The actual effect of Restricting Chalice

[gkraigher]

 Its rock, paper, scissors.  Its just that if blue decks are scissors then they are kiddie safety scissors and shop decks are like the Rock of Gibraltar.

As a blue player I would love to see Mishra's black lot..sorry Mishra's workshop restricted.

If MUD was to leave the format entirely, then Dredge would also lose a lot of it's viability because more sideboard slots would become available to fight it.  It's obviously not a simple Rock, Paper, Sissors game (And I know you were just making an allusion and don't feel that it is either), but having 3 major pillars creates balance in the format.  It forces you to value your sideboard slots, it forces you to really think about each card during deck constuction.  Once you know what you have to win against, you can start innovating decks.  I think Vintage would be AWFUL if you have to play 12 rounds of grueling Blue on Blue magic to win the Vintage Championship.  It would become a test of endurance and less of a skill game, and when everyone shows up with similar decks it also makes the game more luck oriented between two equally skilled players.  The game already has a large element of luck to it, and I don't think adding more luck is a good idea.  Keep it a skill game, and let other components of the game (i.e. deck construction, sideboarding strategies) matter.  

[Chubby Rain]

The game already has a large element of luck to it, and I don't think adding more luck is a good idea.  Keep it a skill game, and let other components of the game (i.e. deck construction, sideboarding strategies) matter.  

Let me get this straight: your argument is that the elimination of the deck most dependent on the coin flip would lead to a less skill intensive environment. Also, that the beneficial effect of having a deck that prevents its opponents from casting spells is that it keeps Vintage Champs from becoming a "test of endurance".

Edit: more =/= less

[gkraigher]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying (if you insert "less" infront of "skill intensive environment", which I think you mean).  I think some of your premises should be checked, and I see how what I am saying can come across as contradictory in theory, but in practice it would be much different.  I'm telling you, the end of Vintage is when everyone shows up with 50 of the same cards in their decks.  

Test of endurance doesn't mean how long the games go, but how much thought you have to put into each game.  For instance, I would never play combo in Legacy or Vintage because I simply don't want to rack my brain for 10 hours thinking about what ifs and perfect lines based off probability.  When you are playing against MUD, you can either cast your spells or you can't.  You spend some mental energy thinking about how to get out of the prison, but asides from that the game flow is pretty basic.  When you play Blue on Blue after Blue, you have to think about bluffing and pivots.  You have to constantly be thinking about how to trick your opponent, and to me, that would be exhausting if you had to do it each and every round.  

[Archae]

Chalice fair?  What am I reading?  The card literally says you can not play cards of this mana cost.

I'm sure this was meant to be hyperbolic, but with Cavern, Abrupt Decay, Flusterstorm, etc. this statement is more wrong than it has ever been.
 

Chalice at 0 is an automatic turn 1 play if its in your opener

I understand the context that this comes from, but several non-Workshop decks that used Chalice as a weapon or answer to metagame considerations would often not drop Chalice on 0 on turn 1 whenever possible, even if not fully accelerated themselves. Just some food for thought.

[Grand Inquisitor]

gkraigher

It's clear you have a preference for a specific style of in-game magic.  However, you should know that your ideas about 'skill' and 'balance' are quite different from others and I would say even quite different from the social norm of the format.

You have to constantly be thinking

Yeah, some of us are into that.

[Khahan]

 Its rock, paper, scissors.  Its just that if blue decks are scissors then they are kiddie safety scissors and shop decks are like the Rock of Gibraltar.

As a blue player I would love to see Mishra's black lot..sorry Mishra's workshop restricted.

If MUD was to leave the format entirely, then Dredge would also lose a lot of it's viability because more sideboard slots would become available to fight it.  It's obviously not a simple Rock, Paper, Sissors game (And I know you were just making an allusion and don't feel that it is either), but having 3 major pillars creates balance in the format.  It forces you to value your sideboard slots, it forces you to really think about each card during deck constuction.  Once you know what you have to win against, you can start innovating decks.  I think Vintage would be AWFUL if you have to play 12 rounds of grueling Blue on Blue magic to win the Vintage Championship.  It would become a test of endurance and less of a skill game, and when everyone shows up with similar decks it also makes the game more luck oriented between two equally skilled players.  The game already has a large element of luck to it, and I don't think adding more luck is a good idea.  Keep it a skill game, and let other components of the game (i.e. deck construction, sideboarding strategies) matter.  

