Vintage Super League

[Smmenen]

It's actually pretty amazing that people are arguing in favor of playing Darksteel Juggernaut in Shops and cutting Black Lotus from any deck.

The Pros like Tom Martell see the fundamental game with better clarity than most Vintage lifers. People taking offense at his comments should step back and really consider what he is saying. His ability to evaluate the power level of cards in an abstract sense is key to his success with this game.

There is really very little point in playing a 5 mana 5/5 without any disruptive abilities other than the ability to dodge a subset of spot removal played in the format. Martell is simply pointing out the obvious in this circumstance.

And regarding Black Lotus - it's insane that anyone would turn down 3 free mana (in every sense) in any deck. Would it be better to have that 3 mana recurring like a Workshop? Of course. But Workshops are a land and count toward your land count. Black Lotus circumvents this restriction and can augment Workshops and other lands. In the history of Magic there is simply no greater tempo play than tapping a Black Lotus, and to even consider cutting it if you have access to it in a given format is simply to be ignorant of basic principles of Magic. Card advantage is irrelevant when a single card produces such a massive tempo boost. This is also the reason why Force of Will is played in every single blue deck that has access to it. When the tempo gains drastically outweigh the card disadvantage, it is foolish and short-sighted to cite the drawback of card disadvantage as a reason *not* to play the tempo boosting card.

Tom just understands these things intuitively as a master of the game, and the Vintage lifers arguing him on these points are just too tied to preconceived biases in this format to view the strength of their pet cards or pet strategies in an abstract, format-indifferent manner.

So, what about Toms claim that Delver and Deathrite Shaman arent Vintage playable?

[MTGFan]

As a blue player that played several games against the pilots that built the deck that espouses Juggernaut and cut Lotus, let me tell you that it was more than correct for them to do it. Understanding the role of the cards in their deck and its interaction with the metagame is what makes their brand of Shops the best in the world (my opinion, but I have a slew of results to back it up). If you haven't put the work or time in that they had, it might behoove you to look beyond the simple face value of cards. It's not just the raw power level of a card that makes it into a deck, but how it fits into a scheme. Lotus is potentially the most powerful card ever printed - but it is not requisite at fulfilling every need. Darksteel Juggernaut is far from the strongest card ever printed, but it serves a critical role for the deck. With the rise of Dack Fayden it's time is passing, but that doesn't mean it wasn't right when they included it. People scoffed at Slash Panther but Ryan Glackin pushed his way to the Semi-Finals with it at Vintage Champs in 2011. Until you have tried to attack Terra Nova or with it, you probably shouldn't be so quick to point out perceived flaws that the crafters chose to include.

It is never, EVER correct to cut Black Lotus from any list that has access to it. Ever. To even suggest such is to be completely ignorant of Magic theory. Anyone who cuts Black Lotus from their deck is playing a suboptimal deck, and anyone who willingly does so while having access to Black Lotus is someone who does not understand Magic well.

And to espouse the use of a 5 mana 5/5 with no disruptive abilities is to be a terrible judge of card power level as well. I can't take anyone seriously who suggests using such a creature in the Vintage format. Anyone who does so is simply allowing rare corner cases to prevent a more balanced, reasonable view of contextual power from developing in his mind.

Also, just because a deck playing a given sub-optimal card top8s or even wins a large tournament does not mean that that card is a correct inclusion. People win in spite of suboptimal choices all the time.

And the argument that format or metagame dictate card power level - this argument only works to a certain extent. Some cards are simply abstractly the most powerful at what they do and deserve consideration regardless of format or metagame. If Black Lotus is legal in a given format, it warrants inclusion in every deck unless even more powerful accelerants exist in that format in such numbers that Black Lotus would be the weakest of them all, which will never happen. Even the inclusion of copious amounts of hate such as Null Rod and Stony Silence would not warrant cutting Black Lotus, because the tempo boost from tapping it is simply so powerful and so singularly unique.

Actually, Shop decks have cut Lotus before and done well. The original incarnation of Espresso played Serum Powder and did not play Lotus. Again, your dismissal of some of the best shop theorists in the world only reflects your own ignorance of the pillar, not their ignorance of deck construction.

Again, just because someone, somewhere, does well with a suboptimal card choice in his deck does not mean that the suboptimal choice was instrumental in his victory and therefore should be included in future lists.

This deck hasn't done well with one pilot or in one event. It's taken down some of the biggest events in the US and has performed well for over a year. Without Lotus. It's not as cut and dry as you think and that mentality that seems to pervade a lot of players is simply ignorant. You're not evaluating the card in the context of the deck and merely looking at its abstract power. Objectively, Lotus is one of the best cards ever printed. That doesn't mean it belongs in every deck. There is a cost attached with its power. Similarly, Ancestral Recall is one of the best cards ever printed. I don't see you arguing that Terra Nova decks should play it.

Strawman alert! Ancestral Recall requires blue mana. If a Shop deck plays rainbow lands or islands, and there is enough access to blue mana to cast Ancestral, then that deck should definitely play Ancestral, no questions asked. Black Lotus requires NO specific color access and therefore should be played in every deck that can make use of mana (basically everything but manaless dredge).

Context of the deck is borderline irrelevant in this instance because the power of Black Lotus is such that, in a vacuum, it is the best tempo play in the history of the game and doesn't require any contextual evaluation other than the simple one of "can this deck make use of mana at all" which only eliminates truly manaless decks.

I honestly can't defend DS Jug as well as some of the Shop guys can, but it was the most efficient answer to the problems that the decks had. I'll trust Raf, Vinnie, and Nick to know what cards but the screws to their opponents effectively, especially when it puts up results like this list has. Yes suboptimal builds win all the time. They don't win repeatedly in the hands of different pilots like Terra Nova has. When an archetype has several pilots in different regions putting up results, maybe it's time to be introspective about your own thoughts on it as opposed to detracting from the success.

