TheManaDrain.com
April 09, 2020, 05:20:47 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Vintage Champs 2015 – Decklists, Metagame Report, Video, Report Roundup  (Read 10558 times)
PETER FLUGZEUG
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 275


New Ease


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2015, 04:52:28 pm »

Brian, let me just congratulate you for your performance and the report which is truly a champion's report. I don't even care if you really didn't take notes or just told that to make it look even more unbelievable  Wink.
A great piece of work and a strong point (once more!) to question common beliefs about our format, like, for example, that 4 force of will are the start for a blue deck. Thank you.



Logged

I will be playing four of these.  I'll worry about the deck later.
nedleeds
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 399


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2015, 10:32:34 am »

I hate that top 8.  1 shops, 1 dragon (at least this is an interesting one!), 1 storm, and FIVE U-control aggro decks (FoW/dig/removal + some critter kill).  I am glad dragon made a showing.  Shops was just expected as always, and seeing that 5/8ths of the top 8 was blue counterspells is just disheartening.  Storm was also a surprise to see....but it stinks that only 2 of the 8 were unexpected.  Shops vs U is the expected dominance.  I didn't see the play % anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than 75% of the field was shops/U-aggrocontrol.  Maybe a spattering of storm and oath (and probably U versions of oath within 8 cards of the U-aggro control decks).

Just my rant, but it sucks that competitive vintage has devolved into "play shops or U or go play modern instead."

*Just saw the breakdown of 462 decks on the other page.  51 dredge was a total surprise to me.  But the rest was not.  1/4 shops, <50% FoW+U stuff, 1/8 dredge, 1/8 everything else.  So Workshop, Bazaar, FoW, or don't bother playing.  I don't like those options.  Not even that I am for or against playing any of those types of decks (I always played workshops back in the day and enjoy that archetype), but I hate that those are mainly your options if you want to compete at all.

What did you end up playing?
Logged
forests failed you
De Stijl
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 2018


Venerable Saint

forcefieldyou
View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2015, 02:58:41 pm »

I contacted them, and all the articles are now free for now. Paul's report: http://www.vintagemagic.com/blog/paul-mastriano-eternal-weekend-4thplace-vintage-championship/

There was an issue with the website that was causing problems with some users logging in.  It should be fixed shortly.
Logged

Grand Prix Boston 2012 Champion
Follow me on Twitter: @BrianDeMars1
Odd mutation
Basic User
**
Posts: 273



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2015, 01:31:22 pm »

Those articles are again members only??

I could read them earlier today. Wanted to go back but couldn't...
Logged

Mr. Type 4
Creator of Type 4
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 814


Creator of Type 4 - Discoverer of Steve Menendian


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2015, 03:50:44 pm »

Quote
Those articles are again members only??

I could read them earlier today. Wanted to go back but couldn't...
The lowest cost memberships are 1 cent this month and it includes the store discount so it's pretty good value.  Looks like going forward all player strategy articles are going to be on the premium side and will move to free after a couple months. I hope you guys get a chance to read these! 
Logged

2008 VINTAGE CHAMPION
2013 NYSE OPEN I CHAMPION
Team Meandeck

Mastriano's the only person I know who can pick up chicks and win magic tournaments at the same time.
Holden1669
Basic User
**
Posts: 38


View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2015, 04:36:47 pm »

Does the $0.01 promo subscription last for just a month? I could not find that information and I thought that was very sketchy. It does say that when the promotion period ends then the cost of the subscription goes up (unless you cancel) but it didn't say how long that would take. I don't mind paying for good content but the site made me feel like I needed to be on my guard for whatever reason and I didn't sign up.
Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2015, 04:51:37 pm »

I hate that top 8.  1 shops, 1 dragon (at least this is an interesting one!), 1 storm, and FIVE U-control aggro decks (FoW/dig/removal + some critter kill).  I am glad dragon made a showing.  Shops was just expected as always, and seeing that 5/8ths of the top 8 was blue counterspells is just disheartening.  Storm was also a surprise to see....but it stinks that only 2 of the 8 were unexpected.  Shops vs U is the expected dominance.  I didn't see the play % anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than 75% of the field was shops/U-aggrocontrol.  Maybe a spattering of storm and oath (and probably U versions of oath within 8 cards of the U-aggro control decks).

Just my rant, but it sucks that competitive vintage has devolved into "play shops or U or go play modern instead."

*Just saw the breakdown of 462 decks on the other page.  51 dredge was a total surprise to me.  But the rest was not.  1/4 shops, <50% FoW+U stuff, 1/8 dredge, 1/8 everything else.  So Workshop, Bazaar, FoW, or don't bother playing.  I don't like those options.  Not even that I am for or against playing any of those types of decks (I always played workshops back in the day and enjoy that archetype), but I hate that those are mainly your options if you want to compete at all.

