SMIP Podcast # 40 Vintage Championship Results, Treasure Cruise, and More

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-40-vintage-champs-2014/

or:

http://mtgcast.com/mtgcast-podcast-shows/active-podcast-shows/so-many-insane-plays/so-many-insane-plays-episode-40-vintage-championship

Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian analyze the result of the Vintage Championship, the metagame – before and after, and the impact of Treasure Cruise.

Podcast (somanyinsaneplays): Download (Duration: 1:46:50 — 75.0MB)

0:01:20: Announcements
0:02:30: Vintage Championship results
0:17:45: Recent metagame shifts
0:41:30: Treasure Cruise
0:48:00: Should Treasure Cruise be restricted?
1:19:30: Building Oath for Vintage Champs
1:32:20: Future considerations for Delver and the metagame
Other Show Notes

– Vintage Super League
– Vintage Champs 2014 Top 8 Decklists
– Vintage Champs 2014 Top 32 Decks

Contact us at @ManyInsanePlays on Twitter or e-mail us at SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Nice podcast guys and thanks for the name drop

I was 2-0 vs cruise delver up until round 8 (my win and in round) vs Dario when he finally got me in a close 3 games. I thought I had the game won with Jace on 8 or 10 after clearing his board of creatures, only to have him show me 3 Lightning Bolt while I'm at 8 life

Thanks for the cast and hope to see ya guys at the next big event

[diophan]

Great podcast guys.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm Ryan from the semis of Champs. As someone who plays almost excusively on modo, I'd like to mention the differences between that preparation and experience from playing "real" Magic. This dovetails the past two podcasts nicely, where Steve predicted some number of the top 8 competitors would be coming from modo. I would like to mention that I've played in the past 2 monthly Players Guild tournament, where I've met some great people.

Anyway, the obvious upside to playing on Magic Online is the sheer number of matches one can play, any time of day, against many different people. Unfortunately the lack of dailies firing recently has limited the number of competitive matches I was able to play in the few weeks leading up to Champs. Having the TMD TMGO Open the weekend before Champs was a real boon in that regard.

On the flip side, the metagame on Magic Online is very Flavor of the Month oriented, especially in Vintage. I suspect a non-trivial number of vintage players on Magic Online haven't ever played paper Vintage, and are less bound to a pet deck. The clear downside to this Flavor of the Month dynamic is that it's hard to get practice against specific decks if you don't have a network of friends willing to test with you. Although being able to playtest quite a bit with Steve was great, it was to help him playtest his VSL matches, where he was generally on delver.

To get to the point, the problem with testing online via dailies and queues is that I had played literally 0 games of delver versus oath prior to my semifinal match, and trying to create lines in my 20th match of vintage of the weekend did not end well. Delver and Grixis are some mind-blowing percentage of the online metagame, with a few good dedicated workshop players (such as Montolio). My decklist ended up skewed to beating the mirror and handling Grixis/shops as a result. This is not to say I begrudge playing on modo. In fact, I wouldn't have dusted off my power for the first time in 8 years if not for VMA being printed. As modo vintage matures (and hopefully more paper vintage players pick it up), I expect these differences to diminish.

Getting back to the podcast (sorry for the long sidetrack), I will say that I think Steve is selling probe a bit short. If you can keep a favorable workshop matchup, it ranges from good to incredible in nearly every other matchup. Getting a free card in the graveyard and being able to see your opponent's hand against a blue deck feels like cheating.

Going forward I agree that delver lists will have to respect non mirror/blue control matchups more, necessitating a heavier green splash. The dynamic of Dack versus Trygon and how workshop players build their deck around which card they expect in greater numbers should be interesting.

[Smmenen]

Great feedback.

Analyzing Probe is an enormously complex task because of the subtleties it presents in Delver, both strengths and weaknesses.  For example, the value of thinning towards broken cards is much less in this deck, since the deck is largely homogenous and uses very little of the restricted list, but the value of the card drawn with Probe maybe higher in than in any other deck. This will be a major subject of my primer as there are lots of aspects of this card to discuss (not least of which is the value of fueling Cruise & peeking at the opponent's hand).   

