[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays - Comprehensive Guide to Vintage Delver

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-a-comprehensive-guide-to-vintage-delver/

Been working on this for a while, so I'm pretty excited to finally publish it.  It's very long (56 pages).   I wrote some sections directly responsive to some of the debates about this deck here.  Please let me know what you think.  I think folks will find the multitude of situational analysis extremely helpful.  

Been a long time since I wrote a deck primer, so I hope people enjoy it.

Editor's Blurb:

In his first major deck primer in over a year, and fresh off his win of Season 1 of the Vintage Super League, Stephen Menendian delves into the depths of Vintage Delver, with over 50 pages of in-depth content. With a comprehensive look at building the deck piece by piece, executing the game plan, sideboarding strategy, and in-game tactics, this is something no serious Vintage fan should miss.

Excerpt:

The archetype generally known as “Delver” is not only the most successful tournament performing Gush deck in contemporary Vintage, it is likely to remain there, regardless of changes to the Vintage card pool, for the foreseeable future. Delver’s strong position in the Vintage metagame is structural, and even restrictions to cards like Treasure Cruise would be unlikely to dislodge it from its lofty perch. In the hands of a relatively new Vintage player, Delver can be a deadly weapon and an instantly competitive deck choice. In the hands of a seasoned and practiced Vintage player, especially a Gush expert, Delver is a threat to win any tournament.

The Delver archetype broadly refers to any blue-based tempo strategy that runs between 8-13 creatures from a short list, including Delver of Secrets, Young Pyromancer, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster Mage, Trygon Predator, and Vendilion Clique. Sometimes fringe creatures such as Deathrite Shaman appear in the archetype, but it can be instantly identified by the presence of Delver and Young Pyromancer, surrounded by a dense suite of efficient countermagic, cantrips, and blue card drawing spells, most prominently Gush and Treasure Cruise.

Although Delver of Secrets gets top billing as the deck’s namesake, it is sometimes played in fewer than maximum quantities because Delver is not the actual star of the show. While Delver facilitates quick tempo wins, it mainly fulfills a functional role in this archetype, permitting the pilot to reliably shift into a tempo role or race aggro-based strategies like Merfolk. Similar decks over a decade ago that relied on growing creatures (such as Quirion Dryad) were known as “Grow” in both Extended and Vintage.

Later, in Legacy this archetype came to be known as Threshold, even though the threshold-based creatures were gradually replaced as more efficient threats were printed. Delver decks share basic characteristics and similar features with these progenitors, namely being UGx, using the most efficient threats, countermagic, and removal. Although these decks typically used a mixture of creature threats, Grow decks in Vintage eventually weaned down to just Quirion Dryads (after cutting Ophidian and later Psychatog). Delver is merely the latest evolution of this Grow archetype, and its lineage can be traced directly back to the deck that won the 2002 Type I Championship (as told in Schools of Magic: History of Vintage – 2002).

Disguised as a Legacy archetype, Vintage Delver is deceptively powerful and distinctively different in both operations and strategy. The Vintage version is capable of unique lines of play, flexible role assignment, and more varied strategic options. Although Treasure Cruise is this archetype’s newest toy, this deck is also anchored by Gush, a card that is prohibited in Legacy. Before the printing of Treasure Cruise, the differences between the Vintage and Legacy versions of the archetype were more evident.

Gush gave the Vintage version of this archetype a reliable source of real card advantage, something the Legacy version lacked (the virtual card advantage provided by unrestricted Brainstorm is not the same thing). Moreover, most blue Legacy decks had similar mana bases to the Legacy Delver deck, whereas most Vintage decks were constructed on much larger and more expansive mana bases. Both of these facts meant that, prior to the printing of Treasure Cruise, Vintage Delver was far more capable of playing a stronger control role in Vintage than Legacy Delver was in Legacy. Although less evident since the printing of Treasure Cruise, despite the superficial similarities, Vintage Delver should not be mistaken for its Legacy cousin. Vintage Delver is a very different animal.

This article is your comprehensive guide to Delver in Vintage. First, we’ll look at the complete history of this archetype in Vintage, tracing its evolution through new printings, innovations, and metagame shifts to provide a broader sense of the scope for this deck’s current configurations, and an appreciation for its evolutionary trajectory. This trajectory provides a useful context for considering the potential direction of the archetype into the future.

In section II I will provide a general overview of how to play this deck. I will break down this deck’s game plan into its various stages, and explain the areas of emphasis and basic operations within each stage of the game. I will describe how, when, and why to switch roles, describe the deck’s key functions, and how to operate the deck in general terms. Using illustrative examples, I will provide guidelines for mulliganing and discarding decisions.

In section III we will canvas card choices for Vintage Delver, and explore the basic tactics available to the Delver player. I will offer my views of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the key function of each tactic in various matchups. I will also describe trends for each tactic.

In section IV we’ll explore matchups and sideboarding, including the basic dynamics of each common matchup, key lines of play, and critical tactics. I will also explain your approach to sideboarding, and provide basic guidelines on how to sideboard. This section will draw lessons from actual game play to illustrate key lines of play to pursue and avoid.

Finally, I will part with some closing thoughts on the future of the archetype, advice for tailoring this deck to your own metagame, and preparing for future metagame shifts.

[diophan]

Certainly a worthwhile read. I especially liked the examples considering mulliganing hands with a single mana source, since those always struck me as the most interesting to decide upon.

I'm looking forward to a restricted cruise metagame where people are making fewer extreme choices in Delver such as maindecking electrickery (!) and/or a bunch of probes. I didn't really agree with the conclusion on probe, since successfully resolving the first cruise in the mirror is so important, and filling the graveyard and seeing if the coast is clear is great. However, that point is probably moot after the B&R announcement.