What did you end up playing?

Nothing.  A flight + hotel + event entry + lost vacation days isn't worth the shot at a grand prize to me.  But when I do play vintage, I try to go with off-beat decks like GWB fish or WB dark times or GWB oath.  I gave up shops a long time ago because, as powerful as they are, I hate being wedged into the FoW/Workshop/Bazaar box that tends to be 95% of Vintage.  Shops wasn't as popular back in 2000ish (right around its unrestriction), so I was cool with playing it then.  Once it became one side of the "vintage triangle", I put them down for lesser-traveled paths.  Maybe I'm just anti-conformist.  And I get that dredge is the best "cheat conventional play" strategy, shops is the best "prison" strategy, and blue-based is the best "i can play the most bonkers stuff" strategy, but I just wish the whole color pie was more balanced.  WotC has done a much better job of balancing lately...for several years now actually...but there's just so much ground to cover that it seems the "top decks" will be and have been blue, shops, or dredge for quite some time.  

I will concede that there have been efforts to split shops into prison/aggro and efforts to make blue control/aggro (delver/fish/merfolk).  It just pains me that red has no shot at being more than an anti-artifact/bolt splash color and white/green are typically splash colors outside of hatebears (which is a minority in the overall scene).  Black is on the fringe of a color to itself in tendrils/storm, DT...but it still primarily a splash to the dominant gush/ancestral/walk/FoW blue base of many decks.  I just don't like that.  But again, I rant into the wind, because this won't change.  Blue has the most bonkers cards, with black having some powerful spells blue can use, and green oath, that blue can use.  So it make sense why people play blue - it just has the best stuff and can utilize other colors as splashes.  Drawing cards and countering spells is arguably the most powerful effects, and that falls to blue.  Dredge "psuedo draws" cards in bazaar and shops gains virtual CA by making your massive hand uncastable.  It seems red, green, white can't do those things as well.  When they print a hexproof spirit of the labyrinth or more sylvan library effects, maybe the wheel will turn.  Right now, they seem fairly stuck to me.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
vaughnbros
Basic User
**
Posts: 1574


View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2015, 07:07:42 pm »

Does the $0.01 promo subscription last for just a month? I could not find that information and I thought that was very sketchy. It does say that when the promotion period ends then the cost of the subscription goes up (unless you cancel) but it didn't say how long that would take. I don't mind paying for good content but the site made me feel like I needed to be on my guard for whatever reason and I didn't sign up.

Don't worry content is always free on other websites!
Logged
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2015, 09:32:28 pm »

Just like for Kevin, Gathering Magic did decktech with me as well.  I can't remember whether I shared this or not, but I don't think I did: http://www.gatheringmagic.com/insidethedeck-video-09072015-vintage-pyrogrow/
Logged

DaveKap
Basic User
**
Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2015, 06:34:03 pm »

Just like for Kevin, Gathering Magic did decktech with me as well.  I can't remember whether I shared this or not, but I don't think I did: http://www.gatheringmagic.com/insidethedeck-video-09072015-vintage-pyrogrow/

Steve, thanks for the video. Have you considered Dig as a substitution for one or both Regrowths?
Logged
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2015, 06:50:28 pm »

Yes.  I believe I discussed that in my tournament report (which is now premium, I believe.  I hope you read it before it was put on premium.  If not, it should be free in 30 days after publishing.).  Dig Through Time is a great spell, but it is not a substitute for Regrowth given what this deck is trying to do tactically and strategically.  Regrowth has a very specific set of non-substitutable functionality (at least, not with Merchant Scroll restricted) in this deck.  I discussed this in my primer on this deck a few years back: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-its-a-young-mancers-game-grow-2013/
Logged

kalisia
Basic User
**
Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2015, 03:21:58 pm »

The metagame was incredibly diverse.  The quantity of decks with Force of Wills masks incredibly strategic diversity.  Almost every strategic archetype was represented in the Vintage Champs top 8: hard control, aggro control, combo control, prison, dredge.  What an amazing event.