You have to learn how to extricate card performance from deck performance in a particular tournament. Again, players have done well with suboptimal lists in the past - but that doesn't mean that the deck shouldn't be improved and/or streamlined in the future. Similarly, that doesn't mean that bad cards should be included or that good cards should be omitted due to "winning in spite of this" performances.

All of those "Terra Nova" pilots would have done *better* or *just as well* with Black Lotus in their decks.

[MTGFan]

So, what about Toms claim that Delver and Deathrite Shaman arent Vintage playable?

Those statements are more uninformed than the ones about BL and Darksteel Juggernaut.

However, I understand his viewpoint in that both are essentially either non-disruptive (Delver) or only occasionally disruptive (Deathrite shaman). Creatures in vintage have to be disruptive, or generate card advantage, or exist in the 99th percentile of creature efficiency. I think Tom may have missed this last point, as Delver clearly falls into the third category. Deathrite Shaman also falls into this third category as a Llanowar Elf on steroids with access to graveyard disruption and unblockable, unpreventable life loss.

[diophan]

All of those "Terra Nova" pilots would have done *better* or *just as well* with Black Lotus in their decks.

Clear the pilots would never consider putting a lotus in their deck.
/sarcasm

It's not that much of a thought exercise to think about your opening hands and which ones have a solid benefit from lotus and which do not. The unwavering belief that you autoinclude it into any deck that casts spells with mana is clearly lacking. If you think the list is better with a lotus, play it and put up some results because the workshop players don't know what they are doing. Tom Martell's willingness to disparage the decklists of myriad vintage pilots and then netdeck their lists is really bothersome.

[JarofFortune]

The Pros like Tom Martell see the fundamental game with better clarity than most Vintage lifers. People taking offense at his comments should step back and really consider what he is saying. His ability to evaluate the power level of cards in an abstract sense is key to his success with this game.

Tom just understands these things intuitively as a master of the game, and the Vintage lifers arguing him on these points are just too tied to preconceived biases in this format to view the strength of their pet cards or pet strategies in an abstract, format-indifferent manner.

I didn't know Tom Martell had an account on Themanadrain . If he has such a better understanding of the game than us Vintage Players, why doesn't he win a major event with a deck of his own creation. He could even wait for one on Magic Online and do it there. Also, bashing the ability of some of the more successful Vintage Players in the country to evaluate cards when they have shown lots of success in major events makes your whole argument seem like a collection of talking points straight from the Pro Player Fanclub. Your Levinesque claim that they have preconceived notions about the format directly contradicts their continued success with Lotusless Terra Nova.

view the strength of their pet cards or pet strategies in an abstract, format-indifferent manner.

On the contrary, you are the one who is doing this. You are analyzing Lotus from an "abstract, format-indifferent manner". People like Will and Nick put in the time to tune the deck's disruption suite to combat specific metagames, for example the comment of Karakas over Lotus. If you want another example, at this moment I'm looking at a Terra Nova list that Nick won an event with a few months ago. The deck runs only three tangle wires. I'm not a Shop Player, but I've sat across from plenty of Tangle Wires, so I know the insane power of the card. However, there obviously must be a specific reason he only ran three, something to do with the expected metagame. He was rewarded with a win, and I'm guessing in no small part for specific preparation such as this.  

All of those "Terra Nova" pilots would have done *better* or *just as well* with Black Lotus in their decks.

Can you really claim this when they unanimously have agreed that Lotus does not make the cut in the deck, and have multiple results to prove it? In contrast, Randy and LSV obviously had not seen the deck before. Maybe you might want to ask how many games they would've lost had that Karakas been a lotus instead, and Vice Versa, rather than result to personal attacks infused with hyperbole. I'm not saying that it is impossible for you to be right on this subject, I'm just suggesting that rather than jump to the automatic conclusion that Black Lotus can't be cut that you take the time to look at this objectively and ask yourself analytical questions.

[Hrishi]

It is never, EVER correct to cut Black Lotus from any list that has access to it. Ever.

This is what I call a pre-conceived notion. Not what you are accusing vintage deck builders of. In fact, being able to remove Black Lotus from a vintage deck is quite the opposite.

[Samoht]

As a blue player that played several games against the pilots that built the deck that espouses Juggernaut and cut Lotus, let me tell you that it was more than correct for them to do it. Understanding the role of the cards in their deck and its interaction with the metagame is what makes their brand of Shops the best in the world (my opinion, but I have a slew of results to back it up). If you haven't put the work or time in that they had, it might behoove you to look beyond the simple face value of cards. It's not just the raw power level of a card that makes it into a deck, but how it fits into a scheme. Lotus is potentially the most powerful card ever printed - but it is not requisite at fulfilling every need. Darksteel Juggernaut is far from the strongest card ever printed, but it serves a critical role for the deck. With the rise of Dack Fayden it's time is passing, but that doesn't mean it wasn't right when they included it. People scoffed at Slash Panther but Ryan Glackin pushed his way to the Semi-Finals with it at Vintage Champs in 2011. Until you have tried to attack Terra Nova or with it, you probably shouldn't be so quick to point out perceived flaws that the crafters chose to include.

It is never, EVER correct to cut Black Lotus from any list that has access to it. Ever. To even suggest such is to be completely ignorant of Magic theory. Anyone who cuts Black Lotus from their deck is playing a suboptimal deck, and anyone who willingly does so while having access to Black Lotus is someone who does not understand Magic well.

