[Free Podcast] So Many Insane Plays # 24: Dragon's Maze Set Review

[Stormanimagus]

Guli, you know I respect you, but your argument here is just wack. Vintage is a format where ALL cards (overpowered mistakes or not) are legal at least in restricted form (with exception of anti-cards and dexterity cards and cards that would make tournaments a headache). If they were banned in Vintage then there would be zero formats where they could be played. This would anger most players including myself. And coming from me, a long time fish player/supporter, you know I am not bias FOR things like Tinker or Yawg. Will. I simply think it would ruin the delicate balance of Vintage and the unique bar that has been set for speed/hate. Without these win cons Vintage would start seeing an influx of Zoo and become a predominantly creature-based format. I think this would ruin what is a diverse format. Sure I'd like to see creatures given a boost in their role in the metagame, but not at the expense of existing paths to victory that don't involve creatures at all (or in the case of BSC not a creature you hardcast). Look, there are more creative and constructive ways for R & D to make creatures more playable in Vintage. The fact that they have to fight classic cards like Tinker and Yawg. Will for supremacy doesn't bother me at all. I like that Vintage keeps old cards like that around and I hope they are kept around for all time (I'm looking at you R & D you power creeping bastards!).

-Storm

[Smmenen]

To clarify what my original post in the other thread was indicating, through empirical evidence I have discovered Library of Alexandria to be a card that puts its controller in an almost insurmountably advantageous position in blue mirrors.

I guess that's where I disagree.  I'd say that was true any time before 2003, but has not been true since.  

Library can be good in blue mirrors, but I think your statement is hyperbolic -- it dramatically overstates LOAs utility or the strength of the play.    Very often, perhaps a majority or perhaps just a plurality of the time, Library is an inferior/suboptimal line of play to invest in.  Much -- although not all -- of the time, I'd rather play Merchant Scroll, Thirst, or Brainstorm on turn one than Library in any blue deck.    LoA can create an insurmountable advantage, but it can also directly contribute to game losses because you aren't doing broken things.  With Meandeck Gifts, I finally dropped LoA entirely, since it was just better to play Scroll/Brainstorm on turn one than Library.  While many of my decks, including Gush, Gifts and other decks at times, ran a singleton Library, I often found that playing Library on turn one or - in place of any other land -- was often the suboptimal play.  In Meandeck Gifts or a Gush deck, the right play is often Mox, Land, Merchant Scroll instead of LoA, or even just Land, Brainstorm.  Brainstorm does not generate card advantage, but it could sculpt your hand much faster and prepare you for explosive plays or defense.  When Brainstorm was unrestricted, this was true almost without qualification.  You were better off going Land, Brainstorm, Fetch, Brainstorm than going with turn one Library.   Even today, Library interferes with development in critical ways.  I'd rather get Bob, Jace or other truly broken plays onto the table and protect them rather than sit back, wait and just try to milk Library and hope your opponent doesn't railroad you in a moment of vulnerability.  

EDIT:

Doing a little bit more digging, I found that even players in the NE, like Justin Kohler, don't use LoA:

http://www.morphling.de/search.php?type=1&app=10&sorting=DESC&search=Kohler&sent=1

The last three events in which he top8ed he had no LoA in his Bomberman deck, but he had 3-4 Jaces in each.  If LoA was so important in the blue mirror, how do you explain his design decision?

Drawing a card every turn at the cost of playing an uncounterable land on one turn is decidedly powerful, hence the reason it was restricted.

Yeah, it is very powerful -- except that unlike Dark Confidant, using LoA has a colored mana opportunity cost and is usually a tempo loss.  Bob complements, rather than inhibits, power acceleration and broken plays in the format.  A turn one Bob naturally supports and accelerates out turn two Jace.  LoA does not.  It can't block to protect Jace, while it cuts you off from the blue mana for a turn two Jace.  You have to hold back your mana acceleration to maintain your 7 card hand for your turn two Jace.

 Other played card advantage engines are only usable one time(potentially 2 through Will or X through Regrowth/Will), whereas LoA is recurring.