Yes, I was oversimplifying it with the rock paper scissors.  And to be clear my comment was specifically about the interaction of blue control shells with shops.  I wasn't commenting that in the grand scheme of things blue is the equivalent of kiddie scissors.  In the grand scheme blue is rock and scissors combined. Its been an ever present powerhouse from day 1.  And yes, it needs a check/balance kind of archetype. I just think that right now that check/balance itself is too strong against it. I'm in no position to suggest realistic changes to fix what I see as a problem, though.  I'm also aware that maybe I'm just not up to speed enough to realize its not as big of a problem as I perceive for blue decks. I may not have properly adapted yet.

[gkraigher]

Quote
You have to constantly be thinking

Yeah, some of us are into that.

You have to be "thinking" while you play shops as well, it's just that the thinking is about sequencing as opposed to bluffing. 

[mmcgeach]

Isn't the Rise of Workshops just due to The Decline Of Mana in blue decks?  I mean, the most popular blue decks play 17 mana sources.  Of course those decks lose to workshops.  Blue decks used to play 24 mana sources.  Those decks don't lose to workshops very often.  It seems to me like a meta gaming issue.  Blue decks could increase their mana counts and greatly increase their percentages against shops. Or, I guess, try to get something banned from shops.

I would guess its the opposite.

You can't literally be arguing that a blue deck with 24 mana sources has a worse shops matchup than a blue deck with 17 mana sources, right?

[Chubby Rain]

Isn't the Rise of Workshops just due to The Decline Of Mana in blue decks?  I mean, the most popular blue decks play 17 mana sources.  Of course those decks lose to workshops.  Blue decks used to play 24 mana sources.  Those decks don't lose to workshops very often.  It seems to me like a meta gaming issue.  Blue decks could increase their mana counts and greatly increase their percentages against shops. Or, I guess, try to get something banned from shops.

You can't literally be arguing that a blue deck with 24 mana sources has a worse shops matchup than a blue deck with 17 mana sources, right?

Delver with Cruise had a perfectly reasonable Shops matchup. You can't go based on mana sources, it also depends on the spells you are trying to cast. And a Chalice on zero instantly took a deck from 24 mana sources to 17 mana sources...

The argument that blue players should be adding more lands to their decks to beat Shops is flawed as you lose percentage points against other blue decks, which are a much larger percentage of the format. The problem with Vintage, especially sanctioned Vintage, is that it does not obey the usual rules governing metagame shifts. Cost, card availability, and player preference are very real barriers to a fluid metagame in Vintage. For how well Shops performed at Champs, it should have been a larger percentage of the field but there are only so many Shops in existence and players willing to play them. So you reach this awkward state where you pick what you lose to and most players will choose to lose to 25% of the field compared to 50% of the field.

[mmcgeach]

You can't go based on mana sources, it also depends on the spells you are trying to cast.
( ... )
The argument that blue players should be adding more lands to their decks to beat Shops is flawed as you lose percentage points against other blue decks, which are a much larger percentage of the format.

I think these two points disagree with each other.  It should be self evident that adding land to your blue deck makes it better against shops (which I think you agree with in your second point).  Hopefully nobody's arguing that it's the opposite.

But, Yes, I agree with the second point: 17-mana blue decks which cheat their mana count by playing 12-20 one-mana cantrips, although these decks auto-lose to a single sphere effect or a chalice@1, they are very well-positioned to fight big blue decks through virtual card advantage. 24-mana blue decks that have better % against shops have worse % against high-cantrip, low-mana blue.  A lot of people decided, as you suggest, to run decks structurally similar to a 17-mana blue list, cause it's better against most of the field, although worse against shops.  The problem is these decks are extremely uninteractive against shops, cause they fold to chalice@1 or a single sphere, particularly if they're on the draw.  Of course, sometime they land a turn-1 delver and the shops player has no answer and the game ends.  My suggestion is that this effect gave people an exaggerated sense of the coin-flip-ness or fair-ness of the blue-vs-shops matchup, and lead to an inappropriate banning of Chalice.  I further suggest that this could have been avoided by blue players using more mana and just meta-gaming against delver lists better.

[vaughnbros]

You can't go based on mana sources, it also depends on the spells you are trying to cast.
( ... )
The argument that blue players should be adding more lands to their decks to beat Shops is flawed as you lose percentage points against other blue decks, which are a much larger percentage of the format.

I think these two points disagree with each other.  It should be self evident that adding land to your blue deck makes it better against shops (which I think you agree with in your second point).  Hopefully nobody's arguing that it's the opposite.