The unrestriction of gifts will hopefully make the matchup against other blue decks more interesting--I've found the matchup against Big Blue to be heavily in Delver's favor.

[Smmenen]

Certainly a worthwhile read. I especially liked the examples considering mulliganing hands with a single mana source, since those always struck me as the most interesting to decide upon.

Thank you.  One of the most fun areas of this article or doing articles like this is presenting scenarios/situations for the reader to consider how they would behave/act.  

I presented scenarios that I had actually encountered, but then modified them to create typologies for people to explore.  Obviously, the most interesting vein of analysis are the scenarios in which you have close calls.  But you have to start with the obvious scenarios and then work toward the boundary line between unkeepable or auto keeps and possible keeps.

I really wanted to bring into focus the most difficult mulligan decisions that Delver sometimes presents, and it's an area where you can do things that you can't do in other media as well because what you really need is text and a bunch of images.  It's better to use graphics and present alot of examples than try to explain it on a podcast or stream.  

I hope folks who read this really enjoyed those sections of this article. They are a big reason to read this.

I'm looking forward to a restricted cruise metagame where people are making fewer extreme choices in Delver such as maindecking electrickery (!) and/or a bunch of probes.

Yeah, I agree.  I'll probably need to update this article eventually for the post-restriction announcement, although 95% of the content will remain the same.  

I didn't really agree with the conclusion on probe, since successfully resolving the first cruise in the mirror is so important, and filling the graveyard and seeing if the coast is clear is great. However, that point is probably moot after the B&R announcement.

I don't remember exactly how many words I spent on Probe, I but I gave that a very extensive discussion - possibly even 3-4 pages and hundreds, if not thousands, of words.  It was a multi-part analysis that tried to synthesize various elements that needed to be separately deconstructed.  I stand by my analysis, and I think the data supports my conclusion there.  

The unrestriction of gifts will hopefully make the matchup against other blue decks more interesting--I've found the matchup against Big Blue to be heavily in Delver's favor.

Should be very interesting.

I appreciate the feedback.  What did you think of my description of the stages of the game?

[DaveKap]

Good read. I am interested in a metagaming section. New York is heavy shops and warrants a different configuration than Europe, which is more combo and mana drain heavy.

[Smmenen]

Ironic that the first paragraph of the article alludes to the potential restriction of Treasure Cruise, and, more importantly, asserts the viability of the archetype post restriction:

"The archetype generally known as “Delver” is not only the most successful tournament performing Gush deck in contemporary Vintage, it is likely to remain there, regardless of changes to the Vintage card pool, for the foreseeable future. Delver’s strong position in the Vintage metagame is structural, and even restrictions to cards like Treasure Cruise would be unlikely to dislodge it from its lofty perch."

I am updating the article to reflect the changes to the Vintage Banned and Restricted list.  I'll let folks know when the updated version is posted.

Good read. I am interested in a metagaming section. New York is heavy shops and warrants a different configuration than Europe, which is more combo and mana drain heavy.

Thank you! 

Out of a 22,000+ word article, I devoted over 5K words to matchups, with extensive discussion of tactics for each matchup.  I definitely agree that the deck should be tailored for specific metagames, but I hope that the discussion of the matchups and key tactics per matchup provide folks with more than enough info to tailor the deck to local circumstances.   

[Stormanimagus]

Ironic that the first paragraph of the article alludes to the potential restriction of Treasure Cruise, and, more importantly, asserts the viability of the archetype post restriction:

"The archetype generally known as “Delver” is not only the most successful tournament performing Gush deck in contemporary Vintage, it is likely to remain there, regardless of changes to the Vintage card pool, for the foreseeable future. Delver’s strong position in the Vintage metagame is structural, and even restrictions to cards like Treasure Cruise would be unlikely to dislodge it from its lofty perch."

I am updating the article to reflect the changes to the Vintage Banned and Restricted list.  I'll let folks know when the updated version is posted.

Good read. I am interested in a metagaming section. New York is heavy shops and warrants a different configuration than Europe, which is more combo and mana drain heavy.

Thank you!  

Out of a 22,000+ word article, I devoted over 5K words to matchups, with extensive discussion of tactics for each matchup.  I definitely agree that the deck should be tailored for specific metagames, but I hope that the discussion of the matchups and key tactics per matchup provide folks with more than enough info to tailor the deck to local circumstances.  

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that Delver will stay at the top post restriction. My reason is pretty simple: there is a better pyromancer now. Monastery Mentor supplants Delver in Power level in Vintage in almost every meaningful deck construction paradigm and abusable interaction. In Legacy, I believe delver will continue to do its thing and Mentor will simply be a role player alongside it, but I think the power of Mentor is clear in Vintage. With Mentor you can design a list that uses all the moxen (and, in turn, has more game vs. shops) and gains prowess triggers from synergistic spells like Dack Fayden and Jace TMS. The creatures that Mentor makes have prowess and the creatures that Pyromancer makes are 1/1 do nothings. Mentor works well with moxen and sensei's top and that is a very powerful strategy in Vintage. Pyromancer is too slow and too easy to mana disrupt. I've beaten it consistently with midrange humans and I'd be willing to guess that Mentor decks will be going over the top of Pyromancer decks for a long time to come. As long as there are still stubborn players who believe in Pyromancer's assumed dominance it'll still show for a top 8 now and again, but I think that will diminish over time until it goes the way of TPS and is simply a small role player in the meta. You can quote me on all of this.

-Storm

[diopter]

Mentor at 2W is so much worse against Shops. But, yes, you could play more Moxes to compensate.

