiling a Mana Drain is all well and good, but there are probably dozens of other cards in that deck that can be as bad for you.  It's very hard to see if you've really gained anything there.

(4) You hit a card that is plainly useless and you would rather the opponent had drawn it: mana in late game / inapplicable hate.  Probably negative value.  Here you hit the reality that decks are at least 1/3 mana, so you will very often hit things like this. 

And yes, the math depends entirely on what value you ascribe to each card in the particular deck you're random-milling in a given situation.  Even so, I don't think you can ever create a scenario where this effect is worth it.  If you increase the percentage of cards in an opponent's deck for which milling those cards at random has positive value for you, you also reduce the positive impact of hitting any one of those cards because there are so many redundant copies.  Does that make sense?  Consider a deck with 40 unblockable hasty creatures and 20 lands.  You have 1 life, so any creature they draw falls into category 1.  If you random-mill them, sure, you are most likely to avoid them drawing at least one of their creatures.  But then they're almost as likely to draw it again as the next card!

@Hitman:

Yes, being able to CAST the card off Specter is huge.  My argument is that this is actually the only part of Specter that you should pay attention to.  Then, like Kevin says in the podcast, you next ask yourself whether you would rather draw a card from the opponent's deck or from yours.

[Smmenen]

Looking too narrowly.  Let's say my artifact is a turn one or two play, and the game lasts until turn 4.5.  What is the value of exiling 3 cards?   If you hit two fetchlands and a tinker, what is the value of that?  The sum value is certainly positive. 

[MaximumCDawg]

Looking too narrowly.  Let's say my artifact is a turn one or two play, and the game lasts until turn 4.5.  What is the value of exiling 3 cards?   If you hit two fetchlands and a tinker, what is the value of that?  The sum value is certainly positive. 

Yes, but all the value comes in hitting the Tinker.  And you're not likely to do that.  Consider instead:

1) In your senario, had you not used this ability, the enemy would have not drawn the Tinker for three more turns anyway; game likely would be over by then.
2) How much more often do you hit: fetchland, fetchland, mana drain?  Or fetchland, fetchland, mox?

[Smmenen]

Ryan Glackin played Nightveil Specter to top 4!  I told you that card was playable!