The actual effect of Restricting Chalice

[TheMonadNomad]

Agreed.  I don't think it ever was the best deck.  It was, however, a solid deck that played on an axis (locking opponents out) Wizards now frowns upon.

[desolutionist]

I've played against "the best performing Oath deck" as well as other Oath variants in the tournament practice room. I'm also positive that there were some Oath decks in the 100 that played in the tournament. The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results. The same goes for Dragon, which is playable on MTGO. The win conditions of these decks are no more tedious than Vault/Key. They're just not good enough to go 3-1 in a daily or top16 the P9 tournament, therefore the decklists aren't in the database.

I'm not saying it's impossible. There just hasn't been anyone to dedicate enough time to developing the decks for the new meta.  Oath was once very popular on MTGO and it could one day reach that level once again.

[diophan]

I've played against "the best performing Oath deck" as well as other Oath variants in the tournament practice room. I'm also positive that there were some Oath decks in the 100 that played in the tournament. The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results.

I'm going to say with almost full confidence that no one playing Brian's deck on MTGO has enough experience with it to make the conclusion that the reason it's not putting up results is because it's not good enough.

[wappla]

agree. A lot of people looked at Brian's 75, decided a priori what type of deck it was, changed ten cards, and then stopped playing it after they didn't win 80% of their games.

[vaughnbros]

I've played against "the best performing Oath deck" as well as other Oath variants in the tournament practice room. I'm also positive that there were some Oath decks in the 100 that played in the tournament. The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results.

I'm going to say with almost full confidence that no one playing Brian's deck on MTGO has enough experience with it to make the conclusion that the reason it's not putting up results is because it's not good enough.

Brian's deck is not even playable on MODO due to its inability to execute a loop... If you see someone playing it there they clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding on what the deck is trying to do (Salvagers)

[brianpk80]

The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly delusional.  What to you qualifies as a "decent" result?

The same goes for Dragon, which is playable on MTGO.

No, it isn't and neither is any deck that's premised on Auriok Salvagers combo (which omits Salvagers Oath and Bomberman) or any arbitrarily large quantity of repeated actions.

[vaughnbros]

The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly delusional.  What to you qualifies as a "decent" result?

Well apparently winning the largest Vintage tournament ever certainly doesn't.

[desolutionist]

What I'm saying is that the metagame is different now and Oath, in it's current form, has problems obviously.  I haven't tested it personally but have read from people who have tested it and they say it has problems.  I have also seen that it has not put up good results lately.

I'm also saying that Salvagers is perfectly able to be executed to similar extent that KeyVault can be executed.  I already said that I seen someone in the tournament practice room with the deck and he was executing the loops just fine.  There are actually available programs that aid the sequence (If you're dedicated enough)

I'm blatantly delusional for staying on topic of this thread... Which is post Chalice/Thirst metagame. Not talking about Eternal Champs what so ever.

Salvagers has no bearing on the playability of Oath, but maybe the recent restriction of Chalice/Dig and the unrestriction of Thirst does impact Oath

[vaughnbros]

I'm blatantly delusional for staying on topic of this thread... Which is post Chalice/Thirst metagame. Not talking about Eternal Champs what so ever.

Its just confusing as to how the deck that won the largest tournament in Vintage history just one month ago is now completely irrelevant, and simply calling it "not good enough to put up results" is not a sufficient reason given these facts.

[desolutionist]

Because it was a different format one month ago, vaughnbros. That's exactly what this thread is titled. It's acknowledging the fact the metagame has shifted 180 degrees

[vaughnbros]

Because it was a different format one month ago, vaughnbros. That's exactly what this thread is titled. It's acknowledging the fact the metagame has shifted 180 degrees

The metagame did not shift 180 degrees... More like a 360 and we are still dizzy.  Mentor, delver, dredge, workshops were all in that top 8 as well those decks haven't disappeared.  A large part of the current shift is temporary right now due to hype (more thirst), and anger (less shops).

[Hrishi]

Because it was a different format one month ago, vaughnbros. That's exactly what this thread is titled. It's acknowledging the fact the metagame has shifted 180 degrees

If you are only looking at results after champs, there haven't been enough events for anything to put up decent results. As far as I know, there have been 2 events of any decent size since champs which is certainly not enough to make a determination on viability based on results.