There is a reason Delver doesn't play 5 Moxes though. It's kind of a huge part of the reason Delver is so good. Think deep about it for a sec - a straight comp of Pyromancer v Mentor doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

[Stormanimagus]

Mentor at 2W is so much worse against Shops. But, yes, you could play more Moxes to compensate.

There is a reason Delver doesn't play 5 Moxes though. It's kind of a huge part of the reason Delver is so good. Think deep about it for a sec - a straight comp of Pyromancer v Mentor doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Being 2W does NOT make him worse vs. shops because the whole deck that supports him is better vs. shops in every way.

Sensei's Top >> Preordain vs. shops. Why? Umm. . . Artifact (Golem proof) and stays in play to have its utility (helps vs. cards like tangle wire and smokestack).

Moxen + more than 15 land >> Gush, less moxen, and the preordain plan to hit land drops. Why? This is the crux of my argument. If you design with well, more land, and access to free accelerants, then, outside of chalice @0 on turn 1 you're going to have better game vs. shops. If you're on the play even chalice @0 is too slow cause you got to go first. Without chalice @0 your chances to blow them out with fast mana are MUUUCH higher than delvers.

Engineered Explosives = very playable in the sb of mentor. In Delver lists you can't really set EE at 2 as often cause it will nix your own pyromancer. Since 2 isn't really a number you care about in Mentor decks you can set it @2 all day long to blow up spheres/revokers (assuming revoker is not naming the EE itself)

Hurkyl's Recall in Mentor.dec >>> Hurky'ls Recall in Pyromancer.dec. Mentor decks actually have a way to put hurks on offense AND defense vs. shops in a huuge way. I wouldn't mind having 2 hurks, some moxen and a mentor in my opener vs. shops cause chances are I can bounce their board and then follow it up by bouncing mine to put the game out of reach with prowess triggers.

Now we come to another issue I have in general with Delver pilots and their perception of the shop matchup as being good for them. When was shops ever a good matchup for Delver? I must have missed that memo cause I always assumed you didn't play Delver to beat shops but rather other blue decks. You could make your matchup passable vs. shops with the right sb hate and deck construction, but don't kid yourself. It was never a good matchup.

Finally, to address one of your points, I'm not comparing Pyromancer and Mentor in a 1-to-1 fashion. I know they are not even remotely the same type of card. What I AM asserting is that Mentor is a better card and the decks that support it will prove to be better decks. Pyromancer makes tokens at a slower rate and the tokens are easy to race with infi combos or locks. When a pyromancer is removed you've actually kinda dealt with the major threat if they only have like 3 tokens. If a Mentor bites it and they have 3 tokens out you still have a long way to go to actually dealing with the problem. That is an army of 3/3s that could be beating down almost every turn. Last I heard 9 damage is 6 more than 3.

I'm not trying to be coy here, but I really don't get this love affair with Pyromancer. The card worked in a particular deck for a particular period of time, but now I think it's just been outclassed hardcore. Feel free to disagree, but I'll feel free to call you wrong.

-Storm

[diopter]

I don't dispute that Mentor decks can be built to be good against Shops. More lands and Moxes, indeed.

I question the wisdom in doing so, and the way that impacts metagame positioning as a whole. Where does Delver derive its strength vs e.g. various Grixis builds? Not in a vacuum with underwhelming 1/1 tokens.

I mean, Delver has a crushing matchup vs many blue-based decks and a passable Shops matchup wth the right SB. That's actually kind of amazing, and extremely difficult to achieve. The Mentor decks just won't have the same natural virtual card and tempo advantage. They may have other advantages, but they won't just "hardcore outclass" Delver or YP.

[Smmenen]

Ironic that the first paragraph of the article alludes to the potential restriction of Treasure Cruise, and, more importantly, asserts the viability of the archetype post restriction:

"The archetype generally known as “Delver” is not only the most successful tournament performing Gush deck in contemporary Vintage, it is likely to remain there, regardless of changes to the Vintage card pool, for the foreseeable future. Delver’s strong position in the Vintage metagame is structural, and even restrictions to cards like Treasure Cruise would be unlikely to dislodge it from its lofty perch."

I am updating the article to reflect the changes to the Vintage Banned and Restricted list.  I'll let folks know when the updated version is posted.

Good read. I am interested in a metagaming section. New York is heavy shops and warrants a different configuration than Europe, which is more combo and mana drain heavy.

Thank you!  

Out of a 22,000+ word article, I devoted over 5K words to matchups, with extensive discussion of tactics for each matchup.  I definitely agree that the deck should be tailored for specific metagames, but I hope that the discussion of the matchups and key tactics per matchup provide folks with more than enough info to tailor the deck to local circumstances.  

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that Delver will stay at the top post restriction. My reason is pretty simple: there is a better pyromancer now. Monastery Mentor supplants Delver in Power level in Vintage in almost every meaningful deck construction paradigm and abusable interaction. In Legacy, I believe delver will continue to do its thing and Mentor will simply be a role player alongside it, but I think the power of Mentor is clear in Vintage. With Mentor you can design a list that uses all the moxen (and, in turn, has more game vs. shops) and gains prowess triggers from synergistic spells like Dack Fayden and Jace TMS. The creatures that Mentor makes have prowess and the creatures that Pyromancer makes are 1/1 do nothings. Mentor works well with moxen and sensei's top and that is a very powerful strategy in Vintage. Pyromancer is too slow and too easy to mana disrupt. I've beaten it consistently with midrange humans and I'd be willing to guess that Mentor decks will be going over the top of Pyromancer decks for a long time to come. As long as there are still stubborn players who believe in Pyromancer's assumed dominance it'll still show for a top 8 now and again, but I think that will diminish over time until it goes the way of TPS and is simply a small role player in the meta. You can quote me on all of this.