[Chubby Rain]

Great feedback.

Analyzing Probe is an enormously complex task because of the subtleties it presents in Delver, both strengths and weaknesses.  For example, the value of thinning towards broken cards is much less in this deck, since the deck is largely homogenous and uses very little of the restricted list, but the value of the card drawn with Probe maybe higher in than in any other deck. This will be a major subject of my primer as there are lots of aspects of this card to discuss (not least of which is the value of fueling Cruise & peeking at the opponent's hand).   

I enjoyed the podcast and I agree with you on the progression of Delver to be a more balanced deck against the field.

One thing about Gitaxian Probe that I think is under-appreciated is the ability to choose between different lines of play in the early game. Delver (the deck) is capable of being both a tempo and/or control deck based on its opening hand and the matchup. A turn 1 Probe allows allows you to make more effective decisions with a subsequent Brainstorm, Ponder, and Preordain. It also helps in knowing whether to cast a cantrip turn 1, deploy a threat, or keep up Pyroblast/Flusterstorm/Spell Snare/Spell Pierce. Looking forward to the primer.

[dragzz]

Thanks guys! Always a pleasure listening to these podcasts while doing some development work.

I play almost exclusively on MODO and play mostly delver, and I wholeheartedly vote for the restriction of TC, and the banning of the card in every other eternal format. Unless wizards drops a bomb and print something that neuters the card.  If the online metagame is any indication of where modern and legacy is going, the ban hammer needs to drop, and soon. I think the fear of a ridiculous delve card is coming is justified, and we just need to wait on what comes out. What I would find interesting, is that, since delve feeds upon each other, and if other broken delve cards come out, how would deck builders utilize these cards. Obviously you would need to pick and choose the delve card/s you would include in your 75. In theory, if say a delve time walk is to be released, what would be more important to a delver pilot, drawing cards or taking extra turns? Or would players just run more tutors and run less copies of both?

As one of the players that started running UR builds online before khans was releaseed, i can attest that there is very little to be gained by running UR vs RUG, in theory you get the more stable mana base, but 2 tropical islands doesn't make the deck a lot more vulnerable to wasteland that running 4 volcanics. Although, I disagree that UR weakens the shop matchup, the matchup is about the same wether you go with UR or RUG, but RUG affords you the more flexible answers.

What do guys think of the most appropriate tinkerbot at this time? Blightsteel has surely lost some of its flare due to dack fayden, inkwell is easy enough to race. I find Sphinx to be the strongest choice vs delver as we cant race and run no cards that removes it. Blightsteel is still the top choice, based on the results, I was wondering what consideration do you take into account when choosing the most appropriate tinker bot.

Also, could delver's dominance prove to be good in the long run? It is by far the cheapest powered deck to build, having no need for off color mox, tme vaults, and drains.

[Methuselahn]

Nice show.

I liked your explanation of why green is so important in Delver decks.  The analysis of Abrubt Decay in the past and how it affects metagaming cycles is good.  Your theorycrafting on choosing a deck between delver/oath/shops depending on local meta and the importance of recognizing that Champs is not the place to go for deck copying was sweet.

I think that if the listener is sold on your podcast advice then Cruise probably doesn't need restriction.  Personally, I don't think it is clearly overpowered and as such, in need of restriction.  Perhaps if Top8s over the next year contain 18+ copies each of TC, then yes, restrict if people are absolutely sick of seeing the card.

[Greg]

Nice podcast, guys! I thoroughly enjoyed this one. It's nice to hear discussion about an event that so many of us participated in.

I think it's noteworthy to mention that Mark Tocco was playing my identical 75 in Vintage Champs, so I am able to help shed some light on why the tournament-winning deck was constructed in the way that it was.

About twenty minutes before the tournament began, Mark Tocco and I ran into each other in the main event area. He sat down with Mike Ruggiero and I. Mark was frantically trying to assemble a deck to play with for the event. I suppose he hadn't given it much prior consideration, or perhaps his participation in the event was a last minute decision. Either way, he had his Vintage collection with him and could assemble almost any deck that he wanted to. He had a few decks in mind, but I suggested that he just play the deck that I was going to play. He thought that was a good idea, so I gave him my deck list and he copied it down.