Absolutely this is true.  But this an argument in favor of unrestriction, not for it.  The best blue draw engines are explosive draw engines like Thirst & Gush, not slow recurring ones.  That's why Library is safe to unrestrict.  In a format defined by explosive plays, Library is slow and steady.  

I played Keeper for years, and this card more than any other was the reason I was successful.

Define "successful".  Keeper hasn't won a major Vintage tournament (SCG P9 tournament, Vintage Champs, Waterbury, etc) since the format was Type 1.  That might be hyperbole, but I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head.  

 If I know Landstill/Keeper has access to 4 LoA, I have to take that into account. I believe that the best way to combat LoA is to play your own(as Crucible defeats and destructive plan), as all other methods would be difficult to resolve in the face of LoA.

Wasteland, Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, Ghost Quarter, Blood Moon, etc are all answers, some of which are uncounterable.  Not to mention you could Thespian Stage an opposing LoA as well.

If I have to dilute my deck to compete with other Blue decks in this manner, Workshops and Dredge especially become infinitely more potent at their strategies by not having to concern themselves with some of the other cards played to combat them.

What you have just described is the essence of Magic: making cost/benefit decisions for expected matchups and metagame positioning.   Blue decks already do this with Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, Misdirection, etc -- cards that are good in blue mirrors, but weak against Shops.  

That's why Library is a safe unrestrict: being good in blue mirrors is not a compelling reason to keep a card restricted.  But I don't even think its as good in blue mirrors as you  have said based upon my experience with it in myriad blue control decks, like Meandeck Gifts, Gush decks, Intuition-AK decks, Thrist decks, Bob decks, and many more.

I don't disagree with there being a cost benefit analysis in un-restricting the strategy, I just don't think that it is healthy to weaken blue and bolster Shops/Dredge. The format is very balanced and diverse right now and this could be the beginning of blue getting pushed down for no reason.

 LoA is too good in blue decks, but it's unrestriction would weaken blue decks?  Kevin already pointed out the illogic of that position in the podcast, so I won't belabor it here.

[MaximumCDawg]

What you guys did not point out in the podcast is that your support for un-restricting Library appears to flow directly from your preoccupation with Shops as the most important match.  That is, your conception of library seems to focus on (1) the mirror; and (2) the shops match, and nothing else.

What does unrestricted library do to all of us bozos who are not playing Shops or Blue?  Devastates us!  Library on turn 1 is an incredible draw engine that lets the blue deck draw into its protection by the bucketfull.  Against shops, sure it's a problem to lose your first turn mana.  Against someone who is resolving  Noble Hierarch?  Not so much.  A blue deck can afford to give away a small amount of tempo on turn 1 against a hatebear opponent because the additional 5+ cards it is drawing is more than worth it.  Heck, even against Dredge and Storm, library draws you closer to your hate cards or protection and is probably worth your first turn.

That's my gripe.  At least you have a shot of countering Ancestral Recall.  With Library, even if you Waste, they usually get to cantrip the land.  

[Smmenen]

What you guys did not point out in the podcast is that your support for un-restricting Library appears to flow directly from your preoccupation with Shops as the most important match.  That is, your conception of library seems to focus on (1) the mirror; and (2) the shops match, and nothing else.

I promise you that this is not the case.   I'm seeing Library from a wide angle here.   Not just Workshops, but how it interfaces against a wide range of matchups, from Oath, to Shop, to Dredge, to the many variants of blue, including Gush decks.  If I'm playing one of my Gush decks, I truly do not mind if my opponent opens with Library every game, to take but one example.   I also don't think tempo decks, like Joel Lims (sp?) Fish deck would care either.  

Consider if Library were unbanned in legacy.  Assuming it could be acquired without great expense, I think it woud change that format suprrisingly little.   RUG decks, Merfolk decks, and all of the various other tempo decks would not want to sit idle and draw a bunch of cards against Library.  They are far more intersted in using tempo based cards to kill you before you can utilize it for great effect.  Vintage offers this possibility in spades.  That's why Gush is such an insane card -- it can help you win any counterbattle you want to win for temporary tempo advantage.  