-Storm

Well, that is indeed a bold prediction, but I have no quarrel with audacity.  I simply disagree with the scope of your claims. 

Monastary Mentor is a monster, and a fantastic creature.  Of that I have little doubt. In fact, in my podcast set review which has been recorded a while ago, but yet to air, I compare Mentor to BSC with horizontal power. 

I also agree with you that Mentor is a trump to Pyromancer.  But I think your assumption that Mentor marginalizes Delver decks is wrong for at least two reasons.

First and foremost is that Delver decks may be the archetype that either best abuses Mentor or at least well abuses it.  3cc is well within the parameters of fair casting for a Delver deck, which has used or uses cards like Clique and Trygon Predator.  Don't be surprised if Delver decks start playing Mentor over Pyromancer and doing very well. 

Second, diopter made this point, but the deck that abuses Mentor best may be a deck that lacks the virtual card advantage of Delver.  If Delver decks decide to stick with Pyromancer in the main, it will be because they decide it's best to use Pyromancer on defense, and emphasize trying to pick off Mentor with burn/removal, while having a better control role in the long game.  It's conceivable that a Delver deck can eventually outcontrol a Mentor deck with a larger mana base, so long as it can quickly pick off Mentor. 

I think there are far too many variables to draw any firm conclusions, but I'm confident that the kind of deck that Delver, in its latest iterations, has shown up in, will remain viable through the restriction of Treasure Cruise.  In fact, the restriction of Treasure Cruise should have no bearing on this matter at all.  If Mentor kills Delver decks, then it would have done so whether Treasure Cruise remained unrestricted or not.

[mueller]

to a much lesser extent, I think the presumed shift from Cruise to Dig Through Time has subtle effects on Delver's deck construction. Dig supports silver bullet answers in a way Cruise did not, which means Delver might be able to fight threats post-resolution in ways it did not previously. I think there may now be a real choice between fighting over a monster before or after resolution, whereas the pre-restriction world of 3x-4x Cruise made the latter option definitively better. With Dig and Mentor, Delver players may also find themselves shifting to white removal. The sum of these three things I think significantly repositions those Delver decks that choose to incorporate them in a way that may increase raw power at the cost of tempo and role flexibility.

[Smmenen]

to a much lesser extent, I think the presumed shift from Cruise to Dig Through Time has subtle effects on Delver's deck construction. Dig supports silver bullet answers in a way Cruise did not, which means Delver might be able to fight threats post-resolution in ways it did not previously. I think there may now be a real choice between fighting over a monster before or after resolution, whereas the pre-restriction world of 3x-4x Cruise made the latter option definitively better. With Dig and Mentor, Delver players may also find themselves shifting to white removal. The sum of these three things I think significantly repositions those Delver decks that choose to incorporate them in a way that may increase raw power at the cost of tempo and role flexibility.

Definitely.  This is  similar to the more extensive analysis I provided in the updated edits to this article I submitted to Jaco (the article editor) last night.  My style of play with the deck is better suited for and to Dig than Cruise in many ways.  I think, though, that Mentor is such a tempo monster, in ways that Pyromancer can only aspire to be, that the loss of role flexibility is probably not as great as presumed.

[Stormanimagus]

Steve, I see your points, but I think UWr Mentor or UWrb mentor can out control Pyromancer as well. with the inclusion of cards like pyroblast or flusterstorm I think the virtual card disadvantage of running more land and moxen is marginal only. Also, sensei's top as a reusable prowess trigger and scry effect is tremendous virtual card advantage.

Also, I strongly disagree with the assumption you are making that delver of secrets the card belongs with mentor. You may be running sensei, but you're also running more moxen and more land and probably no preordains (or few). I think reliably flipping delver is an important aspect of running the card and I don't think mentor will be flipping him often enough nor will they need his extra clock to win. Mentor decks will, on average, make far more tokens than pyromancer decks will because prowess triggers on so many more commonly played spells in vintage (not just moxen and sensei, but also dack and jace). Combine this with the fact that ALL the tokens gro and you have an army that can laugh at most pyromancer armies and swing in for the win. (Example, they have 5 guys and a mancer you have 7 guys and a mentor - just play 3-4 spells and you have 8-10 damage at LEAST assuming they block with their pyromancer).

I'm not saying pyromancer isn't good in the harder control role at times because of the streamlined manabase and better topdecks but I think that is far outweighed by the advantage of a collection of beaters that really does win the game even if their leader is bolted or decayed. So you remove the mentor quickly with bolt? How quickly? Because the way the rules work a player casting mentor does not pass priority after casting him. So you have to assume 1-2 spells at LEAST before your bolt resolves (1 being a mox, and 2 being an instant like Gush in response to the bolt). 2 prowess tokens can easily apply serious pressure to the board. Just saying. I think you need to analyze this card a little deeper Steve. It is way more powerful than I think you're making it out to be.

Honestly, also, as a final note, I have never been afraid of losing to delver consistently with a well built martello or espresso shop list. Maybe your experience has been different, but shops usually eats decks like those alive (ones that eschew lands and moxes for cards like preordain and gush x4). I don't care if you run 4 chewer. It just doesn't get there all the time to go 1-for-1 with shops. If you live in magical christmas land where it does well, then more power to ya, but I've never thought you fully recognized the need for not only shop hate cards, but shop hate design fundamentally.

Mentor decks fundamental do better vs. shops with cards like EE (hugely relevant vs. spheres and revokers) full moxen, 3-4 hurkyl's which can be used as a win con, 16 lands or more after board and more basics (yes, basic are important) or in the UWr versions 3-4 chewer as well. Sensei's top is also a much better top deck manipulator vs. shops than preordain. You invest 1 mana once and then have a reusable source of manipulation and draw fixing. That is HUUUGE vs. sphere effects that price preordain out of being useful and worth casting.