The specific iteration of Oath of Druids that I ended up with was something that I'd been working on for the few months leading up to Vintage Champs. One early version of this deck was posted on this forum in September. Although I ended up finishing fairly poorly with it at Vintage Champs, the 75 did end up winning the entire event, so I'm quite pleased with the overall result. I expected it would be an incredible powerhouse of a deck, especially in a 300+ person event.

It's funny, Kevin Cron and I have very differing opinions regarding the topic of "variance" in an Oath of Druids deck. We both agree that limiting variance is important, but it seems that our approach to it has been almost completely opposite. Kevin states that he is not a fan of Show and Tell because it brings an extra level of variance that the deck does not need. This is a fair point, but as with any Oath of Druids deck, there are often going to be a plethora of dead cards. My deck's goal was to limit this as much as possible. How many Oath of Druids decks have cards in it that people don't want to see in their opening hand? Oftentimes, a lot -- whether it's Yawgmoth's Will, Memory's Journey, Dragon Breath, Gaea's Blessing, Forbidden Orchard, Voltaic Key, Dig Through Time, or one of their creature "targets." Similarly, by running a variety of targets, the variance in actually triggering Oath of Druids goes up exponentially. Kevin spoke of Oath of Druids decks having proven strength in attacking from a variety of ways, and I couldn't agree more. I've enjoyed tinkering with that concept for several years now. However, my main focus for the weekend was to construct a deck that was just as consistent as the "fair" decks, but with a much more "broken" end game. Having a Griselbrand on the battlefield is one of the strongest plays one could make in a game of Vintage. Show and Tell is a fantastic way to achieve this. Show and Tell can't be hit by Mental Misstep or Spell Snare, and cards like Nature's Claim and Abrupt Decay don't interact with it. It's a lot safer than Time Vault and Voltaic Key, though losing Vault/Key opened up a whole bunch of other issues, too.

As a community, we often break Vintage down into different pillars, but I've discovered lately that Vintage decks could also potentially be crudely divided into two different categories: consistent decks and inconsistent decks. Consistent decks usually have the benefit of experiencing fewer mulligans while having simple and "reliable" ways to win. However, these decks sometimes have trouble winning when they've fallen too far behind, because consistent decks also usually can't "just win" through an "oops!" type of broken strategy. Inconsistent decks usually have incredible knockout punches, but experience strange opening hands, and can be extremely vulnerable if the initial plans flop, whereas consistent decks can simply draw another creature that could go the distance if not dealt with.

I wanted to try and find a blend between these two concepts in an Oath of Druids shell, which can often be notorious for being incredibly variant and inconsistent. My Champs-winning deck list has basically no card in it that you would not want to see in your opening hand. The obvious critique here would be how no Oath of Druids deck wants to open up a hand that features one of the "targets," which I happened to include three copies of. Let's say we begin the game with a Griselbrand as one of the 7 cards in our opening hand. Usually, this isn't a great place to be. With 4 copies of Preordain and a singleton Ponder to go alongside 3 copies of Show and Tell and the black tutor duo, setting up this "Show and Tell" method of victory is extremely consistent. It's worth noting that many decks pack answers to Oath of Druids, but (in a pre-Containment Priest world), there is basically nothing that can stop a Show and Tell, outside of a counterspell. It's a great surprise in game 1, and then it helps evade Grafdigger's Cage, Abrupt Decay, Nature's Claim, and the like in the following sideboarded games. Show and Tell is also a fantastic diversion to draw out counterspells, and has the nice benefit of pitching to Force of Will or Misdirection when necessary, something that's always missing from critical cards like Time Vault, Abrupt Decay, Thoughtseize, or Yawgmoth's Will.