This is the biggest problem...
There were maybe other decks in the field, like WG fish decks, RGB aggro decks, but if at the end, the top 8 is made almost only of BLUE-aggro cotrol decks, it is the only thing people will remember! Who will remember the 21st position of a nice Bwg deck playing confidants,vindicates, ice storms and sudden spoilings (nice secret tech anyways Smile ), and who will remember the 16th position of a nice White fish deck ? Nobody Sad
All people will remember is : if you want to be sure to win (or to be on top8), you must play 4 FoW or 4 Mishra's Workshop on your deck (forgive me if I don't speak about the nice top8 dragon deck Smile )

I totally agree with TheWhiteDragon, this top8 isn't selling me any dreams...
Logged
PETER FLUGZEUG
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 275


New Ease


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2015, 03:33:53 pm »

well, the winner only ran 3 force of will Wink
Logged

I will be playing four of these.  I'll worry about the deck later.
Mr. Type 4
Creator of Type 4
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 814


Creator of Type 4 - Discoverer of Steve Menendian


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2015, 03:57:26 pm »

Quote
if you want to be sure to win (or to be on top8), you must play 4 FoW or 4 Mishra's Workshop
Or Dredge, Dredge is legit.

These are the rules, people.  Not playing the best cards is for suckers.  If you can break out of this box - more power to you - but my expectations aren't very high.  I think there's a lot of room to innovate and work within these parameters. 
Logged

2008 VINTAGE CHAMPION
2013 NYSE OPEN I CHAMPION
Team Meandeck

Mastriano's the only person I know who can pick up chicks and win magic tournaments at the same time.
nedleeds
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 399


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2015, 04:47:22 pm »

What did you end up playing?

Nothing.  A flight + hotel + event entry + lost vacation days isn't worth the shot at a grand prize to me.  

Well so what you are saying is the monetary investment isn't worth it for you. Why is it worth it for the other 750~ people to fly in, get a hotel, show up and 'think outside the box' and play Hatebears or whatever "off-beat" decks you fancy at the most important event of the year? You lose a good deal of credibility by not showing up. If you aren't going to show up and play, who cares that you "hated" the top 8 and were "disheartened".

Quote
But when I do play vintage, with nothing on the line I try to go with off-beat decks like GWB fish or WB dark times or GWB oath.  

Fixed that for you. I play all kinds of junkbear, darigaaz, sabboth decks when the stakes are low. But when you plan and pay for a trip to champs and are playing to win these decks don't make the cut. It's a 10+ round event and there's just too much variance, and powerful strategies to expect to overcome. Myself and my teammates tested hundreds of games and I had what I thought were the best junk, depths, and bant decks in our 8-10 deck gauntlet. They just didn't stand up. They won a fair amount of games, and had some strong match-ups but weren't worth taking a chance on at something like Vintage Champs. Is it chicken or egg? If 30 people sleeved up powered junk would one of them have made top 8? Possibly, but convincing 30 power owning Vintage aficionados who have waited all year for their one big event to put their bet on it is a tough ask. 

Quote
I gave up shops a long time ago because, as powerful as they are, I hate being wedged into the FoW/Workshop/Bazaar box that tends to be 95% of Vintage.  Shops wasn't as popular back in 2000ish (right around its unrestriction), so I was cool with playing it then.  Once it became one side of the "vintage triangle", I put them down for lesser-traveled paths.

If you are such a rebel come prove everyone wrong and play. That 'box' is 95% of Vintage but there are a thousand little boxes inside those 3 categories. If you refuse to acknowledge that then I question why you would continue to even be interested in Vintage.

Quote
 Maybe I'm just anti-conformist.  

Who cares. Honestly what does this have to do with the results of Champs? I like to not lose. I played shops and still got my second loss in the 6th round. It wouldn't have felt any better had I been playing fucking jund.

Logged
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2015, 06:00:27 pm »

The metagame was incredibly diverse.  The quantity of decks with Force of Wills masks incredibly strategic diversity.  Almost every strategic archetype was represented in the Vintage Champs top 8: hard control, aggro control, combo control, prison, dredge.  What an amazing event.

This is the biggest problem...
There were maybe other decks in the field, like WG fish decks, RGB aggro decks, but if at the end, the top 8 is made almost only of BLUE-aggro cotrol decks, it is the only thing people will remember! Who will remember the 21st position of a nice Bwg deck playing confidants,vindicates, ice storms and sudden spoilings (nice secret tech anyways Smile ), and who will remember the 16th position of a nice White fish deck ? Nobody Sad
All people will remember is : if you want to be sure to win (or to be on top8), you must play 4 FoW or 4 Mishra's Workshop on your deck (forgive me if I don't speak about the nice top8 dragon deck Smile )

I totally agree with TheWhiteDragon, this top8 isn't selling me any dreams...

That's not a legitimate criticism of the format.  Vintage and, to a similar extent, Legacy, will never be color diverse unless they make new colors.  Asking for color diversity is silly because that's not what matters.  What matters is strategic diversity.