[matori]

Brian's deck is not even playable on MODO due to its inability to execute a loop... If you see someone playing it there they clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding on what the deck is trying to do (Salvagers)

Sorry to jump in, and with all due respect, but Randy Buehler looped me with Salvager- Lotus- Pyrite in last round of Power Nine Challenge last Saturday.
I even asked him if he is using some sort of script or something and he told me that he is doing it manualy.

[brianpk80]

Sorry to jump in, and with all due respect, but Randy Buehler looped me with Salvager- Lotus- Pyrite in last round of Power Nine Challenge last Saturday.
I even asked him if he is using some sort of script or something and he told me that he is doing it manualy.

When that happens, you're assuming an additional time penalty or subordinating many decisive wins to the discretion of an opponent who may or may not be sportsman/sportswomanlike.  The last time we tried it, it was undefeated except for a Landstill player who "won the match" 0-1.  Lost game 1, refused to concede to the combo game 2, and somehow this is considered match-victorious behavior on MODO.  The higher the stakes of the event, the less likely opponents would be to concede because "herp derp, winning is everything."

Salvagers has no bearing on the playability of Oath.

Dragon is playable on MODO; Auriok Salvagers has no bearing on Oath; winning Champs is not a "decent" result.  You're operating on a wavelength I find difficult to understand and I appreciate the comments above from Ryan, Lance, wappla, and Hrishi who have helped point out some of its more conspicuous inaccuracies.  

[matori]

Sorry to jump in, and with all due respect, but Randy Buehler looped me with Salvager- Lotus- Pyrite in last round of Power Nine Challenge last Saturday.
I even asked him if he is using some sort of script or something and he told me that he is doing it manualy.

When that happens, you're assuming an additional time penalty or subordinating many decisive wins to the discretion of an opponent who may or may not be sportsman/sportswomanlike.  The last time we tried it, it was undefeated except for a Landstill player who "won the match" 0-1.  Lost game 1, refused to concede to the combo game 2, and somehow this is considered match-victorious behavior on MODO.  The higher the stakes of the event, the less likely opponents would be to concede because "herp derp, winning is everything."

Personally- I enjoyed it. At first I was surprised and I wanted to concede since idea behind combo was clear, but he was comboing it very fast so there was no reason to do it. We even chat while he was doing it. He won that match 2-1

[desolutionist]

brianpk80, I don't appreciate your libel.  Im not interested in continuing this if youre going to continue to warp my message.  So why don't we start with the one you made up:

"winning champs is not a decent result"

I never once said this.  I know you're happy about winning, but it just isn't a part of this conversation.  This is an example of warping my words; it makes me think you're just trying to argue.  I'm not arguing; I'm stating facts and observations as it relates to the new metagame.

"Dragon is playable on MODO"

Of course it is.  Why continue to assume you can't? It may have more clicks than hatebears, but still within the managable realm of clicks.  It could even be less clicks than Vault/key.  But who cares about Dragon? The real issue at hand is your claim that MTGO is not a real metagame because of the false assumption that loops are unplayable.  Originally all I said that Oath had been absent as a top performer. Then you or whoever said that's because of Salvagers being too many clicks of a card.  So Dragon has nothing to do with this, but it is playable on MTGO.

"Salvagers has no bearing on Oath"

Most of the top Oath decks Ive seen last season play 2-3 Griselbrand.  Your list is the exception and you're crazy if you think that's the end all/be all of Oath decks.  Oath doesn't need Salvagers and Id even argue it shouldn't play Salvagers.  I'm sure you're already aware of the arguments against Salvagers in Oath, but Im not expecting you to admit that its not absolutely necessary.

I wish I could reply to all the people who will disagree with me for whatever random thing suddenly pops into their brain, but Im no longer interested in ~this~.  Im tired of people who just want to critique.  Oath is absent from MTGO deck databases because it hasnt performed well enough to do so.  End of story.

I challenge someone to state something new about this meta, instead of trying to critique whatever I said 4 days ago.

[vaughnbros]

brianpk80, I don't appreciate your libel.  Im not interested in continuing this if youre going to continue to warp my message.  So why don't we start with the one you made up:
...

I wish I could reply to all the people who will disagree with me for whatever random thing suddenly pops into their brain, but Im no longer interested in ~this~.  Im tired of people who just want to critique.  Oath is absent from MTGO deck databases because it hasnt performed well enough to do so.  End of story.