And to espouse the use of a 5 mana 5/5 with no disruptive abilities is to be a terrible judge of card power level as well. I can't take anyone seriously who suggests using such a creature in the Vintage format. Anyone who does so is simply allowing rare corner cases to prevent a more balanced, reasonable view of contextual power from developing in his mind.

Also, just because a deck playing a given sub-optimal card top8s or even wins a large tournament does not mean that that card is a correct inclusion. People win in spite of suboptimal choices all the time.

And the argument that format or metagame dictate card power level - this argument only works to a certain extent. Some cards are simply abstractly the most powerful at what they do and deserve consideration regardless of format or metagame. If Black Lotus is legal in a given format, it warrants inclusion in every deck unless even more powerful accelerants exist in that format in such numbers that Black Lotus would be the weakest of them all, which will never happen. Even the inclusion of copious amounts of hate such as Null Rod and Stony Silence would not warrant cutting Black Lotus, because the tempo boost from tapping it is simply so powerful and so singularly unique.

Actually, Shop decks have cut Lotus before and done well. The original incarnation of Espresso played Serum Powder and did not play Lotus. Again, your dismissal of some of the best shop theorists in the world only reflects your own ignorance of the pillar, not their ignorance of deck construction.

Again, just because someone, somewhere, does well with a suboptimal card choice in his deck does not mean that the suboptimal choice was instrumental in his victory and therefore should be included in future lists.

This deck hasn't done well with one pilot or in one event. It's taken down some of the biggest events in the US and has performed well for over a year. Without Lotus. It's not as cut and dry as you think and that mentality that seems to pervade a lot of players is simply ignorant. You're not evaluating the card in the context of the deck and merely looking at its abstract power. Objectively, Lotus is one of the best cards ever printed. That doesn't mean it belongs in every deck. There is a cost attached with its power. Similarly, Ancestral Recall is one of the best cards ever printed. I don't see you arguing that Terra Nova decks should play it.

Strawman alert! Ancestral Recall requires blue mana. If a Shop deck plays rainbow lands or islands, and there is enough access to blue mana to cast Ancestral, then that deck should definitely play Ancestral, no questions asked. Black Lotus requires NO specific color access and therefore should be played in every deck that can make use of mana (basically everything but manaless dredge).

Context of the deck is borderline irrelevant in this instance because the power of Black Lotus is such that, in a vacuum, it is the best tempo play in the history of the game and doesn't require any contextual evaluation other than the simple one of "can this deck make use of mana at all" which only eliminates truly manaless decks.

I honestly can't defend DS Jug as well as some of the Shop guys can, but it was the most efficient answer to the problems that the decks had. I'll trust Raf, Vinnie, and Nick to know what cards but the screws to their opponents effectively, especially when it puts up results like this list has. Yes suboptimal builds win all the time. They don't win repeatedly in the hands of different pilots like Terra Nova has. When an archetype has several pilots in different regions putting up results, maybe it's time to be introspective about your own thoughts on it as opposed to detracting from the success.

You have to learn how to extricate card performance from deck performance in a particular tournament. Again, players have done well with suboptimal lists in the past - but that doesn't mean that the deck shouldn't be improved and/or streamlined in the future. Similarly, that doesn't mean that bad cards should be included or that good cards should be omitted due to "winning in spite of this" performances.

All of those "Terra Nova" pilots would have done *better* or *just as well* with Black Lotus in their decks.

Shop cut Lotus for months and put up 1st place finishes in a multitude of events. It's not like we're talking about some guy not playing Ancestral in Keeper one time and Top 8'ing. They have defensible reasons for their decisions. You haven't actually explained to me or anyone else how Terra Nova would actually use Lotus effectively.

I brought up Ancestral for a reason. I know it costs blue mana and Terra Nova can't make that outside of Sapphire. Lotus makes 3 colored mana one time - but Terra Nova doesn't need that at all and has a hard time using it effectively. Your inability to grasp it is the issue and I was trying to approach it differently so you might see it. Clearly didn't work.

I'm not looking at one performance. I'm looking at performances over the past year plus all revolving around the points you're bringing up. The deck was DESIGNED in a way that made Lotus sub optimal for it. You're incessant comments about how it can use the mana clearly don't understand that exploding out Spheres and then not being able to do anything behind it is bad for the Shop deck in a field with Wasteland. Animating Factory or Mutavault on one turn isn't nearly as important as you seem to think. When Lotus costs 2-3 to cast the burst isn't felt until the next turn. That tempo can give the opponent time to stabilize. Your ignorance on the Terra Nova plan and construction shines through further each time you post.

[evouga]

I'm not looking at one performance. I'm looking at performances over the past year plus all revolving around the points you're bringing up. The deck was DESIGNED in a way that made Lotus sub optimal for it. You're incessant comments about how it can use the mana clearly don't understand that exploding out Spheres and then not being able to do anything behind it is bad for the Shop deck in a field with Wasteland.

This is a great point. TMWA is a strong metagame deck in an Shops-infested environment not only because it has access to Bolts and Sprees (which certainly do help), but also because it excels at locking Shops behind their own Spheres.

[Bibendum]

Results matter. Anyone on the east coast who has seen the monster that Terra-Nova is knows that DS Juggernaut is actually insane in that deck. There are 2 pieces of removal being played that actually kill him right now. One of which will cost about 5-6 mana to reliably cast vs Terra-Nova, the other is Dismember and less and less decks are packing it. Lotus does nothing for you with no cards at the end of your curve. This deck's critical number isnt 4 -5 like other shop decks revolving around Stack or Forgemaster, its critical number is 2. Lotus is not the best tempo play in the world when you have a chalice 0, a null rod or 2-3 spheres on board. Before you start the insane argument for cutting all the moxen we can state that any mana source that sticks around to activate factories every turn increases exponentially in value in this deck. Lotus will never build you into anything in this deck outside of a turn one double sphere. So weighing that possibility vs how bad it is turn two and onward in that deck does not make the reward worth it. Also claiming that the Forino's and Nick are designing decks wrong is hilarious to me. You keep drinking the koolaid given to you by pro's who barely play the format and i'll keep listening to 3 of the minds that have literally created 90% of the format defining shop decks over the past 8 years.