But, Yes, I agree with the second point: 17-mana blue decks which cheat their mana count by playing 12-20 one-mana cantrips, although these decks auto-lose to a single sphere effect or a chalice@1, they are very well-positioned to fight big blue decks through virtual card advantage. 24-mana blue decks that have better % against shops have worse % against high-cantrip, low-mana blue.  A lot of people decided, as you suggest, to run decks structurally similar to a 17-mana blue list, cause it's better against most of the field, although worse against shops.  The problem is these decks are extremely uninteractive against shops, cause they fold to chalice@1 or a single sphere, particularly if they're on the draw.  Of course, sometime they land a turn-1 delver and the shops player has no answer and the game ends.  My suggestion is that this effect gave people an exaggerated sense of the coin-flip-ness or fair-ness of the blue-vs-shops matchup, and lead to an inappropriate banning of Chalice.  I further suggest that this could have been avoided by blue players using more mana and just meta-gaming against delver lists better.

In context those statements don't disagree.  More lands in general means a better shops percentage, but case by case less lands is not an indication of a low percentage against shop.

[Commandant]

Mike, land go hasn't been a valid tatic against Workshops in years.

Chalice is awful because it compresses the ability of decks to both condense their CMC and reasonably jump mana curves simultaneously.

You can't lower your CMC to avoid Chalice at zero because it walks into Chalice on one. You can't expect to jump the curve to avoid Chalice on one because of Chalice on zero.

It's a complete shit show and the ability of the archetype to deploy two pieces i.e. Sphere and Chalice on the first turn is just format breaking. It isn't fun to play against and the persistent nature of Chalice isn't particularly challenging from a game play perspective.

It's bad from the perspective of format health and getting people to actually sit down for a game. In other formats even the most high varianced archetypes allow people to actually play something representing a game of MTG.

People who think this was a poor decision on WotC part either are delusional, vested in the archetype to a point of being blind, or just haven't played enough high level Vintage to understand.

Chalice is the best choice. Golem brought Workshops back into the fold after years of mediocre printings. Removing it would be a huge barrier to the competitive ability of the archetype. This nonsense about the archetype being dead and strong staples like Tangle Wire being relegated to an irrelevant existence are so tiresome. The archetype hasn't lost a card since 2006, it's time to grow up.

All I ask is that you actually sit down and test with and against Workshops in a competitive environment. Right now I can say with pretty decent confidence that a lot of individuals in this thread haven't since the BnR changes.

Seriously /end thread.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Tangle Wire is the same conditional two turn time walk it's always been.  

It worked with Chalice, but it never needed chalice to be great on it's own.  

Tangle Wire is not COMPLETELY worthless now, but having an additional permanent to tap with chalice@0 - leaving your workshop untapped - while also cutting off your opponents ability to play tappable permanents that add mana mean they are tapping down a land or two a turn and doing NOTHING else. 

Workshop, mox/lotus/crypt, chalice 0, tangle...opponent goes land, pass for 2-3 turns...on your turn 2 you have an untapped workshop + land drop and bring down the hammer (golem, spheres, etc).

Workshop mox/lotus/crypt, tangle...opponent goes land, mox/lotus/crypt and plays a spell, perhaps a creature...turn 2, you tap out everything including your workshop, play a land, pass (you just gave THEM a timewalk)...they tap down everything and play land, pass...NOW you get to untap workshop and 1 other permanent...on their turn they tap just one land and mox, play a land, maybe another mox they drew...they have at least 2 land to work with and can start going gushnuts.

BIG difference.

[gkraigher]

Tangle Wire is the same conditional two turn time walk it's always been.  

It worked with Chalice, but it never needed chalice to be great on it's own.  

Workshop mox/lotus/crypt, tangle...opponent goes land, mox/lotus/crypt and plays a spell, perhaps a creature...turn 2, you tap out everything including your workshop, play a land, pass (you just gave THEM a timewalk)...they tap down everything and play land, pass...NOW you get to untap workshop and 1 other permanent...on their turn they tap just one land and mox, play a land, maybe another mox they drew...they have at least 2 land to work with and can start going gushnuts.

Um, what?

This is one of the worst lines I can think of.  To a point that I find it unreasonable that anyone would do this even with a chalice for 0.  Just because you can cast a card doesn't mean you should. 

This line is the equilavent of fate sealing your opponent with Jace and leaving gas on top. 

[dicemanx]

I'm surprised it took this long for some component of Workshop decks to be finally restricted. Shop decks accumulated so many turn 1-2 lock pieces over the years, it brought back (painful) memories of the 4 Trinisphere days.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Tangle Wire is the same conditional two turn time walk it's always been.  

It worked with Chalice, but it never needed chalice to be great on it's own.  