The reason Vintage and Legacy will never be color diverse is because of the printing of Onslaught fetchlands and the fact that there are only 5 colors in Magic.  The fetchlands and the A/B/U/R dual lands make it possible to play 3 color decks in either Vintage or Legacy with basics for each color, and 4 color decks with at least 1-2 basics.  That wasn't possible before the printing of the Onslaught fetchlands.  3-5 color decks couldn't consistently get out basics of the right color as consistently, and had to rely on lands like City of Brass. 

The interaction of dual lands and fetchlands means that you can, at basically no cost to your mana base in terms of consistency/reliability or vulnerability to non-basic hate, play 4 of the 5 colors. 

If every non-Workshop deck, then, is at least 3 colors, to decide not to include blue means that blue would have to be, given your card options and strategic orientation, one of the bottom two colors.  Given the fact that blue has most of the best cards ever printed, including the largest chunk of the restricted list, it's almost inconceivable, then, that blue wouldn't be in the top 3-4 colors you would include.  It's no wonder Force of Will is so ubiquitous. 

TL;DR: Color diversity doesn't matter.  Strategic diversity does.  In that, Vintage is doing great. 

Logged

Islandswamp
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 328


MTGGoldfish Writer


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2015, 06:06:58 pm »

Quote
TL;DR: Color diversity doesn't matter.  Strategic diversity does.  In that, Vintage is doing great.  



I agree. I love the format, and I think that there's more room to explore designs than people think, just ask Dragonlord Dromoka.

Besides, I'm really fond of blue anyway,  I'm all about that Jace.
Logged

Check out my articles @ www.mtggoldfish.com  www.puremtgo.com Follow me on Twitter: @josephfiorinijr - Watch me make EPIC PUNTS on Twitch.TV @ http://www.twitch.tv/josephfiorini06

Just like a car crash,
Just like a knife.
My favorite weapon
is the look in your eyes.
You've run out of lies...
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2015, 06:24:21 pm »

Quote
TL;DR: Color diversity doesn't matter.  Strategic diversity does.  In that, Vintage is doing great.  



I agree. I love the format, and I think that there's more room to explore designs than people think, just ask Dragonlord Dromoka.

Besides, I'm really fond of blue anyway,  I'm all about that Jace.

But the point, and I don't want to confuse on this, is that it doesn't matter whether someone likes blue or not.  It's irrational to not include it in virtually every circumstance.  To not include blue would mean that blue is either the worst or second to worst color in terms of cards it could contribute to your deck.  The number of times one would rationally draw that conclusion is almost nil. 
Logged

Hrishi
Basic User
**
Posts: 391


hrishikesh29@gmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2015, 06:56:42 pm »

Great point about the fetches, Steve. The cost to include blue in any deck is very low, with an incredible payoff by doing so. Even if you choose not to play Force of Will, Blue has some of the most powerful cards ever printed in Ancestral Recall and Time Walk that would be irrational to not include them.

You say Vintage is too blue? Unfortunately, Vintage is where we get to play with the best cards ever printed and a lot of those cards tend to be in blue. That doesn't change the fact that there is diversity in blue.

For what it's worth, there was a lot of diversity at the event. In 10 rounds, the only deck I faced twice was Martello Shops. All 8 other decks I played were different. I also believe there is plenty of room to innovate, considering I played Mind Over Matter/Stroke of Genius/Time Spiral combo at the event. Yes, it was blue, but it was a far cry from a Delver deck. Who cares that both share the same color? The decks are as different as night and day.
Logged

Lyna turned to the figure beside her. "They're gone. What now?"
"As ever," said Urza, "we wait."
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2015, 07:58:15 pm »

Great point about the fetches, Steve. The cost to include blue in any deck is very low, with an incredible payoff by doing so. Even if you choose not to play Force of Will, Blue has some of the most powerful cards ever printed in Ancestral Recall and Time Walk that would be irrational to not include them.

Exactly.  

Color diversity is a red herring.  It doesn't matter at all.  Magic only has 5 colors, and Vintage uses all of them.  What really matters is strategic diversity, and in that regard, Vintage is awesome right now.

The confusion stems from the fact that people assume, incorrectly, that color diversity is a proxy for strategic diversity. 

If people want more non-blue decks, then don't play formats where Alpha cards are legal, especially with Onslaught fetchlands.  
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 08:12:27 pm by Smmenen » Logged

Stormanimagus
Basic User
**
Posts: 1290


maestrosmith55
View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2015, 02:10:39 am »

I would just like to reiterate to the community that I was on the cusp of top 8ing this event until the last 2 rounds with a Junk colored list. Blue/Shops is not a pre-requisite choice in Vintage to be competitive. There is room for innovation. As it stands I still placed 64th and was very happy with how my deck performed over the course of the day. Metagame decks will always have top tier proactive strategies to target. One just needs to laser focus in on the top tier strategies of the moment and success can be had (especially if people don't prepare their sideboards to beat you and you aren't super susceptible to splash hate cards). It was a great event with a lot of top notch players. I was honored to play against such a field.