I'm not a nooby to the shop matchup with any deck and have tested it extensively with some of the best shop pilots in New York and probably one of the best espresso pilots around in my friend Jostin Rodriguez. He assures me that cards like Trygon Predator are just terrible in the wrong list to support them. Trygon sitting in your hand for most of the game is not doing anything to help you beat shops. I'm not trying to sound like a dick here at all, I'm just being honest and realistic. I hope it is taken as such.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

I think you need to analyze this card a little deeper Steve. It is way more powerful than I think you're making it out to be.

Wait a second, is this like that time where you said I thought Abrupt Decay/ DRS were awful, when I was literally the only Vintage writer to say that they were good?  

I just told you I compared Mentor to BSC.   It's a bit offensive that I just basically said that Mentor is insane, and then you write as if I don't know how the card works.  

It's the DRS/Abrupt Decay thing all over again.  It sounds great to say things like that, but it's simply not true.

I have never been afraid of losing to delver consistently with a well built martello or espresso shop list.

That's good, because you probably would.  

If you live in magical christmas land where it does well, then more power to ya, but I've never thought you fully recognized the need for not only shop hate cards, but shop hate design fundamentally.

Oh, by Magical Christmas land, do you mean like Vintage for the last 3+ months?  As in, you know, Vintage Champs, MTGO holiday festival, etc?

If Delver didn't do well/wasn't winning, you are the one who is living in Magical Christmas land.  Coming here and saying that Delver wasn't really winning undermines your credibility.  

[Stormanimagus]

I think you need to analyze this card a little deeper Steve. It is way more powerful than I think you're making it out to be.

Wait a second, is this like that time where you said I thought Abrupt Decay/ DRS were awful, when I was literally the only Vintage writer to say that they were good?  

I just told you I compared Mentor to BSC.   It's a bit offensive that I just basically said that Mentor is insane, and then you write as if I don't know how the card works.  

It's the DRS/Abrupt Decay thing all over again.  It sounds great to say things like that, but it's simply not true.

I have never been afraid of losing to delver consistently with a well built martello or espresso shop list.

That's good, because you probably would.  

If you live in magical christmas land where it does well, then more power to ya, but I've never thought you fully recognized the need for not only shop hate cards, but shop hate design fundamentally.

Oh, by Magical Christmas land, do you mean like Vintage for the last 3+ months?  As in, you know, Vintage Champs, MTGO holiday festival, etc?

If Delver didn't do well/wasn't winning, you are the one who is living in Magical Christmas land.  Coming here and saying that Delver wasn't really winning undermines your credibility.  

Steve Delver was winning because of a couple reasons:

1.It was INSAAANE vs. blue control and blue tempo decks (no argument from me here). It was basically a bye for delver.

2. Shops didn't comprise like 40 +% of the field the way that blue variants did. It was at its highest tournament representation and top 8 performance for a long time (maybe ever? not sure) but it still didn't eclipse blue variants.

3. Traditionally there are many more sub-optimal shop pilots in per field of players than there are sub-optimal blue pilots per field. I don't shops is built well nor piloted well a lot of the time (though piloting is the issue I mostly have). This stems from an impression on the part of not only shop pilots but blue pilots that shops is a big dumb deck that is easy to win with without any real thought or practice playing the deck. It's the same reason dredge remains fringe (outside of people just playing enough good hate and relevant decks vs. dredge). In the hands of Mark Hornung I think dredge is always going to have a shot at top 8 given a field that is only so-so prepared for him. In the hands of a pilot like Nick Detwiler or the Forinos or my friend Jostin Rodriguez or Roland Chang I'd pick shops to beat traditional delver pyromancer tempo decks well over 60% of the time. Tactically I think a good pilot has a decisive advantage vs. a deck with a greedy mana base like that.

Please let me be clear so there is no room for misunderstanding. I AM NOT DISPUTING RESULTS! I realize Delver was the top performer in the Treasure Cruise era. I simply am skeptical of the reasons for WHY it was on top. I think it was in large part because of group think and players feeling comfortable with playing that deck cause of its raw power and being unwilling to adopt decks that were a natural foil to it. Delver was kinda the "shops" of blue, if you will (ie the perceived big dumb deck that could just draw the same awesome hand every game cause of unrestricted bombs). I have long thought that shops underperforms only cause not enough players pilot it at a high level. Cards like Chalice of the Void and Lodestone Golem are sooo utterly broken that it's a wonder none of them are up for restriction .

Anyway, I'm not disputing results Steve. And I haven't heard your podcast yet so I can't speak to how you'll tout Mentor but I think you're already trying to jam him into the wrong shells and couple him with the wrong cards. That's why I made the claim of you not understanding the card. Maybe you do and you'll explain it to me. If so, I apologize for my ignorance.  

[Smmenen]

I think you need to analyze this card a little deeper Steve. It is way more powerful than I think you're making it out to be.

Wait a second, is this like that time where you said I thought Abrupt Decay/ DRS were awful, when I was literally the only Vintage writer to say that they were good?  

I just told you I compared Mentor to BSC.   It's a bit offensive that I just basically said that Mentor is insane, and then you write as if I don't know how the card works.  

It's the DRS/Abrupt Decay thing all over again.  It sounds great to say things like that, but it's simply not true.

I have never been afraid of losing to delver consistently with a well built martello or espresso shop list.

That's good, because you probably would.  

If you live in magical christmas land where it does well, then more power to ya, but I've never thought you fully recognized the need for not only shop hate cards, but shop hate design fundamentally.

Oh, by Magical Christmas land, do you mean like Vintage for the last 3+ months?  As in, you know, Vintage Champs, MTGO holiday festival, etc?