The deck I designed for this event includes none of the cards I mentioned above, the cards that often get "stuck" in a player's hand. This ties in with what I was mentioning before about "consistent" decks versus "inconsistent" decks. In this extremely long and random tournament, some matches are undeniably going to be won and lost in mulligans. Reducing the "luck" factor was important to me. Every opening hand in this deck looks much better when it's accompanied by Preordain, Ponder, Ancestral Recall, Brainstorm, Vampiric Tutor, or Demonic Tutor. It feels safe having "half" of a combo, knowing that the other half may not be too far out of reach. Even "strange" hands feel more comfortable when the pilot knows they can do a little hunting for the combo-piece or protection that they need. With a gigantic suite of counterspells to back everything up, executing either "combo" in the deck is fairly straightforward and consistent. Virtually every single non-mana producing card in the maindeck is blue, as well, to help keep Force of Will and Misdirection live.

The deck obviously has a few glaring issues, such as extreme difficulty in dealing with clone effects, lands such as Karakas or Cavern of Souls, and, worst of all: a resolved Jace, the Mind Sculptor. I wasn't looking to solve these issues. At least, not for this marathon event. With such a gigantic and mostly unpredictable tournament, I was willing to gamble on the deck's ultra-consistent game plan being able to trump the off chance that these few brutal strategies would actually be able to knock the deck out twice in a match. Besides, there was no guarantee that I would even see any of these strategies sitting across from me. I was worrying less about the metagame (so to speak) and more about the deck's ability to function properly through unpredictable adversity. I have already begun changing the deck to adapt back to a more "normal" Northeast American metagame. Oh, Time Vault and Voltaic Key, I can never stray from you for too long...

I'm glad that Oath of Druids finally broke through as a Vintage Champs winning deck, and I'm glad that I could have been a small part of Mark Tocco's phenomenal run.

[Will]

This podcast was my favorite that I've listened to. I am quite interested in analyzing and trying to predict the metagame and so those sections appealed to me. It was also very interesting to hear about the deck selection process for both of you. Steve, I really enjoyed your perspective on Delver and elaboration on the posts you made in the Treasure Cruise Poll thread.

Greg, this was a fantastic post, thank you for writing it! I love your classification of decks as either consistent or inconsistent, it's brilliant.

[brianpk80]

Great job on the podcast.

Kevin, I'm very intrigued to hear your ideas on enhancing Salvagers Oath.  One thing I would point out is that I don't consider it a determinative attribute that the deck is not built to always win the game on the spot after one activation of the enchantment; that's not its objective although it happens frequently enough.  Rather than thinking of the list as "Oath," and comparing Auriok Salvagers to Griselbrand, it's more helpful to assess it as an aggressive Bomberman deck (which it structurally is) and compare the engine card Oath of Druids itself to the other popular engines in that archetype, Trinket Mage and Dark Confidant.  The Oath engine is for all intents and purposes a strict upgrade for various reasons, including costing 1 less in CMC than Trinket Mage, generating far more value than either him or Bob, using a mana base that supports MVP Ancient Grudge, and shoring up troublesome match-ups like Delver, Null Rod, Shops, and the orthodox Oath of Druids lists (due to Orchards and post-sb positioning).

Greg, nice post above.  A little more than a year ago, it occurred to me that Show and Tell had become almost if not more broken than its restricted cousin Tinker and that we'd be in for a world of pain if anyone began to exploit that with dedication, which is exactly how your design evolved with superb results.  Congratulations on the vicarious win.  

As for Treasure Cruise, I'm not opposed to restricting it but I don't consider it a priority.  At age 34, I'm more disillusioned by the childish single-card coin-flip victories (Chalice, Trinisphere, Blightsteel) that short-circuit the game we traveled X hours to play than a Delver deck drawing 5 cards on the third turn (only to realize "damn, I don't have an answer to Sphinx in here anywhere").  The possibility of Delve Time Walks, Demonic Tutors, Balances, Mind Twists, Draw 7's, Moxen, Shatterstorms, etc. in forthcoming sets isn't a nightmare scenario as suggested in the pod-cast.  Rather, we'd a have a huge mass of strong cards competing for space and a finite resource (graveyard) with serious design constraints that would be very prominent in the format but not necessarily breaking or ruining it.  It would be interesting to see how that scenario played out.  