Workshop mox/lotus/crypt, tangle...opponent goes land, mox/lotus/crypt and plays a spell, perhaps a creature...turn 2, you tap out everything including your workshop, play a land, pass (you just gave THEM a timewalk)...they tap down everything and play land, pass...NOW you get to untap workshop and 1 other permanent...on their turn they tap just one land and mox, play a land, maybe another mox they drew...they have at least 2 land to work with and can start going gushnuts.

Um, what?

This is one of the worst lines I can think of.  To a point that I find it unreasonable that anyone would do this even with a chalice for 0.  Just because you can cast a card doesn't mean you should. 

This line is the equilavent of fate sealing your opponent with Jace and leaving gas on top. 

Allowing them 0 cost permanents to tap while denying yourself an additional permanent makes tangle wire markedly worse.  Whatever line of play you take.

[Khahan]

Tangle Wire is the same conditional two turn time walk it's always been.  

It worked with Chalice, but it never needed chalice to be great on it's own.  

Workshop mox/lotus/crypt, tangle...opponent goes land, mox/lotus/crypt and plays a spell, perhaps a creature...turn 2, you tap out everything including your workshop, play a land, pass (you just gave THEM a timewalk)...they tap down everything and play land, pass...NOW you get to untap workshop and 1 other permanent...on their turn they tap just one land and mox, play a land, maybe another mox they drew...they have at least 2 land to work with and can start going gushnuts.

Um, what?

This is one of the worst lines I can think of.  To a point that I find it unreasonable that anyone would do this even with a chalice for 0.  Just because you can cast a card doesn't mean you should. 

This line is the equilavent of fate sealing your opponent with Jace and leaving gas on top. 

Allowing them 0 cost permanents to tap while denying yourself an additional permanent makes tangle wire markedly worse.  Whatever line of play you take.

Making it 'markedly worse' does not make it bad. Tangle wire still does what it always does.  Nothing has changed about how it works. Maybe you wait a turn or two to play it.  Or maybe you play it and use the turns your opponent is tapping down more permanents than you to drop some factories and develop a superior board state.  But to even imply that tangle wire is now bad just doesn't fly.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Not BAD in the sense that it isn't completely dead...but much worse.  You have to at least acknowledge there is an incredible difference between 1) having an extra free permanent to tap and cutting off your opponent from having more than one mana during their main phase for up to 3 turns and 2) having to tap an extra land/moxen yourself while allowing your opponent to dump a hand of moxen for multiple mana the first turn and up to 2 or more mana within a couple turns because they have a few permanents to tap right away.

Stop trying to sell-short the impact a turn 1 chalice had on the game. Nobody is fooling anyone by saying tangle is just as good as ever without chalice.

[xouman]

To be honest tangle is not the same with and without chalice. Even with null rod in battlefield, you can play a mox and tap it for tangle, leaving lands untapped. The fact that chalice countered permanents made tangle even more powerful. It can even be a huge difference, since often you couldn't destroy a golem because you lacked 1 mana to play for chewer due to tangle effect. I have seen it dozens of times and probably you too.

But of course, if mud player has T1 chalice, tangle and golem, you are going to have a bad time :p

[Khahan]

Not BAD in the sense that it isn't completely dead...but much worse.  You have to at least acknowledge there is an incredible difference between 1) having an extra free permanent to tap and cutting off your opponent from having more than one mana during their main phase for up to 3 turns and 2) having to tap an extra land/moxen yourself while allowing your opponent to dump a hand of moxen for multiple mana the first turn and up to 2 or more mana within a couple turns because they have a few permanents to tap right away.

Stop trying to sell-short the impact a turn 1 chalice had on the game. Nobody is fooling anyone by saying tangle is just as good as ever without chalice.

Because moxen aren't the only way that tangle can be lopsided. Workshop, sol ring, tangle wire, sphere.  Stop pretending like shops only had 1 way to accomplish a turn 1 slow down. Shops has redundant tools to do whatever is needed. More than any other deck.  It gets a black lotus every turn. Cheap artifacts every turn.   While other decks can play 1 land after tapping down to tangle wire and get 1 mana to use to cast a pitched fow under sphere, shops gets to play 1 land that generates 3 mana which can be used to cast anything in their deck.  Tangle wire is 'hurt' by this the same way the shade from a tree is lessened by pruning a lower branch off it.  The argument may be factually true but the reality is, its not enough to justify making as a serious argument.

As for the opponent being able to 'dump a hand of moxen' how often does that really happen?  Its not uncommon to see land, moxen go.  Its not even unheard of to see land, moxen, moxen.  But a whole handful of them and negating tangle wire - lets leave hyperbole where it belongs.  And again, against shops its even less likely because of the redundant sphere effects that the opponent has to deal with.