[MTGFan]

Black Lotus is a powerful singleton, but still a singleton. The rest of the Shops skeleton is powerful enough to win games and even tournaments on its own. Looking at empirical results here is misleading, again, because of the small sample size of Lotus-less decks and the nature of the impact of a singleton on a match. Drawing the Black Lotus rather than the replacement will win more matches than not, but any singleton, especially in a deck without card filtering of any kind, will have a smaller overall impact on a series of games than other cards played in multiples.

However, all of those Shop decks that cut Black Lotus would have performed even better if they had drawn Black Lotus instead of the extra land, or the extra artifact that was substituted for it. Of course, how often over the course of a tournament did the substituted card get drawn and played? The rest of the deck, and the pilot's skill, still managed to succeed. And we're not talking about a huge sample of Lotus-less decks. After perusing tcdecks.net for recent Shop top8s, I have found less than 5% of the past 12+ top8 appearances to be Lotus-less.

In this situation it is more beneficial to look at Magic theory than a small sample size of tournament results for the aforementioned reasons.

[MTGFan]

Shop cut Lotus for months and put up 1st place finishes in a multitude of events. It's not like we're talking about some guy not playing Ancestral in Keeper one time and Top 8'ing. They have defensible reasons for their decisions. You haven't actually explained to me or anyone else how Terra Nova would actually use Lotus effectively.

Terra Nova and any other deck that needs mana to cast spells can use Black Lotus effectively. Black Lotus is the most efficient source of mana ever printed. There is simply no need to differentiate "Terra Nova" or any other strategy (save those that are completely manaless) as being so unique that it is exempt from the pressure to generate mana efficiently.

I brought up Ancestral for a reason. I know it costs blue mana and Terra Nova can't make that outside of Sapphire. Lotus makes 3 colored mana one time - but Terra Nova doesn't need that at all and has a hard time using it effectively. Your inability to grasp it is the issue and I was trying to approach it differently so you might see it. Clearly didn't work.

You can't substantiate the bolded claims. In fact, those claims are totally groundless because all Magic decks (save manaless ones) need fast, copious mana and can use said mana.

I'm not looking at one performance. I'm looking at performances over the past year plus all revolving around the points you're bringing up. The deck was DESIGNED in a way that made Lotus sub optimal for it. You're incessant comments about how it can use the mana clearly don't understand that exploding out Spheres and then not being able to do anything behind it is bad for the Shop deck in a field with Wasteland. Animating Factory or Mutavault on one turn isn't nearly as important as you seem to think. When Lotus costs 2-3 to cast the burst isn't felt until the next turn. That tempo can give the opponent time to stabilize. Your ignorance on the Terra Nova plan and construction shines through further each time you post.

You are being totally ignorant on the concept of Magic theory. You are constructing a false reality of Vintage as being distinct and isolated from general Magic principles that apply to every format and every deck. Fast, efficient means of powering spells is a winning formula in every format that adheres to the basic rules of the Magic game as set forth by Richard Garfield in 1993.

The genesis of this belief that "the rules don't apply to deck X" is one that is borne from the isolationist, elitist stance festering in this niche community. I've played every constructed format on a competitive level and have found that while there are some quirks and subtle differences in one vs. the other, that basic principles exist that apply universally to them all. You can't escape the basic tenets of card advantage and mana advantage regardless of whether your format is filled with broken cards or turgid 5cc vanilla creatures.

[Samoht]

Shop cut Lotus for months and put up 1st place finishes in a multitude of events. It's not like we're talking about some guy not playing Ancestral in Keeper one time and Top 8'ing. They have defensible reasons for their decisions. You haven't actually explained to me or anyone else how Terra Nova would actually use Lotus effectively.

Terra Nova and any other deck that needs mana to cast spells can use Black Lotus effectively. Black Lotus is the most efficient source of mana ever printed. There is simply no need to differentiate "Terra Nova" or any other strategy (save those that are completely manaless) as being so unique that it is exempt from the pressure to generate mana efficiently.

I brought up Ancestral for a reason. I know it costs blue mana and Terra Nova can't make that outside of Sapphire. Lotus makes 3 colored mana one time - but Terra Nova doesn't need that at all and has a hard time using it effectively. Your inability to grasp it is the issue and I was trying to approach it differently so you might see it. Clearly didn't work.

You can't substantiate the bolded claims. In fact, those claims are totally groundless because all Magic decks (save manaless ones) need fast, copious mana and can use said mana.

I'm not looking at one performance. I'm looking at performances over the past year plus all revolving around the points you're bringing up. The deck was DESIGNED in a way that made Lotus sub optimal for it. You're incessant comments about how it can use the mana clearly don't understand that exploding out Spheres and then not being able to do anything behind it is bad for the Shop deck in a field with Wasteland. Animating Factory or Mutavault on one turn isn't nearly as important as you seem to think. When Lotus costs 2-3 to cast the burst isn't felt until the next turn. That tempo can give the opponent time to stabilize. Your ignorance on the Terra Nova plan and construction shines through further each time you post.