If Delver didn't do well/wasn't winning, you are the one who is living in Magical Christmas land.  Coming here and saying that Delver wasn't really winning undermines your credibility.  

Steve Delver was winning because of a couple reasons:

1.It was INSAAANE vs. blue control and blue tempo decks (no argument from me here). It was basically a bye for delver.

2. Shops didn't comprise like 40 +% of the field the way that blue variants did. It was at its highest tournament representation and top 8 performance for a long time (maybe ever? not sure) but it still didn't eclipse blue variants.

Delver was a top performer because it had an excellent Shop matchup (well, as good as you can reasonably expect).  I beat Roland Chang, for example, with Delver in the NYSE Open with Delver, and that was before Treasure Cruise.

Delver's access to deep red and green, to Grudge, Ingot Chewer, Trygon, Dack, and Nature's Claim, basically made it one of the best decks you could possibly play to combat Shops.  Not saying Shops couldn't compete, but it's just outgunned.  Look at what I did to Pikula in Week 4 of the Season 1 VSL.  

If Delver didn't have a strong Shop matchup, there is no way it would have put up half of the Vintage Champs top 8, nor beaten Shop players in that top 8.  

I will concede that a lot of bad Delver players were unprepared for Shops or inadequately prepared for it.  In fact, that's a major topic of my article here.  I spent pages talking about how badly prepared some Delver playes were for Shops.  But I wasn't.  I can't remember exactly how many Shop players I faced at Vintage Champs and Prelims, but at least 3-4, and, IIRC, I beat them all.

3. Traditionally there are many more sub-optimal shop pilots in per field of players than there are sub-optimal blue pilots per field. I don't shops is built well nor piloted well a lot of the time (though piloting is the issue I mostly have). This stems from an impression on the part of not only shop pilots but blue pilots that shops is a big dumb deck that is easy to win with without any real thought or practice playing the deck. It's the same reason dredge remains fringe (outside of people just playing enough good hate and relevant decks vs. dredge). In the hands of Mark Hornung I think dredge is always going to have a shot at top 8 given a field that is only so-so prepared for him. In the hands of a pilot like Nick Detwiler or the Forinos or my friend Jostin Rodriguez or Roland Chang I'd pick shops to beat traditional delver pyromancer tempo decks well over 60% of the time. Tactically I think a good pilot has a decisive advantage vs. a deck with a greedy mana base like that.

Like I said, I beat Roland at the NYSE with Pre-Cruise Delver, and I believe he was on the play.  

Not to mention, you are just ignoring the countless MTGO events in which top notch Shop players lost to Delver in tournaments like the 132 player Holiday Festival.  

You are not well informed, I'm sorry to say, and your analysis reflects a lack of actual understanding of the extant evidence, and it's not my job to bring you up to speed.  I don't even know if you play in Vintage tournaments.  

Playing on Magic workstation or testing against a few randoms does not give you knowledge of the Vintage metagame, I'm sorry to say.  Maybe if you read this article, you'd have a better understanding.

Please let me be clear so there is no room for misunderstanding. I AM NOT DISPUTING RESULTS! I realize Delver was the top performer in the Treasure Cruise era. I simply am skeptical of the reasons for WHY it was on top. I think it was in large part because of group think and players feeling comfortable with playing that deck cause of its raw power and being unwilling to adopt decks that were a natural foil to it.

Yeah, um, that's pretty much not true, and everyone who was playing Vintage knew it.  Delver was actually a hard switch for many players, who would rather have played other decks.  

 Delver was kinda the "shops" of blue, if you will (ie the perceived big dumb deck that could just draw the same awesome hand every game cause of unrestricted bombs).

Yeah, that's also definitely not true.  At the Vintage Champs, it was not really well established as the deck to beat.  Delver was popular on Magic Online, but lots of players, including good ones like Brian Demars and Paul M, didn't really know how good it was yet, and didn't play it.

I have long thought that shops underperforms only cause not enough players pilot it at a high level. Cards like Chalice of the Void and Lodestone Golem are sooo utterly broken that it's a wonder none of them are up for restriction .

Yeah, that was true... in 2011 maybe.  I don't know if you noticed that Shops won a ton of events last year, including the NYSE Open, with multiple Shop pilots in the top 8?  Shops also won the Bazaar of moxen, IIRC.   What was it, two years ago, Shops put up half of the Vintage Champs top 8?  

Your analysis was true maybe 4-5 years ago - but it hasn't been true in some time.  There are top notch Shop players everywhere you go.  Online?  Montolio.  West Coast?  BC.  And so on.

Anyway, I'm not disputing results Steve. And I haven't heard your podcast yet so I can't speak to how you'll tout Mentor but I think you're already trying to jam him into the wrong shells and couple him with the wrong cards. That's why I made the claim of you not understanding the card. Maybe you do and you'll explain it to me. If so, I apologize for my ignorance.  

"wrong" only exists relative to performance in Magic.  It's extremely hubristic to presume to imply that you have the "correct" answer when you haven't proven anything whatsoever on that point.  I don't think you have nearly enough credibility at this point, let alone evidence, to make that case persuasively.  

[mueller]

I think this discussion is valuable because understanding the Delver archetype's Treasure Cruise-era dominance (~30% of the top 32 at the Vintage Championship) in combination with its success through 2014 overall is crucial for guidance as to how the archetype will approach 2015, specifically Monastery Mentor.

Stormanimagus's assertion that there are a lot of sub-optimal Shops pilots, and his comment that Delver in the Treasure Cruise-era became the Shops of blue decks does seem like an insightful analogue. Many of the newest Delver pilots came to the archetype because of its Khans boost in power level. This naturally lowers the average level of understanding Delver pilots had both of their deck (which reflects in sub-optimal pilots) and of the role of their deck in the metagame and in match-ups (which reflects in sub-optimal pilots and in potentially sub-optimal deck construction and positioning going forward).