What does unrestricted library do to all of us bozos who are not playing Shops or Blue?  Devastates us!  Library on turn 1 is an incredible draw engine that lets the blue deck draw into its protection by the bucketfull.  Against shops, sure it's a problem to lose your first turn mana.  Against someone who is resolving  Noble Hierarch?  

A turn one Aether Vial agianst turn one Library seems fine to me.  Play Magus of the Moon or Ghost Quarter.  

That was surprisingly eloquent and dignified, Stephen.  I am impressed.  You acknowledged the legitimacy of the arguments made and brought up valid counterpoints without resorting to barren namedropping, curt dismissals, or shifting goalposts.  You deserve a foil Mayor of Avabruck.  

Feel free to send me one

Aside from Chalice + Golem, there is no coin flip degeneracy in this format.  

Neither Time Vault or Tinker are coin flip degeneracy.   There are too many turn one/zero answers to both.  And they don’t typically win the game on turn one, with very, very rare exceptions (i.e. having Time Walk + Tinker on turn one or having 4 mana, Time Vault and Key on turn one).

There are turn one/zero answers to Golem+Chalice as well and you can expect that countermagic won't interfere unlike the case with blue randoms.  I understand that part of what excites you about the format is that any play no matter how dangerous has an available response, so presumably the skilled players and metagamers will benefit by tuning accordingly.  That's a positive, yes. The problem with Tinker/Vault and occasionally Oath of Druids is the same as the problem with Chalice+Golem however.  Regardless of how skilled or prepared one is, they reduce the game to that binary mode Kevin mentioned where the game is determined by a singleton threat/answer lottery, which in fact negates skill.

The difference between Oath of Druids, Tinker or any other huge threat and Golem is that Golem protect itself from being answered, and often can't be answered at all.   Oath of druids and BSC at least give you a turn to bounce, exile or destroy them -- or heck, win first.  

Oath of Druids is not literally a coin flip in the sense that I mean it.  By "coin flip," I mean: if you win the coin flip (to decide who goes first) you win the match.  If you lose the coin flip, you lose the match.  There is no other deck in Vintage for whom that is so true.   If there was a Leyline for Shops, then I would have a very differnt answer, since the matchup would not be determined to such a great extent by who goes first.  

[brianpk80]

My argument is that I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place. I want to prepare against cards like Show and Tell.

They made a format for that... it's called Legacy.  

That old one-liner was funny the first thousand times, but no one is interested in bleeding more players to other formats.  You can only say "get outta here, go play Standard" so many times before you end up with < 15 attendees and then < 10 being the norm.  

A turn one Aether Vial agianst turn one Library seems fine to me.  Play Magus of the Moon or Ghost Quarter.  

No one plays AEther Vial anymore because Mental Misstep ruins it as a first turn play v. control and Phyrexian Revoker gives Shops an out whereas before it trumped their mana denial strategy entirely.  

Vintage is a format where ALL cards (overpowered mistakes or not) are legal at least in restricted form (with exception of anti-cards and dexterity cards and cards that would make tournaments a headache).

This isn't true.  Vintage has a history of explicit power-level bans.  It has power-level errata in effect to this day that effectively bans cards from being played in their original form (Abeyance and Waylay for instance).  The Shahrazad ban is capricious and creates no more of a headache or disturbance than Sensei's Divining Top or Storm combo.  Unglued and Unhinged are Magic cards people own in physical form, likewise banned.  The whole "nothing is ever banned in Vintage" is one of those empty slogans that might make a cool talking point if it were true, but it just isn't.  

Tinker or any other huge threat and Golem is that Golem protect itself from being answered, and often can't be answered at all.   Oath of druids and BSC at least give you a turn to bounce, exile or destroy them -- or heck, win first.  