[The Atog Lord]

Greg that was an excellent, excellent post!

I'm more disillusioned by the childish single-card coin-flip victories (Chalice, Trinisphere, Blightsteel) that short-circuit the game we traveled X hours to play than a Delver deck drawing 5 cards on the third turn

Well said, Brian.

[Prospero]

Guys, let's try and stay on point here.

Brian, if you'd like to discuss restrictions, please open up a thread in the Vintage Issues forum.

[cvarosky80]

Excellent podcast, guys. Probably my favorite one of all the ones you 2 have done so far.

While I agree with Steve's assertion that the metagame was much more diverse prior to Love Boat's printing, I am very interested in seeing where it's going to go. I have no problems at all with a good shakeup like this.

[brianpk80]

Guys, let's try and stay on point here.

Brian, if you'd like to discuss restrictions, please open up a thread in the Vintage Issues forum.

Sure.  I won't elaborate further but in fairness, the podcast featured a major section on Treasure Cruise restriction (0:48:00: Should Treasure Cruise be restricted?) and closing question was a call for people to chime in publicly on whether Treasure Cruise should be restricted. 

[mr.grim]

Great podcast!
 The champs review was good and I really enjoyed the Delver break down.

[WotC_Ethan]

It's Young Pyromancer's world. We're just living in it.

[Methuselahn]

Oath stuff.

Perhaps you could start a new thread on your champs winning deck. 

According to your deckbuilding approach, it sounds like this Oath list is the perfect example of why you shouldn't copy vintage championship decklists, as discussed in the podcast! 

[jamestosetti]

Great feedback.

Analyzing Probe is an enormously complex task because of the subtleties it presents in Delver, both strengths and weaknesses.  For example, the value of thinning towards broken cards is much less in this deck, since the deck is largely homogenous and uses very little of the restricted list, but the value of the card drawn with Probe maybe higher in than in any other deck. This will be a major subject of my primer as there are lots of aspects of this card to discuss (not least of which is the value of fueling Cruise & peeking at the opponent's hand).   

I like to play Rug Delver, and I also like to play with Gitaxian Probe and Treasure Cruise. I am not attempting to contradict you or anything, but just to offer my opinion from my experiences. Gitaxian Probe is not worth including in Rug Delver when you expect delver mirror matches. The point loss can potentially be material. Gitaxian Probe is however still good in combination with Treasure Cruise, but for various reasons. I use it as a two-of in combination with two Nights Whispers in a mainly B/U Time Vault deck. The build, and play style is similar to Rug Delver, but the win condition package of Time Vault, Voltaic Key, and or Blightsteel Collosus allow the deck to be played more like Legacy ANT. I will probably post a list in the Creative forum, so that the deck can be analyzed further.

[Will]

I like to play Rug Delver, and I also like to play with Gitaxian Probe and Treasure Cruise. I am not attempting to contradict you or anything, but just to offer my opinion from my experiences. Gitaxian Probe is not worth including in Rug Delver when you expect delver mirror matches. The point loss can potentially be material. Gitaxian Probe is however still good in combination with Treasure Cruise, but for various reasons. I use it as a two-of in combination with two Nights Whispers in a mainly B/U Time Vault deck. The build, and play style is similar to Rug Delver, but the win condition package of Time Vault, Voltaic Key, and or Blightsteel Collosus allow the deck to be played more like Legacy ANT. I will probably post a list in the Creative forum, so that the deck can be analyzed further.

How can a U/B Time Vault deck play similarly to RUG Delver? The general ideology of Delver is that you have a lot of very cheap threats which require minimal initial investment which must be answered such as Delver or Pyromancer. I guess you could be playing Delver in your list, but what are you playing that acts like a Young Pyromancer? I don't understand how your statement can even be remotely true unless you are going to try to equate very different cards to one another like comparing Gush and Night's Whisper.

[jamestosetti]

The blue composition of the decks are similar. As far as playing in a similar way, I am referring to the use of virtual card advantage. If you change the win conditions in a deck to something else, but keep the general structure of the deck the same, the way it is played can be changed.