Steve's primer, which I've read, in some ways is far more valuable after Treasure Cruise's restriction than it was beforehand. The card-drawing power of Treasure Cruise flooded the deck with card advantage to such an extent that it could afford sub-optimal pilots, sub-optimal construction, and sub-optimal positioning.

Assessing the extent of and reasons for the archetype's success is going to be crucial as Delver pilots decide how to adjust for Monastery Mentor. There will be decks that will abuse Mentor, just like there are decks that abuse Gush. Delver in many ways became the Gush deck, despite not using the card to do anything broken. Storm's argument seems to be that Mentor will be optimized in a list that breaks it, presumably with Diving Tops, artifact mana, maybe Hurkyll's to combo-out. Kevin Cron's Mentor list, which he posted several weeks ago, is one effective example. It is not, however, immediately clear that the broken approach to Mentor is the best approach. Mentor is such a compact threat, both in terms of cards and mana. It costs the same amount as Tinker or Vault + Key, but is half the number of cards and thus never has a dead half. Because of Mentor's fast clock and the way in which its tokens give that clock resiliency even if the Mentor itself is removed, Mentor is a strategic threat of a sort quite unlike Young Pyromancer.

The strategic value and versatility of Mentor means it may be ideal for Delver, ideal in a "wrong shell" and coupled with the "wrong cards," as Stormanimagus put it. Treating Mentor sub-optimally is a trade-off for flexibility, and Delver is an archetype which is ultimately successful, I believe, precisely because it trades raw power for role versatility.

[diopter]

I'm not convinced that Mentor is exactly where Delver wants to be.

I'm going to have to test it, but the line of play in my head right now is the third turn Gush, play the land, and then Preordain/DTT (or pre-restriction Cruise) and/or hold up Pyroblast/Lightning Bolt. Ideally, Young P is already in play from turn 2, or played with some of the turn 3 Gush mana, and you've got a crapload of tokens at this point, and full and stifling control. This is the reason to play Delver IMO.

With Mentor this line of play is a full turn slower, which is basically going to bring you within range of Gifts' fundamental turn. Hell, it basically fully exposes you to a Lithtning Bolt blowout. Yuck.

I suppose Mentor could be useful *in addition* to YP but he would definitely be competing for slots with Trygon or Dack. And if I'm evaluating the utility of that 3cc slot against the entire field, in the specific context of the Delver strategy, then it would be hard for me not to at least do a 1/1 Dack/Mentor split, if not just jamming all the Dacks.

[youhavenogame]

Traditionally there are many more sub-optimal shop pilots in per field of players than there are sub-optimal blue pilots per field.

Is it really this way? I think that if more people opt to play blue rather than Shops there is a good chance that a lot of these blue players will play sub-optimal. There are also a lot more ingame decisions for blue decks compared to Shops, while Shops is more about keepable opening hands and sequencing. Options allow you to missplay, while it probably doesn't matter much what you do as long as your opponent is basically locked. I also think that you have to know the other decks extremely well to make good decisions against them, which again, doesn't really apply to locked out people. Shops definitely has way more raw power, so even an unfamiliar player wins some just by playing what they got in their opening hands.  [/quote]

I simply am skeptical of the reasons for WHY it was on top. I think it was in large part because of group think and players feeling comfortable with playing that deck cause of its raw power and being unwilling to adopt decks that were a natural foil to it. Delver was kinda the "shops" of blue, if you will (ie the perceived big dumb deck that could just draw the same awesome hand every game cause of unrestricted bombs). I have long thought that shops underperforms only cause not enough players pilot it at a high level. Cards like Chalice of the Void and Lodestone Golem are sooo utterly broken that it's a wonder none of them are up for restriction .

First, Shops doesn't underperform. Actually I think it is overperforming, or at least performing above expectations considering how few people play it. Which brings me to my second point, namely why Delver was on top. You already nailed it calling Delver "blue Shops"  - Delver did that well because it eschewed all the restricted cards and the variance that comes with them. Where other decks can draw into a lot of dead or situational cards, Delver didn't bring that many of them to the table. Another reason it was played in that big numbers is just - at least I assume so - that people would rather manipulate their fate with cantrips and real draw, than being a victim of the top of their deck. Cantrips allow you to dig out of situations and to find your key cards in time. I don't think that anyone who is or thinks that he seriously good at Magic would ever bring Shops to the table, if they have the option to run cantrips - unless of course Shops is just overpowered, which it apparently is not.

[JarofFortune]

I don't think that anyone who is or thinks that he seriously good at Magic would ever bring Shops to the table, if they have the option to run cantrips - unless of course Shops is just overpowered, which it apparently is not.

Wow, inflammatory much? The best performing Shop Players are definitely good players. Many of them have have made massive strides in innovating the pillar to the point where it is much, much more than something like 5 color stax. On that note, have you seen any of Nick's long posts on shop decks? A bad player could never write something so insightful. Your saying that good players want to run cantrips isn't even true when it comes to blue decks. Does Landstill run cantrips? Steel City Vault? And then there's Dredge. Last week in the VSL you had two pros playing Dredge. Are they not "seriously good at magic"? This notion that good players will never play shops because they want to play cantrips is completely absurd. Yes, many good players will play blue decks with cantrips. I have no idea his that makes you think that no good player would ever bring shops to the table, which, as results have shown, is completely untrue.

[Stormanimagus]

I don't think that anyone who is or thinks that he seriously good at Magic would ever bring Shops to the table, if they have the option to run cantrips - unless of course Shops is just overpowered, which it apparently is not.