Case in point from a test match today.  My opening hand = Cavern, Mox Pearl, Grand Abolisher, Swords to Plowshares, Noble H, Bob, Fetch.  I win g1 so he plays for g2.  Land, Mox, Mox, Tinker.  I play a Fetch, a Pearl, and Swords it.  He Forces the Swords.  Had I gone first, I'd have lain Cavern, Mox, Bob and then have had Swords for BSC Turn 2 with Grand Abolisher to protect it and the Abolisher couldn't be countered because of Cavern.  Complete coin flip.  Now I'm not going to quit Vintage cause I like it more than any other format, but there's no pretending this is somehow any less of a coin flip than Golem Chalice.  In fact, it's worse.  Golem + Chalice is easier to bounce back from because there's more time.  

As for Library, there's no point conjecturing whether it's "safe" from a metagame standpoint because no one ardently wants it unrestricted.  The line of thinking on this is seriously inane.  "Most people don't want it and it will have a negative effect on the game, on recruitment efforts, on the market, and on most players, but they can adapt."  Why force an unwanted adaptation on a shrinking player base?  Why campaign for that of all things?  It's like saying we should spill crude oil all over the living room, cause we can adapt by cleaning it up over a sustained period of time as if it never occurs to anyone that the better choice is to not spill it in the first place.

[Stormanimagus]

This isn't true.  Vintage has a history of explicit power-level bans.  It has power-level errata in effect to this day that effectively bans cards from being played in their original form (Abeyance and Waylay for instance).  The Shahrazad ban is capricious and creates no more of a headache or disturbance than Sensei's Divining Top or Storm combo.  Unglued and Unhinged are Magic cards people own in physical form, likewise banned.  The whole "nothing is ever banned in Vintage" is one of those empty slogans that might make a cool talking point if it were true, but it just isn't.  

Ah, yeah it is. Shahrazad is a different animal entirely from top or Storm combo. When you set up a tournament with tables assigned to each paring you have a limited amount of Space. If you now have matches that require DOUBLE that amount of space you have a problem on your hands. Making matches a bit slower has never been an issue for R & D. Making them prohibitively slow usually means something gets banned, but even that is rare in Vintage. Shahrazad was only banned because it caused serious issues in playable space at large tournament events.

And Brian, Unglued and Unhinged? Please. Those sets are humor sets and have no place in competitive magic. I'd be pretty bummed if my match went to time because a card specifically directed me to "get my opponent a sandwich." Please tell me you are not arguing for the legitimacy of Unglued and Unhinged.

As to power erratas you are correct. There IS precedent for that. But that is not banning a card. That is simply trying to "fix" the functionality of a card. This has happened rarely but has notorious examples (Time Vault, Lotus Vale, Mox Diamond). I think it's legitimate to be frustrated with erratas that have killed the power level of cards, but that's about as far as I'll take this argument.

The days of Wizards banning cards in Vintage is long since gone. That is not a policy they are going to return to nor should they in my view. I'm perfectly content playing around the mine-field of restricted cards that Vintage has to offer. It's the overpowered UNRESTRICTED cards that give me a headache (Lodestone Golem, Jace, Bazaar to name a few).

So yeah, at present, in this modern era of Vintage the "Nothing is ever banned" Slogan is more than just a slogan. It's the law of the land. You better just accept that as I don't see it changing any time soon.

-Storm

[Guli]

Guli, you know I respect you, but your argument here is just wack. Vintage is a format where ALL cards (overpowered mistakes or not) are legal at least in restricted form (with exception of anti-cards and dexterity cards and cards that would make tournaments a headache). If they were banned in Vintage then there would be zero formats where they could be played. This would anger most players including myself. And coming from me, a long time fish player/supporter, you know I am not bias FOR things like Tinker or Yawg. Will. I simply think it would ruin the delicate balance of Vintage and the unique bar that has been set for speed/hate. Without these win cons Vintage would start seeing an influx of Zoo and become a predominantly creature-based format. I think this would ruin what is a diverse format. Sure I'd like to see creatures given a boost in their role in the metagame, but not at the expense of existing paths to victory that don't involve creatures at all (or in the case of BSC not a creature you hardcast). Look, there are more creative and constructive ways for R & D to make creatures more playable in Vintage. The fact that they have to fight classic cards like Tinker and Yawg. Will for supremacy doesn't bother me at all. I like that Vintage keeps old cards like that around and I hope they are kept around for all time (I'm looking at you R & D you power creeping bastards!).