-Noah
Logged

"To light a candle is to cast a shadow. . ."

—Ursula K. Leguin
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2015, 01:40:06 pm »

What did you end up playing?

Nothing.  A flight + hotel + event entry + lost vacation days isn't worth the shot at a grand prize to me.  

Well so what you are saying is the monetary investment isn't worth it for you. Why is it worth it for the other 750~ people to fly in, get a hotel, show up and 'think outside the box' and play Hatebears or whatever "off-beat" decks you fancy at the most important event of the year? You lose a good deal of credibility by not showing up. If you aren't going to show up and play, who cares that you "hated" the top 8 and were "disheartened".

You basically just made all my points for me!

I'm not going to lay out $1000 to play blue, shops, bazaar, or lose (see your quote below). How many of those non-shop, non-FoW, non-bazaar decks made T8?  Okay then.  Money well spent I guess for all those bear players. (maybe they enjoyed the non-magic aspects of the trip, but I'd rather spend $1K on a better vacation.

Quote
But when I do play vintage, with nothing on the line I try to go with off-beat decks like GWB fish or WB dark times or GWB oath.  

Fixed that for you. I play all kinds of junkbear, darigaaz, sabboth decks when the stakes are low. But when you plan and pay for a trip to champs and are playing to win these decks don't make the cut. It's a 10+ round event and there's just too much variance, and powerful strategies to expect to overcome. Myself and my teammates tested hundreds of games and I had what I thought were the best junk, depths, and bant decks in our 8-10 deck gauntlet. They just didn't stand up. They won a fair amount of games, and had some strong match-ups but weren't worth taking a chance on at something like Vintage Champs. Is it chicken or egg? If 30 people sleeved up powered junk would one of them have made top 8? Possibly, but convincing 30 power owning Vintage aficionados who have waited all year for their one big event to put their bet on it is a tough ask.  

So then you don't disagree with me.  Competitive vintage is down to bazaar, shops, FoW.  Nothing else stands a chance.  And I'm not necessarily complaining strictly about color as much as I am all decks running through the 3 mentioned cards.  I get that blue has the most broken stuff.  One fix could be for WotC to make a white/green/red time walk in a premier set, not standard and vintage legal (and a real time walk, not final fortune crap).  Another option would be for hate cards that fight those strategies effectively that are maindeckable as a 4x of.  WotC was close with Spirit of the lab, but it needed hexproof to really compete in Vintage.  Right now, it's not even played.  I'm asking for cards like that.  Or a card that hates on shops, but is not ass otherwise (like ingot chewer - yes it has some fringe uses, but nobody would run 4x chewers vs a non-shop deck).  A 1R 3/1 first strike that killed an artifact on etb.  THAT is what I'm looking for.

Quote
I gave up shops a long time ago because, as powerful as they are, I hate being wedged into the FoW/Workshop/Bazaar box that tends to be 95% of Vintage.  Shops wasn't as popular back in 2000ish (right around its unrestriction), so I was cool with playing it then.  Once it became one side of the "vintage triangle", I put them down for lesser-traveled paths.

If you are such a rebel come prove everyone wrong and play. That 'box' is 95% of Vintage but there are a thousand little boxes inside those 3 categories. If you refuse to acknowledge that then I question why you would continue to even be interested in Vintage.

I think the reason is I HAVE lost interest in Vintage for the most part, but nostalgia makes me care about its fate.  I used to love it.  Now it seems you have to pick 1 of 3 cards to build a deck around.  Blue is uber-dominant because, as Steve says, all the best stuff is blue.  No doubt.  That doesn't mean they can't print really good WRG stuff (hexproof SotL, 3/1 first strike chewer for 2cmc, etc) that wouldn't break standard or modern (or make it a premiere printing) to even out the wheel.  As is, you have 3 choices and can build from there if you want to T8 in any sizable tourney.  Back when I played big tourneys, I ran shops.  They weren't popular. Once they became popular, I put them down.  Nothing else could stack up at that point - it was FoW vs shops until dredge came around. I'm not trying to say I'm a rebel and off-beat decks can win.  In fact, that's my point.  They can't win, and it sucks.

Quote
 Maybe I'm just anti-conformist.  