Wow, inflammatory much? The best performing Shop Players are definitely good players. Many of them have have made massive strides in innovating the pillar to the point where it is much, much more than something like 5 color stax. On that note, have you seen any of Nick's long posts on shop decks? A bad player could never write something so insightful. Your saying that good players want to run cantrips isn't even true when it comes to blue decks. Does Landstill run cantrips? Steel City Vault? And then there's Dredge. Last week in the VSL you had two pros playing Dredge. Are they not "seriously good at magic"? This notion that good players will never play shops because they want to play cantrips is completely absurd. Yes, many good players will play blue decks with cantrips. I have no idea his that makes you think that no good player would ever bring shops to the table, which, as results have shown, is completely untrue.

100% agreed. I want to clear up what I was saying earlier so I don't offend folks needlessly. There are MANY good shop players out there, but I think shops doesn't dominate as much as it should because there simply aren't enough. I do think Chalice + Golem + Tangle + Forgemaster are strong enough together to basically overpower almost any deck (especially Chalice cause it can cut off all the fast mana in an opponent's deck for 0 mana investment) and that shops should probably be a full HALF the field at most major events. Blue is sooooo overrepresented that you get the best pilots coming to the top tables and thus we THINK there are more competent blue pilots when in fact there are many mediocre ones that scrub out.

Stephen, you are correct that I haven't played much irl Vintage in the past 4 years. I am starting to play at the local Knight Ware tourneys in Los Angeles. Didn't place at the first one, but I'm hoping they'll start to be 30+ players and once a month (pushing for once a month) so hopefully I'll have some positive results to report. I'm currently tweaking MY pet deck, Human Knights, and will have a new primer up real soon on the deck here on TMD. At the end of the day, results talk and talk walks so I will cease arguing with you about my credibility. You win.

-Storm

[youhavenogame]

I don't think that anyone who is or thinks that he seriously good at Magic would ever bring Shops to the table, if they have the option to run cantrips - unless of course Shops is just overpowered, which it apparently is not.

Wow, inflammatory much? The best performing Shop Players are definitely good players. Many of them have have made massive strides in innovating the pillar to the point where it is much, much more than something like 5 color stax. On that note, have you seen any of Nick's long posts on shop decks? A bad player could never write something so insightful. Your saying that good players want to run cantrips isn't even true when it comes to blue decks. Does Landstill run cantrips? Steel City Vault? And then there's Dredge. Last week in the VSL you had two pros playing Dredge. Are they not "seriously good at magic"? This notion that good players will never play shops because they want to play cantrips is completely absurd. Yes, many good players will play blue decks with cantrips. I have no idea his that makes you think that no good player would ever bring shops to the table, which, as results have shown, is completely untrue.

Yeah, that is not what I said. I said "players who are seriously good or at least think this way" which refers to Pros and pseudo-Pros. VSL just proves my point. It is running how many weeks now? And how many people brought Shops to the table? I think that what Pikula did was smart, but most "Pros" don't have that mindset. Honestly, looking at the VSL decks pretty much shows off what these kind of people think about Magic and metagames. Steel City Vault? Landstill? I don't think any of them would run that. Dredge is just an off ball. The guys who run it won't win much and will change to something different really fast. Just wait for Gifts and Mentors...

[diophan]

I don't think that anyone who is or thinks that he seriously good at Magic would ever bring Shops to the table, if they have the option to run cantrips - unless of course Shops is just overpowered, which it apparently is not.

Wow, inflammatory much? The best performing Shop Players are definitely good players. Many of them have have made massive strides in innovating the pillar to the point where it is much, much more than something like 5 color stax. On that note, have you seen any of Nick's long posts on shop decks? A bad player could never write something so insightful. Your saying that good players want to run cantrips isn't even true when it comes to blue decks. Does Landstill run cantrips? Steel City Vault? And then there's Dredge. Last week in the VSL you had two pros playing Dredge. Are they not "seriously good at magic"? This notion that good players will never play shops because they want to play cantrips is completely absurd. Yes, many good players will play blue decks with cantrips. I have no idea his that makes you think that no good player would ever bring shops to the table, which, as results have shown, is completely untrue.

Yeah, that is not what I said. I said "players who are seriously good or at least think this way" which refers to Pros and pseudo-Pros. VSL just proves my point. It is running how many weeks now? And how many people brought Shops to the table? I think that what Pikula did was smart, but most "Pros" don't have that mindset. Honestly, looking at the VSL decks pretty much shows off what these kind of people think about Magic and metagames. Steel City Vault? Landstill? I don't think any of them would run that. Dredge is just an off ball. The guys who run it won't win much and will change to something different really fast. Just wait for Gifts and Mentors...

Multiple VSL players said last season that if they were picking the best deck they'd play shops. Since the prizes are virtually non-existent and they want to have fun (their person definition of fun) they play blue decks instead.

[Smmenen]

I don't know what the ultimate effect of Mentor will be, whether it will find a stable home in Delver type shells, Gush shells like my Grow deck, or more big mana decks.  In the short run, it will probably appear in all three, and then eventually settle into one mode where it finds the most success. 

But I definitely believe that there will continue to be decks that look like Delver in the format - that is, decks with the same rough configuration of mana (17-18 mana sources), a bunch of free countemagic, and Gush with Delve draw spells.  As long as Gush is unrestricted, I think their position in the format is structural, and will only wax and wane with the metagame, but never be completely marginalized.  That's why I spent so much time on this article, and setting out this kind of archetype.

[Smmenen]

I promised to update folks when the article has been updated for the Restriction of Treasure Cruise.  According to the editor, the revised article has been uploaded.  Everyone who got this article should get an email with an updated version of the article soon.