Funny as you were the one that started the critiques of Brian's deck.  In case you forgot here is the direct quote:

I've played against "the best performing Oath deck" as well as other Oath variants in the tournament practice room. I'm also positive that there were some Oath decks in the 100 that played in the tournament. The reason it's absent is because It hasn't been good enough to put up decent results. The same goes for Dragon, which is playable on MTGO. The win conditions of these decks are no more tedious than Vault/Key. They're just not good enough to go 3-1 in a daily or top16 the P9 tournament, therefore the decklists aren't in the database.

I'm not saying it's impossible. There just hasn't been anyone to dedicate enough time to developing the decks for the new meta.  Oath was once very popular on MTGO and it could one day reach that level once again.

By all means though if you want to be self deprecating on your own cynicism go for it, but there is no need to disrespect the World Champ.

I challenge someone to state something new about this meta, instead of trying to critique whatever I said 4 days ago.

There is nothing to say about this meta because it doesn't exist yet.  We just had three major changes to the restricted list.  I know in the time of immediate satisfaction this may seem like a foreign concept, but have some patience.

[desolutionist]

I don't see critique of his deck in that quote.  "Best performing oath deck" is in quotes because that's what it had been referred to as previously in this thread.

[vaughnbros]

I don't see critique of his deck in that quote.  "Best performing oath deck" is in quotes because that's what it had been referred to as previously in this thread.

Are you kidding me?  The quotes are clearly a reference to your opinion that it is in fact not the best performing oath deck, and then the rest of your post smears the deck with rampant speculation on how you think the deck functions because you played it in the practice room.  LOL practice!  We talkin' ''bout practice here!  Not a game!  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI The key word there is also performing, and we have evidence that it is not only the best oath deck, but the best deck ever as it won the largest tournament in history.  I'm sorry, but playing the deck in the practice room on a platform where the deck doesnt function against an opponent who was learning to play it does not constitute sufficient evidence to rebuke the greatest achievement of Vintage history.

[brianpk80]

brianpk80, I don't appreciate your libel.  

Shawn, you don't know the meaning of the word as nothing above remotely qualifies.  You broadly stated the Dragonlord Oath deck hasn't put up "decent results" because it isn't "good enough."  I'm not highly defensive about my Magic "resume/career/creations/whatever" as you may be but that statement was so meanspirited and false it warranted a correction.  Dragon is not ergonomically playable on MODO and neither is Auriok Salvagers without assuming an unnecessary time penalty that can prove woefully dispositive in an arena where there are a lot of scrubs who value winning unfairly over sportsmanship.  Ie: online equivalents of the Tangle Wire jackass v. Roland Chang at Champs.

Most of the top Oath decks Ive seen last season play 2-3 Griselbrand.  Your list is the exception and you're crazy if you think that's the end all/be all of Oath decks.  Oath doesn't need Salvagers and Id even argue it shouldn't play Salvagers.  I'm sure you're already aware of the arguments against Salvagers in Oath, but Im not expecting you to admit that its not absolutely necessary.

It's not the be-all-of-Oath-decks but it's obvious to everyone who's lucid here that the reason you see Griselbrand Oath overrepresented online while Dragonlord Salvagers Oath is more popular in paper now is that Auriok Salvagers is not pragmatically playable on MODO.  It's the same reason people don't play Bomberman itself on that platform but defeat opponents all day long in person. 

I challenge someone to state something new about this meta, instead of trying to critique whatever I said 4 days ago.

Ok.  The largest paper Vintage tournament since the B&R update was won by two Mentor decks that split first place, one running two separate Dragonlords.  The Top 8 contained zero copies of Tendrils of Agony.

[youhavenogame]

an arena where there are a lot of scrubs who value winning unfairly over sportsmanship.  Ie: online equivalents of the Tangle Wire jackass v. Roland Chang at Champs.

How is it unsporting to do something that is perfectly fine within the rules of the client? I can see where your anger comes from, but it's not the people's fault. If that is how chess clocks work, then so it be. I don't hear people complain about unsporting conduct when players decide to I.D. which is arguably as unsporting as your case. Just my humble opinion, but if you can't manage your time you probably deserve to lose. I'm not blaming you in general as I can see that it is on Wotcs side to clear these things up, but once you logged on Magic Online you agreed to lose if your timer hits 0. Does it suck? Sure. Is it a reason to complain? Of course. Is it unsporting to win a match that way? You may make arguments, but no player has done anything against the Code of Conduct, so from the Wotc point of view nothing unsporting happened.