Who cares. Honestly what does this have to do with the results of Champs? I like to not lose. I played shops and still got my second loss in the 6th round. It wouldn't have felt any better had I been playing fucking jund.



Sorry for your loss.  You wouldn't have faired better without U/shop/bazaar.  You are emphasizing my point.  
But I don't think there's a reason blue/shops/bazaar HAS to be the top dogs all the time.  I think through new printings, they can balance it out so all colors are equally strong.  When they do that, i'll probably get back into the format.  Right now, I prefer Modern (and even legacy) where those 3 cards aren't allowed.  In Legacy, at least 2 of the 3 aren't allowed, but even there it seems like a FoW derpfest.

And all of this has to do with the Champs result, because the T8 just illustrates my point.  If you want to win in Vintage, you have to play FoW/Shops/bazaar.  Biggest tourney of the year, and nothing outside of those things can make a dent in the top.  I don't even think the top 32 or 64 had a fair amount of nonshop/U/bazaar compared to the decks that ran those 3.  I see that as a problem.  Maybe you don't.  But I bet a lot of people feel the same as me, and it's a reason Vintage isn't what it once was, costs aside.  When Vintage players find Modern more fun, that's a problem.  I used to LOVE vintage.  I owned all the cards several times, so cost wasn't an issue.  Now my moxen are just savings bonds, because they don't even come out of my binder.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 01:54:37 pm by TheWhiteDragon » Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Chubby Rain
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 742



View Profile Email
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2015, 03:36:40 pm »

But I bet a lot of people feel the same as me, and it's a reason Vintage isn't what it once was, costs aside.

There were 450+ players at Vintage Champs this year, up from 330 or so players the year before. Your claim is unsubstantiated...

When Vintage players find Modern more fun, that's a problem.

Why is that a problem? First of all, you are expressing your personal opinion and not that of "Vintage players". Second, Magic players enjoy different formats and some enjoy and play all formats. One of the great things about this game is that you can play it in many different ways. If you enjoy Modern more, go play Modern. If you don't like Vintage, why should Vintage have to change to accommodate you? Especially again given the size of this recent Champs. Lastly, are you actually a Vintage player? The majority of your posts are complaints, sarcasm, or downright trolls...

It sounds like you enjoy playing off-the-wall decks. Well, I do too. Brian Kelly does as well. The difference is that we are willing to work within the confines of the format and metagames. The same as every other brewer in every other format. You can clearly have success in this format going against the grain, albeit you still have to work within the constraints.
Logged

"Why are we making bad decks? I mean, honestly, what is our reason for doing this?"

"Is this a Vintage deck or a Cube deck?" "Is it sad that you have to ask?"

"Is that a draft deck?" "Why do people keep asking that?"

Random conversations...
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2015, 05:05:28 pm »

But I bet a lot of people feel the same as me, and it's a reason Vintage isn't what it once was, costs aside.

There were 450+ players at Vintage Champs this year, up from 330 or so players the year before. Your claim is unsubstantiated...

When Vintage players find Modern more fun, that's a problem.

Why is that a problem? First of all, you are expressing your personal opinion and not that of "Vintage players". Second, Magic players enjoy different formats and some enjoy and play all formats. One of the great things about this game is that you can play it in many different ways. If you enjoy Modern more, go play Modern. If you don't like Vintage, why should Vintage have to change to accommodate you? Especially again given the size of this recent Champs. Lastly, are you actually a Vintage player? The majority of your posts are complaints, sarcasm, or downright trolls...

It sounds like you enjoy playing off-the-wall decks. Well, I do too. Brian Kelly does as well. The difference is that we are willing to work within the confines of the format and metagames. The same as every other brewer in every other format. You can clearly have success in this format going against the grain, albeit you still have to work within the constraints.

Fair point on the attendance, but I don't know if 2015 vintage is thriving more than early 2000s vintage was.  It's probably better than it was last year.  Hopefully that's good enough for everyone.

It's true I'm expressing my personal opinion.  I thought, however, a goal of the Vintage community was to increase Vintage enrollment and retain players...not just roll with fluctuating attendance and let Vintage players leave while some fill their shoes.  I suppose I'm wrong there.  It's fair to say, due to geography mainly but also due to dissatisfaction of the unnecessary constraints of a Vintage triangle, that I am now really more of a Modern player than Vintage.  I play vintage rarely (unless on cockatrice) and more for a 1-of fun game, not a tourney.  I used to play it all the time, but since 2009 It has really lost my passion and loyalty. Maybe I got burnt out trying to swim upstream against a mighty river of shops/U/bazaar.  It seems most are comfortable going with that flow, so I suppose I have no more to say on that.  Hopefully that scenario attracts lots of people.