-Storm

Tinker and Trinisphere do not speed up the format. Workshop, Black Lotus and Moxes and Bazaar are the accelerators. I have not said a single thing about those cards, and they are the cards that make Vintage different than the other formats. There are acceptable, dangerous plays people should be allowed to do WITH the acceleration. For example a turn 1 kill with Time Vault, Key and acceleration. Or a turn 1 Oath of druids. Even if this is still pretty hard to deal with, I define it as 'acceptably broken' for vintage. Tinker and Trinisphere are totally pushed and put the game in a different state. I have never seen a game or sport were the game ended in 10 seconds because of some awkward game element randomly popped up, let alone that it would be accepted by the people who play and watch the game/sport. Were does this acceptance towards quick game finishers without zero amount of work come from?

I need to point out that my problem is with Blightsteel**!! All the other Tinker Targets seem to give the opponent at least SOME time to do something.

So far I have seen no compelling arguments. All I have seen is the repetition of some socially accepted phrases like 'go play legacy, this is vintage, vintage should be like this'.

I guess I should go play legacy then...

[President Skroob]

Guli, you know I respect you, but your argument here is just wack. Vintage is a format where ALL cards (overpowered mistakes or not) are legal at least in restricted form (with exception of anti-cards and dexterity cards and cards that would make tournaments a headache). If they were banned in Vintage then there would be zero formats where they could be played. This would anger most players including myself. And coming from me, a long time fish player/supporter, you know I am not bias FOR things like Tinker or Yawg. Will. I simply think it would ruin the delicate balance of Vintage and the unique bar that has been set for speed/hate. Without these win cons Vintage would start seeing an influx of Zoo and become a predominantly creature-based format. I think this would ruin what is a diverse format. Sure I'd like to see creatures given a boost in their role in the metagame, but not at the expense of existing paths to victory that don't involve creatures at all (or in the case of BSC not a creature you hardcast). Look, there are more creative and constructive ways for R & D to make creatures more playable in Vintage. The fact that they have to fight classic cards like Tinker and Yawg. Will for supremacy doesn't bother me at all. I like that Vintage keeps old cards like that around and I hope they are kept around for all time (I'm looking at you R & D you power creeping bastards!).

-Storm

Tinker and Trinisphere do not speed up the format. Workshop, Black Lotus and Moxes and Bazaar are the accelerators. I have not said a single thing about those cards, and they are the cards that make Vintage different than the other formats. There are acceptable, dangerous plays people should be allowed to do WITH the acceleration. For example a turn 1 kill with Time Vault, Key and acceleration. Or a turn 1 Oath of druids. Even if this is still pretty hard to deal with, I define it as 'acceptably broken' for vintage. Tinker and Trinisphere are totally pushed and put the game in a different state. I have never seen a game or sport were the game ended in 10 seconds because of some awkward game element randomly popped up, let alone that it would be accepted by the people who play and watch the game/sport. Were does this acceptance towards quick game finishers without zero amount of work come from?

I need to point out that my problem is with Blightsteel**!! All the other Tinker Targets seem to give the opponent at least SOME time to do something.

So far I have seen no compelling arguments. All I have seen is the repetition of some socially accepted phrases like 'go play legacy, this is vintage, vintage should be like this'.

I guess I should go play legacy then...

You claim that you haven't seen any compelling arguments, but all you're providing is your personal predilections about the format, about what YOU think that Vintage should be. Vintage isn't yours. It's not your pet place to do what you want and throw out crap like

I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place.

You do not have a compelling argument.

My argument is that I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place. I want to prepare against cards like Show and Tell.

They made a format for that... it's called Legacy. 

That old one-liner was funny the first thousand times, but no one is interested in bleeding more players to other formats.  You can only say "get outta here, go play Standard" so many times before you end up with < 15 attendees and then < 10 being the norm. 