Also, what was the mentioned incident with Roland Changs opponent? Is there any video footage?

[bactgudz]

In many cases, scooping to Salvagers online is not at all like scooping to Salvagers in paper.  It is like scooping to Vault-Key on turn 0 when time was called in paper.  Some call it sporting, some call it dumb, I prefer not to judge and let each man/woman play his/her game, having taken each of those paths myself at one point or another. Those of us who have been around mtgo long enough realize they are in fact different games.  It is super hard to lose with vault key online...very easy to draw in paper.

[diophan]

an arena where there are a lot of scrubs who value winning unfairly over sportsmanship.  Ie: online equivalents of the Tangle Wire jackass v. Roland Chang at Champs.

I don't hear people complain about unsporting conduct when players decide to I.D. which is arguably as unsporting as your case. Just my humble opinion, but if you can't manage your time you probably deserve to lose. I'm not blaming you in general as I can see that it is on Wotcs side to clear these things up, but once you logged on Magic Online you agreed to lose if your timer hits 0. Does it suck? Sure. Is it a reason to complain? Of course. Is it unsporting to win a match that way? You may make arguments, but no player has done anything against the Code of Conduct, so from the Wotc point of view nothing unsporting happened.

Reasoning like this is why we can't get people like Brian to play on Magic Online

In my 3rd round of EE3 I asked my opponent in G3 if we go to time if he'll agree to concede to whoever has a dominant board position. Time gets called and after the 5th turn my opponent has a mentor in play against my Dack and I concede. Is it against the rules for me to refuse to concede? No. Would it make my opponent really angry and possibly decrease the likelihood of him playing in the next tournament because of behavior like that? Certainly. A large part of the reason people like playing vintage in person is because the average player is very pleasant to deal with.

[brianpk80]

How is it unsporting to do something that is perfectly fine within the rules of the client? I can see where your anger comes from, but it's not the people's fault.  If that is how chess clocks work, then so it be. ... Just my humble opinion, but if you can't manage your time you probably deserve to lose.

To be clear, I don't have any anger over this issue, it's simply my perspective.  If there's a chess clock and someone uses it being unable to make decisions or needlessly complicating things, yes that would be a fair loss.  But if someone loses because they reach the deck's actual goal of assembling an infinite combo (and there are more, like that Daru Spiritualist Infinite life combo which might be pretty fun since no one's put any work into it since the release of Cavern of Souls), they haven't actually fairly lost the game of Magic.  If they time out as they never would in person, it's because the software is inept and unable to present the game as intended.  To win by exploiting that is not illegal but to do is to be the actual loser who technically wins due to a software fluke, by definition.  I would rather win cleanly.  Desperately exploiting every possible technical advantage is not critical to success in Magic (or anywhere, really); you can allow your opponents flexibility, create a more amicable environment, and do very well.  It's a lot more rewarding to have your win premised on the trinity of deck design, metagaming, and playskill rather than having "I cheesed my opponent and sleazed into the win" factor into it. 

Also, what was the mentioned incident with Roland Changs opponent? Is there any video footage?

I don't believe so, but there were written accounts.  If I had a link, I'd share.

[Prospero]

Gents, play nice.  Shawn has earned respect with many successful finishes over the last decade, and Brian has earned respect with his recent wins, including his Champs victory.  We're all adults, and there's no reason for a conversation to devolve to this point.  Stop.

[rikter]

How is it unsporting to do something that is perfectly fine within the rules of the client? I can see where your anger comes from, but it's not the people's fault.  If that is how chess clocks work, then so it be. ... Just my humble opinion, but if you can't manage your time you probably deserve to lose.