You are being totally ignorant on the concept of Magic theory. You are constructing a false reality of Vintage as being distinct and isolated from general Magic principles that apply to every format and every deck. Fast, efficient means of powering spells is a winning formula in every format that adheres to the basic rules of the Magic game as set forth by Richard Garfield in 1993.

The genesis of this belief that "the rules don't apply to deck X" is one that is borne from the isolationist, elitist stance festering in this niche community. I've played every constructed format on a competitive level and have found that while there are some quirks and subtle differences in one vs. the other, that basic principles exist that apply universally to them all. You can't escape the basic tenets of card advantage and mana advantage regardless of whether your format is filled with broken cards or turgid 5cc vanilla creatures.

Terra Nova can not use a fast one shot use chunk of mana to do anything that won't set itself back. That's the entire point. You don't seem to get that when Lotus costs 4 and leaves the next turn it isn't very good. Would you play a card that had cmc 2+, Sacrifice for 3 mana of any one color in a deck loaded with 2 drops and manlands? No, you wouldn't. Lotus quickly becomes that in Terra Nova. Accelerating to that at the cost of a card is often a drawback, not an advantage. I, and others, have substantiated it enough. If you're going to continually deny the facts that's fine, I'll move on.

[MTGFan]

Shop cut Lotus for months and put up 1st place finishes in a multitude of events. It's not like we're talking about some guy not playing Ancestral in Keeper one time and Top 8'ing. They have defensible reasons for their decisions. You haven't actually explained to me or anyone else how Terra Nova would actually use Lotus effectively.

Terra Nova and any other deck that needs mana to cast spells can use Black Lotus effectively. Black Lotus is the most efficient source of mana ever printed. There is simply no need to differentiate "Terra Nova" or any other strategy (save those that are completely manaless) as being so unique that it is exempt from the pressure to generate mana efficiently.

I brought up Ancestral for a reason. I know it costs blue mana and Terra Nova can't make that outside of Sapphire. Lotus makes 3 colored mana one time - but Terra Nova doesn't need that at all and has a hard time using it effectively. Your inability to grasp it is the issue and I was trying to approach it differently so you might see it. Clearly didn't work.

You can't substantiate the bolded claims. In fact, those claims are totally groundless because all Magic decks (save manaless ones) need fast, copious mana and can use said mana.

I'm not looking at one performance. I'm looking at performances over the past year plus all revolving around the points you're bringing up. The deck was DESIGNED in a way that made Lotus sub optimal for it. You're incessant comments about how it can use the mana clearly don't understand that exploding out Spheres and then not being able to do anything behind it is bad for the Shop deck in a field with Wasteland. Animating Factory or Mutavault on one turn isn't nearly as important as you seem to think. When Lotus costs 2-3 to cast the burst isn't felt until the next turn. That tempo can give the opponent time to stabilize. Your ignorance on the Terra Nova plan and construction shines through further each time you post.

You are being totally ignorant on the concept of Magic theory. You are constructing a false reality of Vintage as being distinct and isolated from general Magic principles that apply to every format and every deck. Fast, efficient means of powering spells is a winning formula in every format that adheres to the basic rules of the Magic game as set forth by Richard Garfield in 1993.

The genesis of this belief that "the rules don't apply to deck X" is one that is borne from the isolationist, elitist stance festering in this niche community. I've played every constructed format on a competitive level and have found that while there are some quirks and subtle differences in one vs. the other, that basic principles exist that apply universally to them all. You can't escape the basic tenets of card advantage and mana advantage regardless of whether your format is filled with broken cards or turgid 5cc vanilla creatures.

Terra Nova can not use a fast one shot use chunk of mana to do anything that won't set itself back. That's the entire point. You don't seem to get that when Lotus costs 4 and leaves the next turn it isn't very good. Would you play a card that had cmc 2+, Sacrifice for 3 mana of any one color in a deck loaded with 2 drops and manlands? No, you wouldn't. Lotus quickly becomes that in Terra Nova. Accelerating to that at the cost of a card is often a drawback, not an advantage. I, and others, have substantiated it enough. If you're going to continually deny the facts that's fine, I'll move on.

You're completely wrong about "Terra Nova" not being able to use 3 free mana (that doesn't use a valuable land drop) in one turn. Every deck in the history of Magic (save for the manaless decks) is made better by such a mana source.

You're probably focusing on a few corner cases that comprise less than 20% of the potential plays in which Black Lotus is involved. This is what happens when insular Magic communities develop tunnel vision regarding their card choices.

Here's a sample "Terra Nova" list from a recent event:

Nick Detwiler
4 dismember
3 chalice of the void
1 mox sapphire
1 mox jet
1 mox ruby
1 mox emerald
1 mox pearl
1 sol ring
4 phyrexian revoker
4 sphere of resistance
4 thorn of amethyst
2 sculpting steel
4 lodestone golem
4 phyrexian metamorph
2 null rod
1 phrexian tower
1 strip mine
1 tolarian academy
4 ancient tomb
4 mishra's factory
4 mishra's workshop
4 mutavault
4 wasteland

SB:
4 tormod's crypt
3 graffdigger's cage
1 null rod
2 witchbane orb
1 high market
1 phyrexian tower
3 the tabernacle at pendrell vale

For every play in which you have Black Lotus and 2 Spheres and you can only cast one sphere for 2 mana, there are a multitude of plays in which you have, say, an Ancient Tomb/Workshop and Black Lotus and 2 Spheres and you can power out 2 spheres from the start. Or you have a Thorn and a Revoker. Or you have a Factory and a Lodestone Golem, and only a Black Lotus would enable you to cast the Golem on Turn 1.