And yet it is certainly applicable. We don't want the wrong people in this format just to chase the holy grail of tournament attendance. Staffing the Vintage scene with people who hate Vintage doesn't get us anywhere in the long term.

I'll play a tournament with 15 people who love Vintage over a 30 person tournament with a bunch of whiny haters any day of the week. Sure, tournament attendance is a thing, but it's not just about warm bodies.

[merfolkOTPT]

I also want to point out that Tinker isn't that hard to beat, and this is coming from someone who regular top 8s/top4s tournaments with plateau_aggro.dec.  We have gotten several good printings lately that are relevant to beating blightsteel, which by the way at least can be targetted.  My last deck had 7 maindeck ways to deal with a tinker target that was resolved and had a pretty easy time beating a turn 1 lodestone.

There are tradeoffs though, my combo MU was pretty bad, but as it turns out this is a good thing, every deck has strengths and weaknesses.  I can tweak my garbage aggro decks to be better against tinker and lodestone, and worse against combo, or I build in other ways, the choice is mine, but if I could beat every strategy the format would be lame, because everyone would just play the deck that beats everything else.

[Guli]

Guli, you know I respect you, but your argument here is just wack. Vintage is a format where ALL cards (overpowered mistakes or not) are legal at least in restricted form (with exception of anti-cards and dexterity cards and cards that would make tournaments a headache). If they were banned in Vintage then there would be zero formats where they could be played. This would anger most players including myself. And coming from me, a long time fish player/supporter, you know I am not bias FOR things like Tinker or Yawg. Will. I simply think it would ruin the delicate balance of Vintage and the unique bar that has been set for speed/hate. Without these win cons Vintage would start seeing an influx of Zoo and become a predominantly creature-based format. I think this would ruin what is a diverse format. Sure I'd like to see creatures given a boost in their role in the metagame, but not at the expense of existing paths to victory that don't involve creatures at all (or in the case of BSC not a creature you hardcast). Look, there are more creative and constructive ways for R & D to make creatures more playable in Vintage. The fact that they have to fight classic cards like Tinker and Yawg. Will for supremacy doesn't bother me at all. I like that Vintage keeps old cards like that around and I hope they are kept around for all time (I'm looking at you R & D you power creeping bastards!).

-Storm

Tinker and Trinisphere do not speed up the format. Workshop, Black Lotus and Moxes and Bazaar are the accelerators. I have not said a single thing about those cards, and they are the cards that make Vintage different than the other formats. There are acceptable, dangerous plays people should be allowed to do WITH the acceleration. For example a turn 1 kill with Time Vault, Key and acceleration. Or a turn 1 Oath of druids. Even if this is still pretty hard to deal with, I define it as 'acceptably broken' for vintage. Tinker and Trinisphere are totally pushed and put the game in a different state. I have never seen a game or sport were the game ended in 10 seconds because of some awkward game element randomly popped up, let alone that it would be accepted by the people who play and watch the game/sport. Were does this acceptance towards quick game finishers without zero amount of work come from?

I need to point out that my problem is with Blightsteel**!! All the other Tinker Targets seem to give the opponent at least SOME time to do something.

So far I have seen no compelling arguments. All I have seen is the repetition of some socially accepted phrases like 'go play legacy, this is vintage, vintage should be like this'.

I guess I should go play legacy then...

You claim that you haven't seen any compelling arguments, but all you're providing is your personal predilections about the format, about what YOU think that Vintage should be. Vintage isn't yours. It's not your pet place to do what you want and throw out crap like

I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place.

You do not have a compelling argument.

My argument is that I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place. I want to prepare against cards like Show and Tell.

They made a format for that... it's called Legacy. 

That old one-liner was funny the first thousand times, but no one is interested in bleeding more players to other formats.  You can only say "get outta here, go play Standard" so many times before you end up with < 15 attendees and then < 10 being the norm. 

And yet it is certainly applicable. We don't want the wrong people in this format just to chase the holy grail of tournament attendance. Staffing the Vintage scene with people who hate Vintage doesn't get us anywhere in the long term.