In the grand scheme of things, tangle wire is an annoyance. A very big annoyance that occasionally is more. But generally speaking its a tempo play to let you develop your board faster/better than your opponent does because of the nature of your resources.  That has no changed with the restriction of chalice. A smart player can deal with tangle wire then and now. And a smart shops player can use tangle wire to buy time and set up other lock pieces that ends up shutting down his opponent - both in the 4 chalice and 1 chalice environment.

Every example you give is using tangle wire in a vacuum on your side. But that's just not reality.

[John Cox]

Has anyone noticed we are kind of in the same metagame as this time 2012?

[Chubby Rain]

Has anyone noticed we are kind of in the same metagame as this time 2012?

Vintage top 8's were mostly Mentor and Delver back then, too? Weird...

[desolutionist]

One thing I realized is that Academy strategies are incredibly powerful.  If I play all the good, cheap artifacts and 4 Expedition Maps with some Petrified Fields, there is nothing you can do to deny my boatloads of blue mana.

The top tier MTGO metagame :

15% Shops (Including Dark Depths)
19% Grixis Control
12% Mentor
12% Delver
6% Painter
10% Dredge (Including Dark Depths)
4% Tezz
3% BUG Fish
3% Gush Tendrils
3% UR Artifacts

Oath appears to be absent so far

[vaughnbros]

One thing I realized is that Academy strategies are incredibly powerful.  If I play all the good, cheap artifacts and 4 Expedition Maps with some Petrified Fields, there is nothing you can do to deny my boatloads of blue mana.

The top tier MTGO metagame :

15% Shops (Including Dark Depths)
19% Grixis Control
12% Mentor
12% Delver
6% Painter
10% Dredge (Including Dark Depths)
4% Tezz
3% BUG Fish
3% Gush Tendrils
3% UR Artifacts

Oath appears to be absent so far

Why are we breaking blue into 7 categories and shops and dredge only get 1?

[desolutionist]

Because I'm biased. Shops, to me, is just a deck that tries to make all my spells cost more.  I'm not going to breakdown how many Mishra's Factories they play because frankly that doesn't matter.

What does matter is if my opponent has Mentor, or Pyromancer, or Painter's Servant.

*edit* maybe it's wrong to think like that. I'm just not very "in" when it comes to shops. I just worry about blowing up spheres.

[nedleeds]

One thing I realized is that Academy strategies are incredibly powerful.  If I play all the good, cheap artifacts and 4 Expedition Maps with some Petrified Fields, there is nothing you can do to deny my boatloads of blue mana.

The top tier MTGO metagame :

15% Shops (Including Dark Depths)
19% Grixis Control
12% Mentor
12% Delver
6% Painter
10% Dredge (Including Dark Depths)
4% Tezz
3% BUG Fish
3% Gush Tendrils
3% UR Artifacts

Oath appears to be absent so far

Why are we breaking blue into 7 categories and shops and dredge only get 1?

Because skill intensive.

[brianpk80]

Oath appears to be absent so far

The best performing Oath deck is unplayable on MODO so it comes as no surprise that Oath, Dragon, and Bomberman are missing. 

[Commandant]

Because skill intensive.

What's it like to be a "hasbeen"?

This was totally unnecessary - Full Warning for inflammatory posting.

Given this is your third Full Warning for inflammatory posting this year, and you have also received a Verbal Warning for similar conduct, you are banned from TMD for 1 month. This is a first ban. If or when you return, please post civilly, or don't post at all.

-Godder

[MaximumCDawg]

Eh... the metagame breakdown has always been tricky.  It's true that Blue decks try to do different things.  I think the only reason we even have a "blue" core is because of counterspells, card draw, and restricted Alpha spells.  They're just so powerful that they slot into many different decks trying to do many different things.  Some are playing a tempo game.  Some are looking for a combo finish.  Some are playing control.  They use the same core of spells very differently depending on the goal.  I mean, it's totally fair to talk about how they play differently.

Shops has just as much skill involved, but from the exterior the game plans LOOK much more similar from archetype to archetype.  You still deploy lock pieces and play a hard control role.  I think people would agree that Robots gets its own category, but it's harder to see the difference between Shops decks running Forgemaster versus no Forgemaster than to see the difference between Delver and Tezzeret, for example.

So, let's all give each other a break here, huh?

[madmanmike25]

Shops aren't going away. They're just not going to be the clear best deck anymore.

Just curious, when were Shops the clear best deck?  Most tournament results don't support that statement.  I agree that Shop decks will not vanish, but I honestly predict Chalice will get unrestricted.....eventually.  It will probably take a few restriction cycles though.