What's the most important turn in Vintage? Often the first, especially in the Workshop matchup that is so dependent on the die roll. Black Lotus does more to affect the outcome of the first turn than any other card in the format. Sacrificing the maximum efficiency of your opening play to make dubious gains in the supposed long term is simply not correct.

There are so many more high-leverage situations that Black Lotus solves than any other option. If you focus on a small handful of plays in which you cannot maximize 3 free mana, then you are simply being foolish in letting your tunnel vision obscure the true realization of maximum efficiency.

[Samoht]

That only accounts for times when Lotus is in the opener. Every time it is drawn afterwards it is drastically worse. I think you're not understanding that differential. Also Shop + Lotus + 2 Sphere effects (sans LSG) is a potential weakness for this deck if the opponent is playing Wasteland. So if our best case scenario for Black Lotus is one in which we can lose a large amount of games, how could can the card be in the context of the deck? If you want to say that Terra Nova is poorly constructed because it can't use Lotus well that's another discussion, though one in which you'd also be wrong. To say that Terra Nova as presented can use it well shows a fundamental misunderstanding in what the deck does.

[evouga]

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose WotC printed a card

Ultimate Lotus
Artifact 0
When Ultimate Lotus enters the battlefield, if it's your first turn, roll a d100. On an X or better, you win the game.

What is the highest value of X where you would play this card? "Any value" is clearly wrong, since at some point the opportunity cost of cutting a card for Ultimate Lotus outweighs the (small) chance that it will win you the game on turn 1.

In fact, you can calculate an upper bound on X by analyzing a deck that contains 60 Ultimate Lotuses and nothing else. To have an even or better chance of winning the game you need

(1 - (100-X)/100)^7 <= 0.5

or X < 90.6. So if X is 91 or higher, Ultimate Lotus is outright unplayable. In practice, if you are restricted to 1 copy of Ultimate Lotus, X will need to be considerably lower for it to be correct to play it (and depends on the contents of the rest of the deck.)

How does the above relate to Black Lotus? Absolute statements like "it is always correct to include Black Lotus in a deck that uses mana" is lazy and, worse, flat-out wrong. To rigorously substantiate this claim you will need to compare 1) the increased probability of winning thanks to a T1 lotus to 2) the opportunity cost of having a blank card in the cases where it *doesn't* help you make a relevant T1 play and 2) the opportunity cost of having a blank card instead of a relevant card when topdecked during later turns.

In the case of Terra Nova, I might be convinced by a reasoned argument, but I can't take claims like "it's always correct to run Lotus" seriously.

[fsecco]

Wouldn't it be nice if we discussed the effectiveness of Black Lotus in one archetype inside a topic for that archetype? And left this topic to comment the actual subject, which is the VSL?

[Smmenen]

There is a big thread somewhere where I argued against the omission of Lotus in Workshop decks.  I don't think that can be proved or disproved either way, but I think the idea that Delver and Deathrite Shaman aren't Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. 

[MTGFan]

Except that Black Lotus is hardly a dead card past turn 1.

In fact, it maintains a significant portion of its turn 1 value well into the 3rd or 4th turn. Especially in a Workshop deck that is a.) vulnerable to opposing Wastelands and b.) plays a significant number of 3cc+ spells.

It's not this dichotomy of "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it sucks horribly". It's more like: "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it's still very good, and occasionally it's only average."

[Will]

Except that Black Lotus is hardly a dead card past turn 1.

In fact, it maintains a significant portion of its turn 1 value well into the 3rd or 4th turn. Especially in a Workshop deck that is a.) vulnerable to opposing Wastelands and b.) plays a significant number of 3cc+ spells.

It's not this dichotomy of "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it sucks horribly". It's more like: "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it's still very good, and occasionally it's only average."

In a deck playing 3 Null Rod, 3 Chalice of the Void, 4 Sphere of Resistance, 4 Thorn of Amethyst and 4 Phyrexian Metamorph in the main deck to copy the Spheres Black Lotus is almost guaranteed to cost 1 or more mana. If not, Null Rod or Chalice likely invalidate it. Black Lotus is undoubtedly a great card, but playing an extra Sphere at the expense of a mana source is not a trade off I would be willing to make.

[JarofFortune]

Except that Black Lotus is hardly a dead card past turn 1.

In fact, it maintains a significant portion of its turn 1 value well into the 3rd or 4th turn. Especially in a Workshop deck that is a.) vulnerable to opposing Wastelands and b.) plays a significant number of 3cc+ spells.

It's not this dichotomy of "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it sucks horribly". It's more like: "if it's in your opening hand it's great and otherwise it's still very good, and occasionally it's only average."

They have repeatedly said that the deck needs constant sources of mana to fight opoosing wastelands, activate manlands, and be able to cast at least a spell every turn if they draw it. I'm more inclined to believe the successful Terra Nova players, who have played many games with the deck, than someone who hasn't given an indication that they have even played with the deck.

In fact, it maintains a significant portion of its turn 1 value well into the 3rd or 4th turn. Especially in a Workshop deck that is a.) vulnerable to opposing Wastelands and b.) plays a significant number of 3cc+ spells.

They have said repeatedly that top decking Lotus is bad for the Deck, because by then the board is ideally filled with multiple lock pieces that turn Lotus into tempo loss, rather than "The greatest tempo card in the world". What are you expecting when you fail to even address their counterarguments?

[Bibendum]

Nope the people winning with the deck and designing it are not even remotely as qualified as the people who barely play the format in discussing its merits.

[Chubby Rain]

There is a big thread somewhere where I argued against the omission of Lotus in Workshop decks.  I don't think that can be proved or disproved either way, but I think the idea that Delver and Deathrite Shaman aren't Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. 