To be clear, I don't have any anger over this issue, it's simply my perspective.  If there's a chess clock and someone uses it being unable to make decisions or needlessly complicating things, yes that would be a fair loss.  But if someone loses because they reach the deck's actual goal of assembling an infinite combo (and there are more, like that Daru Spiritualist Infinite life combo which might be pretty fun since no one's put any work into it since the release of Cavern of Souls), they haven't actually fairly lost the game of Magic.  If they time out as they never would in person, it's because the software is inept and unable to present the game as intended.  To win by exploiting that is not illegal but to do is to be the actual loser who technically wins due to a software fluke, by definition.  I would rather win cleanly.  Desperately exploiting every possible technical advantage is not critical to success in Magic (or anywhere, really); you can allow your opponents flexibility, create a more amicable environment, and do very well.  It's a lot more rewarding to have your win premised on the trinity of deck design, metagaming, and playskill rather than having "I cheesed my opponent and sleazed into the win" factor into it. 

Also, what was the mentioned incident with Roland Changs opponent? Is there any video footage?

I don't believe so, but there were written accounts.  If I had a link, I'd share.

As I understand it, Roland had Tangle Wire out and his opponent raced through his upkeep to his draw step and did not tap down permanents to the Wire. When Roland pointed out that the guy needed to tap to Wire, the guy told him that he had missed the trigger and would not be tapping anything. A judge got involved and somehow sided with the scumbag. I don't know how it played out from there.


This is one area where MODO is better than paper, you can't grime somebody by just ignoring the priority passes and racing through steps. 

[gkraigher]

Did Roland appeal the judge's decision to the head judge?  

[Aaron Patten]

That is appalling! 
People race through steps all the time in casual around me but once pointed out we can always back up (even though new information has been gained) but if this is the judges ruling then it creates incentive for people to just cheat and pretend it was an accident.  This is exactly the kind of thing I was worried about when the latest rules change surrounding missed triggers was announced.  It doesn't make any sense.  Missing a mandatory trigger should be considered a game rule violation and the game should be backed up(within reason). 

[Wagner]

Missing a mandatory trigger should be considered a game rule violation and the game should be backed up(within reason). 

How do you back up in this scenario? Supposing you can identify the drawn card, can you put in back in the deck and shuffle to make the drawn card random again (supposing no library manipulation occured).

[rikter]

That is appalling! 
People race through steps all the time in casual around me but once pointed out we can always back up (even though new information has been gained) but if this is the judges ruling then it creates incentive for people to just cheat and pretend it was an accident.  This is exactly the kind of thing I was worried about when the latest rules change surrounding missed triggers was announced.  It doesn't make any sense.  Missing a mandatory trigger should be considered a game rule violation and the game should be backed up(within reason). 

I can't say exactly which judges got involved, I'm pretty sure the end result was that nothing got tapped though.

So I think part of the issue here regarding missed triggers is that Roland controlled the Wire and so it is his responsibility to declare it, not the opponent. In my experience with Vintage, people don't race through steps like that to try and grime someone on missed triggers, so you don't need to be super aggressive about announcing it. Hell, even when people do mess things up, I believe the Vintage set is much more likely to try and resolve the state without getting the judge involved...I usually only see judge calls in Vintage in situations where people can't figure it out on their own, or the game state has degenerated to the point where the judge is required. Thats what makes Roland's story all the more shocking.

I had something happen to me at a Legacy event earlier this year as well. I was up against a Star City pro who I'm not going to name, and earlier in the match I picked up a GRV. Fast forward a bit, and I have Trinisphere in play. The guy taps one mana, casts a ponder, and starts resolving it quickly. I look and see that he has only tapped 1, but I didn't want to call the judge because I was worried I was going to get Failure to maintain game state... even though I felt like he raced through so fast it wasn't my fault, it was going to be my word vs. his as to what had actually happened and I was concerned about picking up another violation. Later in the match, he did the same thing AGAIN. And again, I did not call the judge because I was worried about getting hit for FMGS. I didn't want to even point it out to him, because instead of just tapping the lands, he might have called the judge on himself, which would again result in FMGS for me.

To prove this was no fluke, after the match was over I went outside to smoke and I saw him out there and walked towards him. He saw me, and the first words out of his mouth were, "I cheated". I was really careful about what I said to him, because I feel like failing to report GRV's to avoid picking up a FMGS of your own is something that would not go over well. The whole incident just left a bad taste in my mouth.

@aaron patten

I feel like two non scumbag Vintage players (i.e. 99% of us) in this same situation would resolve it by just tapping the permanents without attempting to reconcile the card that had been seen, and trusting the guy who drew the card to be ethical about what he tapped down.