And the majority of my posts are probably complaints, trolls, etc., but I try to reveal issues through sarcasm at times - many times. I do just give my opinions on cards and things (Jace, Vryn's Prodigy for example) right or wrong.  But this is the interwebs, where people throw up their opinion sometimes. Sometimes I just love a good trolling.  But I do think Vintage will put itself in a hole if it embraces 95% of decks being FoW/shop/bazaar.  I think that will put off a lot of people.  If 450+ people at Champs makes you feel like Vintage is thriving the world over in the way that modern and Standard are, then good for you - and hooray for ostriches.  If you would like to look at the reality of the format compared with newer formats, you might see that cost is only one portion of why people shy away from the format.  Yes, it's expensive...but so is Modern.  Especially when you can play with proxies/borrow cards, cost can't be the only reason.  There is a "coin-flip" stereotype about the format, but really I think that dissuades about 1% of people - most don't really believe that is true.  I think most are people that don't want to play counterspells all day or build a concrete prison or regurgitate zombies while the opponent just tries to race.  There are lots of people that enjoy 2 mana bears, whacky combos, and strategies that are not predominantely blue or colorless.  If you want them to sign up for Vintage, then some things in Vintage DO need to change - namely the weapons other decks have to fight those 3 cards.  Cavern of Souls is the only great, universally playable card printed lately that smashes through the FoW wall, but that one (and maybe there are a couple others I'm not thinking of) card is not enough.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2015, 06:45:08 pm »

Force of Will is a tactic, not a strategy and it's a mistake to lump them all together.  Doing so conflates strategies like Merfolk with Oath or TPS. They both have force, but are totally different strategies by almost any measure.  It's like lumping together all decks with Misty Rainforest.  It's not an insightful classification. 
Logged

jcb193
Basic User
**
Posts: 410


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2015, 08:46:30 pm »


Fair point on the attendance, but I don't know if 2015 vintage is thriving more than early 2000s vintage was.  

 Yes, it's expensive...but so is Modern.  

As a point of reference, I can say that I played competitive vintage (Type 1) magic in the late 90's and early 2000s in the Northeast and it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get a tournament going.  Aside from Gencon, or the occasional major side tournaments in Edison, NJ there wasn't much.   Most major GP's couldn't even find 8 T1 players for a side vintage tournament, and even the Wotc store in Exton, PA was hard pressed to find 3-4 players for true vintage.  It was a scoffed at format. People thought it was a turn 1 format (which it wasn't till the Dark Days of Urza's Saga) and people thought it was too expensive.  (which is a shame, because I think the holy trinity years of necro-mirror-zoo was one of the coolest formats ever).

I'll go out on a limb here, and probably get flamed into an oblivion, but I truly believe that Vintage is more affordable now than it was back then.  Almost NOBODY was willing to shell out $100-$200 for a Beta Mox or ~$1500 for a vintage deck, but today many, many people are able to put together a set of power.  Fewer people spent major money on collectibles back then. It wasn't normal.  

I firmly believe the average magic player was more surprised at someone buying a $400 Lotus back then, than a $3000 lotus now.  People are willing to spend tremendous amount of money on their hobbies these days, that wasn't the case then-
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 08:53:36 pm by jcb193 » Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 18, 2015, 10:27:57 pm »


Fair point on the attendance, but I don't know if 2015 vintage is thriving more than early 2000s vintage was.  

 Yes, it's expensive...but so is Modern.  

As a point of reference, I can say that I played competitive vintage (Type 1) magic in the late 90's and early 2000s in the Northeast and it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get a tournament going.  Aside from Gencon, or the occasional major side tournaments in Edison, NJ there wasn't much.   Most major GP's couldn't even find 8 T1 players for a side vintage tournament, and even the Wotc store in Exton, PA was hard pressed to find 3-4 players for true vintage.  It was a scoffed at format. People thought it was a turn 1 format (which it wasn't till the Dark Days of Urza's Saga) and people thought it was too expensive.  (which is a shame, because I think the holy trinity years of necro-mirror-zoo was one of the coolest formats ever).

I'll go out on a limb here, and probably get flamed into an oblivion, but I truly believe that Vintage is more affordable now than it was back then.  Almost NOBODY was willing to shell out $100-$200 for a Beta Mox or ~$1500 for a vintage deck, but today many, many people are able to put together a set of power.  Fewer people spent major money on collectibles back then. It wasn't normal.  

I firmly believe the average magic player was more surprised at someone buying a $400 Lotus back then, than a $3000 lotus now.  People are willing to spend tremendous amount of money on their hobbies these days, that wasn't the case then-

I just remember SCG P9s were 100+ man and they weren't even the big tourney like Worlds....fired off a few a year.