I think the idea that people feel entitled to make authoritative statements about whether or not a certain card is Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. While I'm not arguing that all cards are Vintage playable, Vedalken Aethermage just top 4'd the Magic Online Vintage Championships - synergy and context are much more important than individual cards in a vacuum IMO. That goes for Delver, Deathrite Shaman, and even Black Lotus. Throw in Restoration Angel, Stoneforge Mystic, Darksteel Juggernaut, and any other card that has been dismissed recently by the "pros" without understanding the nuances involved. At some point, aren't these conversations somewhat futile?

[Smmenen]

There is a big thread somewhere where I argued against the omission of Lotus in Workshop decks.  I don't think that can be proved or disproved either way, but I think the idea that Delver and Deathrite Shaman aren't Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. 

I think the idea that people feel entitled to make authoritative statements about whether or not a certain card is Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. While I'm not arguing that all cards are Vintage playable, Vedalken Aethermage just top 4'd the Magic Online Vintage Championships - synergy and context are much more important than individual cards in a vacuum IMO. That goes for Delver, Deathrite Shaman, and even Black Lotus. Throw in Restoration Angel, Stoneforge Mystic, Darksteel Juggernaut, and any other card that has been dismissed recently by the "pros" without understanding the nuances involved. At some point, aren't these conversations somewhat futile?

At least they are empirically provable or disprovabke claims. 

[Samoht]

There is a big thread somewhere where I argued against the omission of Lotus in Workshop decks.  I don't think that can be proved or disproved either way, but I think the idea that Delver and Deathrite Shaman aren't Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. 

I think the idea that people feel entitled to make authoritative statements about whether or not a certain card is Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. While I'm not arguing that all cards are Vintage playable, Vedalken Aethermage just top 4'd the Magic Online Vintage Championships - synergy and context are much more important than individual cards in a vacuum IMO. That goes for Delver, Deathrite Shaman, and even Black Lotus. Throw in Restoration Angel, Stoneforge Mystic, Darksteel Juggernaut, and any other card that has been dismissed recently by the "pros" without understanding the nuances involved. At some point, aren't these conversations somewhat futile?

At least they are empirically provable or disprovabke claims. 

Sadly, they really are no ways to truly prove it in a lot of cases. No one has the time. If all we do is take results from tournaments we get outliers and variable chance interacting with our parameters to prove whether a card is "playable" or not. And this is coming from someone who has a list of unplayable cards a mile long that people are playing right now. I know it's just my opinion.

[Smmenen]

There is a big thread somewhere where I argued against the omission of Lotus in Workshop decks.  I don't think that can be proved or disproved either way, but I think the idea that Delver and Deathrite Shaman aren't Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. 

I think the idea that people feel entitled to make authoritative statements about whether or not a certain card is Vintage playable is much more worthy of critique. While I'm not arguing that all cards are Vintage playable, Vedalken Aethermage just top 4'd the Magic Online Vintage Championships - synergy and context are much more important than individual cards in a vacuum IMO. That goes for Delver, Deathrite Shaman, and even Black Lotus. Throw in Restoration Angel, Stoneforge Mystic, Darksteel Juggernaut, and any other card that has been dismissed recently by the "pros" without understanding the nuances involved. At some point, aren't these conversations somewhat futile?

At least they are empirically provable or disprovabke claims. 

Sadly, they really are no ways to truly prove it in a lot of cases. No one has the time. If all we do is take results from tournaments we get outliers and variable chance interacting with our parameters to prove whether a card is "playable" or not. And this is coming from someone who has a list of unplayable cards a mile long that people are playing right now. I know it's just my opinion.

It's true that a card appearing in a top 8 decklist doesn't prove it's a "playable" Vintage card, whatever that may mean, but for cards like Delver or DRS, which are played as a quartet and anchor a deck, and for which decks have won major tournaments over time, like a string of LCVs or the Bazaar of Moxen, I think we can conclude, and you'll agree, that DRS and Delver are both Vintage playable.  It's hard to prove a negative -- that omitting Black Lotus is wrong -- but at least we can comb through tournament results to determine whether a card is playable - a card that shows up as a 4-of with lots of Top 8 appearances and tournament victories has enough empirical evidence, in my judgment, to conclude that that card is Vintage playable. 

I think all of the cards named above, including Darksteel Juggernaut, are Vintage playable. 

[Chubby Rain]

At least they are empirically provable or disprovabke claims. 

Sadly, they really are no ways to truly prove it in a lot of cases. No one has the time. If all we do is take results from tournaments we get outliers and variable chance interacting with our parameters to prove whether a card is "playable" or not. And this is coming from someone who has a list of unplayable cards a mile long that people are playing right now. I know it's just my opinion.

Whether or not a card has seen play is empirically provable. However, whether a card is "playable" leads into semantics and how you define it which determines if you can empirically prove it. I have a very loose definition of "playable": literally, "does this card have some desirable role or function I can use to win games of Vintage?" Tom (both Dixon and Martell) seem to be using "playable" as "is this card good in the current Vintage format?" or "would I play this card in a Vintage deck?" In this case tournament results are evidence towards playability but there are cards that they will deny are Vintage playable regardless of results. I really wish that Tom Martell would have used a less vague word...

Tom (Dixon), I'm curious on how many of those cards I've played in just the past couple of months.

It's true that a card appearing in a top 8 decklist doesn't prove it's a "playable" Vintage card, whatever that may mean, but for cards like Delver or DRS, which are played as a quartet and anchor a deck, and for which decks have won major tournaments over time, like a string of LCVs or the Bazaar of Moxen, I think we can conclude, and you'll agree, that DRS and Delver are both Vintage playable.  It's hard to prove a negative -- that omitting Black Lotus is wrong -- but at least we can comb through tournament results to determine whether a card is playable - a card that shows up as a 4-of with lots of Top 8 appearances and tournament victories has enough empirical evidence, in my judgment, to conclude that that card is Vintage playable. 