I'll play a tournament with 15 people who love Vintage over a 30 person tournament with a bunch of whiny haters any day of the week. Sure, tournament attendance is a thing, but it's not just about warm bodies.

I made strong arguments go read them. Then, after you grasp what I am trying to say, come back and reply.

[Prospero]

Everyone who is participating in this thread will be expected to be respectful to their fellow participants.  Snide comments will not be accepted.  I'd rather not lock the thread, so let's get back on track.

[Prospero]

Also, this is a thread dedicated to the Dragon's Maze Set Review that Steve did, not a discussion about Tinker, Trinisphere, or anything else.  If you would like to discuss any of those cards, please create a thread in the Vintage Issues forum.  Further discussion of that topic here would indicate that we're done discussing the set review, and that this thread can be locked.

[MTGFan]

I also want to point out that Tinker isn't that hard to beat, and this is coming from someone who regular top 8s/top4s tournaments with plateau_aggro.dec.  We have gotten several good printings lately that are relevant to beating blightsteel, which by the way at least can be targetted.  My last deck had 7 maindeck ways to deal with a tinker target that was resolved and had a pretty easy time beating a turn 1 lodestone.

There are tradeoffs though, my combo MU was pretty bad, but as it turns out this is a good thing, every deck has strengths and weaknesses.  I can tweak my garbage aggro decks to be better against tinker and lodestone, and worse against combo, or I build in other ways, the choice is mine, but if I could beat every strategy the format would be lame, because everyone would just play the deck that beats everything else.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that every Magic player should adopt.

Playing any competitive Magic deck is an exercise in compromise. No deck - unless it was a broken, dominant archetype that made everything else irrelevant - has positive matchups against every other contender. At best, if you are playing a deck that solidly occupies a spot in the tier-1 or merely flirts with the tier-1 rankings, you can expect to have >60% win percentages against only a handful of decks. Inevitably, you will experience poor match-ups even with the best deck in a given format, barring a completely broken, dominant archetype that invites a quick ban or restriction on a key card (such as Survival / Vengevine (banned) in Legacy or Gush / Fastbond (restricted) in Vintage).

The bleatings from the Stephen Menendians of the world, who clearly favor the combo archetype as their personal deck of choice, seem to be promoting a double standard. On one hand, he espouses a seemingly laissez-faire attitude regarding restriction policy in Vintage - "the more broken, the merrier." On the other hand, he puts Lodestone Golem in its own special box of "non-interactive" detrimental influences on the fun of the format. You can't have it both ways. If you love playing combo, which he clearly does, and you have no qualms with the non-interactive aspects of resolving combo engines on turn 1 or turn 2 against decks woefully under-equipped to stop them outside of Force of Will, then you can't stigmatize Lodestone Golem and Shop decks in general for generating the same effect. Force of Will answers both. If people play conditional spells such as Spell Pierce to combat traditional combo, then they can also play conditional answers to Golem such as Steel Sabotage or Lightning Bolt. If you are willing to embrace broken combo, you must be willing to embrace broken Workshop strategies as well.

The hatred for more effective Workshop strategies seem to be spearheaded primarily by Combo players who want to "have their cake and eat it too". Workshops, due to Golem, now have a positive match-up against Burning Tendrils-esque combo decks, due in no small part to the printing of Lodestone Golem. Whereas before, the combo player could count on positive matchups across the board, he now has to be wary of Workshops to a greater extent. So in this respect, personal bias is coloring the arguments of Mr. Mennendian who is perturbed by the sudden threat to combo's dominance over the format. He is unwilling to compromise and simply accept losing to workshop strategies while simultaneously doing well against the vast swath of the rest of the format.

This comment does not relate to the Dragon's Maze Set Review, and was posted immediately after I appealed to the participants in this thread to stay on track.  If you'd like to discuss issues relating to Vintage, please use the Vintage Issues forum.

I have used the strike-through function on part of your post.  Your post does not lose value for losing it.  If we're going to have the kind of positive, forward moving discussion that we aim for on TMD, we're going to have to keep our comments above -brow.

Verbal warning issued for flaming - Prospero

[Prospero]

Thread locked.