As far as willingness to buy - the Vintage players in the 90s were teenagers.  $300 was a summer's work.  The same players now are in their 30s.  A lotus is a paycheck for most of us.  40 hrs work < 90 days of work for comparison's sake.

At the sake of blaspheming the U/shop/bazaar lovers, would it really be so terrible if WotC evened out the color wheel, diversified strategies even more (yeah, there are different builds of blue, shops, and bazaar decks), and made players of any income level and strategy affinity equally able to compete through new printings? 

2W - hexproof 3/3, Spirit of Lab
1R - 3/1 first strike, chewer effect
1WG enchantment - sacrifice ~:exile up to two target artifacts and/or enchantments. Put a white 1/1 flying spirit token and a green 3/3 beast token into play under your control.
1RB enchantment artifact - players cannot gain life.  Whenever a player draws a card ~ deals 2 damage to that player.
1GR - 2/2 shroud.  Lands cannot add more than 1 mana of any type.  Lands with abilities that do not add mana do not untap during untap steps.

I don't think these types of printings would hurt.  They are on flavor and help offset the power of the vintage triangle through good printings that aren't format warping.  This is all I'm asking for.  I want a balance of power and more viable strategies that don't stem from U/shop/bazaar.  Given the depth of card access, it would make the format a super-Modern in popularity and playability.  Forgive me if that's a bad thing.

And the result of Champs only hammers home my point of what you need to play (or at least start with) to have a chance. Thus why it brought up my posts.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 10:47:01 pm by TheWhiteDragon » Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Hrishi
Basic User
**
Posts: 391


hrishikesh29@gmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2015, 10:33:00 pm »

The rose-tinted goggles is getting extremely annoying. This is a thread to discuss the recent Vintage World Championship which, by any measure, was an amazing event with an incredibly diverse pool of decks, not your personal soapbox.

I like going against the grain, and I did. Plenty of others did. In fact, the world champion of 2015 went against conventional wisdom and played a deck that, by any measure, was off the wall and unique. I don't know what else you want.

I'd really like to actually discuss the decks that showed up to play, not ones that don't have any interest in doing so.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 10:36:19 pm by Hrishi » Logged

Lyna turned to the figure beside her. "They're gone. What now?"
"As ever," said Urza, "we wait."
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 18, 2015, 10:49:44 pm »

I'll make a new post then.  Sorry if my discussion was out of place.  I just saw the Champs result as emphasizing my point of the Vintage triangle being dominant.  And nobody has really refuted it either...they all seem happy or comfortable with it.  Doesn't make sense to me, when MORE diversity and making all 5 colors equally powerful is completely achievable.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 18, 2015, 11:21:02 pm »

I'll make a new post then.  Sorry if my discussion was out of place.  I just saw the Champs result as emphasizing my point of the Vintage triangle being dominant.  And nobody has really refuted it either...they all seem happy or comfortable with it. 

How about this?  Bazaar decks have blue cards, like Narcomoeba and Chain of Vapor - rendering your triangle an illogical classification scheme. 

It's revealing that you changed your characterization of the "dominant" triangle from being Force/Shop/Bazaar to U/Shop/Bazaar, and illustrates the flaw in your characterization of the format.  The error in your thinking is the assumption that color parity = strategic diversity.  That's simply not the case.  As I said before, grouping all blue decks puts decks as diverse as Merfolk and TPS into the same category - they they couldn't be more different.

Why would we group a UB combo deck in the same category as a UWG Aggro-Control deck, like Noble Fish?  Your classification scheme makes no sense.  It's fundamentally arbitrary and has no real world bearing on the experience of the format.

Quote
Doesn't make sense to me, when MORE diversity and making all 5 colors equally powerful is completely achievable.

It's neither achievable in Eternal formats, nor would it necessarily be desirable.  Why must there be an imperative to make all colors equally powerful?  Why does that matter at all?  After 22 years of accumulated printings, not all colors are equal, nor should they be forcibly made to be. 

The design of Magic is fundamentally flawed, if the goal was to make color parity.  If the game designers wanted all colors to show up in roughly equal proportions, they would have made the colors equally powerful, and they would have created more than just 5 colors, and they wouldn't have printed the Onslaught fetchlands, which makes it so easy to play 3+ color decks with no cost.  Building more colors into the game would have made it less likely, over time, that best color (whatever that would have been) would be so ubiquitous. 

Your quixotic interest in color parity obscures the ridiculously awesome strategic diversity in the format today. 


Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 20 queries.