I think all of the cards named above, including Darksteel Juggernaut, are Vintage playable. 

I would agree - Delver and Deathrite are Vintage playable cards. Delver is great as an early clock in a fast, spell based tempo deck and Deathrite simultaneously advances your game plan while disrupting your opponent's. The line blurs somewhat between "playable" and "popular" when it comes to tournament results. Is Magus of the Future Vintage playable and somewhat unpopular? Is Notion Thief popular but not really playable (using this as an example as I am well aware of Tom Dixon's dislike of this card)?

I also don't think that omitting Black Lotus or another card is "proving a negative". You generally start by playing Black Lotus and finding that the card does not perform as well as you hoped and that it's not worth the opportunity cost. The tricky thing with Black Lotus is how ubiquitous it is and how powerful the effect *can* be. I'm trusting in Will's, Forino's, and Nick's experience with the card and the deck, which I value over Tom Martell's at this point. I'm not sure this is "empirical", though I definitely have "experienced" being thrashed by all three of them.

And I would agree that all the cards mentioned are playable. Really, Darksteel Juggernaut is tough for red to beat.

[Smmenen]

The line blurs somewhat between "playable" and "popular" when it comes to tournament results. Is Magus of the Future Vintage playable and somewhat unpopular? Is Notion Thief popular but not really playable (using this as an example as I am well aware of Tom Dixon's dislike of this card)?

Popularity and playability are related though.  A card's playability may hinge on another card's popularity.  

I think Notion Thief and Magus of the Future are playable.  Notion Thief + Dack Fayden is a two-card combo that basically ends the game.  

I had a hilarious game at the Waterbury where I cast Show and Tell and dropped Bargain, by Jeremey Beaver dropped NOtion Thief.  I lost the game right there. 

I also don't think that omitting Black Lotus or another card is "proving a negative". You generally start by playing Black Lotus and finding that the card does not perform as well as you hoped and that it's not worth the opportunity cost. The tricky thing with Black Lotus is how ubiquitous it is and how powerful the effect *can* be. I'm trusting in Will's, Forino's, and Nick's experience with the card and the deck, which I value over Tom Martell's at this point. I'm not sure this is "empirical", though I definitely have "experienced" being thrashed by all three of them.

And I would agree that all the cards mentioned are playable. Really, Darksteel Juggernaut is tough for red to beat.

Regarding Black Lotus, I wish someone could find the big thread where Nick and I went back and forth, but I do think, taking the other side, that players who've played hundreds of games with a deck can perceive costs or value differences that aren't abstractly visible.  Case in point: the landstill players who cut Time Walk (because a cantrip isn't as valuable as something else in that slot), or, when I was playing mono blue control back in 2004 Vintage Champs Top 8, where I didn't play Brainstorm, but played Impulse because the few times where I didn't have a shuffle effect were unacceptable costs, and all I wanted to was to find the one card I needed.  

[diophan]

So, back to the VSL:

Presumably Rich has a tough matchup this week? The Randy/LSV matchup should be fun to watch. I hope Pikula wins because of all the decklist haters.

Edit: I type LSV every time I want to write VSL.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

The line blurs somewhat between "playable" and "popular" when it comes to tournament results. Is Magus of the Future Vintage playable and somewhat unpopular? Is Notion Thief popular but not really playable (using this as an example as I am well aware of Tom Dixon's dislike of this card)?

Popularity and playability are related though.  A card's playability may hinge on another card's popularity.  

I think Notion Thief and Magus of the Future are playable.  Notion Thief + Dack Fayden is a two-card combo that basically ends the game.  

I had a hilarious game at the Waterbury where I cast Show and Tell and dropped Bargain, by Jeremey Beaver dropped NOtion Thief.  I lost the game right there. 

I also don't think that omitting Black Lotus or another card is "proving a negative". You generally start by playing Black Lotus and finding that the card does not perform as well as you hoped and that it's not worth the opportunity cost. The tricky thing with Black Lotus is how ubiquitous it is and how powerful the effect *can* be. I'm trusting in Will's, Forino's, and Nick's experience with the card and the deck, which I value over Tom Martell's at this point. I'm not sure this is "empirical", though I definitely have "experienced" being thrashed by all three of them.

And I would agree that all the cards mentioned are playable. Really, Darksteel Juggernaut is tough for red to beat.

Regarding Black Lotus, I wish someone could find the big thread where Nick and I went back and forth, but I do think, taking the other side, that players who've played hundreds of games with a deck can perceive costs or value differences that aren't abstractly visible.  Case in point: the landstill players who cut Time Walk (because a cantrip isn't as valuable as something else in that slot), or, when I was playing mono blue control back in 2004 Vintage Champs Top 8, where I didn't play Brainstorm, but played Impulse because the few times where I didn't have a shuffle effect were unacceptable costs, and all I wanted to was to find the one card I needed.  

Nobody cuts time walk in landstill Stephen  ...I agree that lotus isn't needed in Terra Nova for what it's worth

[evouga]

Case in point: the landstill players who cut Time Walk (because a cantrip isn't as valuable as something else in that slot),

Do you have more information about this? I find the decision surprising -- certainly I can imagine situations where excluding Time Walk is correct (you can't reliably generate 1U, or expect you won't be able to play it (i.e. vs shops), or its inclusion turns on opposing countermagic that would otherwise be dead, etc) but in most situations by excluding Time Walk for lack of slots you are saying, among other things, that you would rather play with a 60 instead of a 59-card deck, which seems dubious.