[Free Article] Vintage 101: A New Year of Vintage - MTGGoldfish

[Islandswamp]

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/vintage-101-a-new-year-of-vintage

This week I wrote about the deck I've been playing, and I found a really interesting deck list in a DE result, so I shared that too. Enjoy.

[diophan]

Constructive feedback: your argument for preordain over ponder is backwards. If the top three cards are "so bad you have to shuffle" that's the exact situation where ponder is better than preordain, since with preordain you would draw the third bad card. In general if you're looking to assemble some sort of combo ponder will be better than preordain.

[Islandswamp]

Constructive feedback: your argument for preordain over ponder is backwards. If the top three cards are "so bad you have to shuffle" that's the exact situation where ponder is better than preordain, since with preordain you would draw the third bad card. In general if you're looking to assemble some sort of combo ponder will be better than preordain.

I get what you're saying. I cut ponder for the fourth preordain based on two things I had read. One was a post about a  deck that had cut ponder and done well, and the other was an oath deck built and played by people better than I at magic ( http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=47680.0 ) . I kept wondering how that person had found room for all the cards in their deck and I noticed they'd cut the ponder. So I tried it and it seemed fine.

[dangerlinto]

Preordain vs Ponder.

Let's take the situation where you Ponder in the mid-game and see Force of will, Land, Land.  If you really want that FoW, you have to accept your next two draws are lands (barring shuffling effects, which are at least moderately plentiful in decks running preordain and ponders).  Whereas with Pre-ordain, same situation, you get Force, move the land to the bottom and (unbeknownst to you) have only your next draw of a land. This is the kind of situation that makes Ponder look worse than Preordain.

I don't think this type of thinking is conducive to using these cards properly, or at least trying to judge whether using one over the other is the correct deck-building decision.  There are so many considerations to take into account.  The above situation doesn't make Ponder worse or Preordain better, but objectively it can probably be said that Preordain is the easier card to play, simply because while providing less information it simultaneously gives you slightly more flexibility.  Of course, less information is generally bad. Seeing three cards is better than seeing two cards.  I don't think I need to explain further than to say if the card with the best chance of either winning your game or increasing your chances to win the game is 3 cards from the top, why Ponder would shine over Preordain in such a situation.

[ObstinateFamiliar]

Preordain vs Ponder.

Let's take the situation where you Ponder in the mid-game and see Force of will, Land, Land.  If you really want that FoW, you have to accept your next two draws are lands (barring shuffling effects, which are at least moderately plentiful in decks running preordain and ponders).  Whereas with Pre-ordain, same situation, you get Force, move the land to the bottom and (unbeknownst to you) have only your next draw of a land. This is the kind of situation that makes Ponder look worse than Preordain.

I don't think this type of thinking is conducive to using these cards properly, or at least trying to judge whether using one over the other is the correct deck-building decision.  There are so many considerations to take into account.  The above situation doesn't make Ponder worse or Preordain better, but objectively it can probably be said that Preordain is the easier card to play, simply because while providing less information it simultaneously gives you slightly more flexibility.  Of course, less information is generally bad. Seeing three cards is better than seeing two cards.  I don't think I need to explain further than to say if the card with the best chance of either winning your game or increasing your chances to win the game is 3 cards from the top, why Ponder would shine over Preordain in such a situation.

My understanding of the reasoning for Preordain over Ponder in Oath was that the nature of the combo made the ability to bottom a blank more valuable than setting up your next few draws. If you already have Oath in play but you really need Orchard for instance, scrying those extra Oaths, Show and Tells, etc. to the bottom is probably better than shuffling them back into your deck and drawing a random card.

[Islandswamp]

Preordain vs Ponder.

Let's take the situation where you Ponder in the mid-game and see Force of will, Land, Land.  If you really want that FoW, you have to accept your next two draws are lands (barring shuffling effects, which are at least moderately plentiful in decks running preordain and ponders).  Whereas with Pre-ordain, same situation, you get Force, move the land to the bottom and (unbeknownst to you) have only your next draw of a land. This is the kind of situation that makes Ponder look worse than Preordain.

I don't think this type of thinking is conducive to using these cards properly, or at least trying to judge whether using one over the other is the correct deck-building decision.  There are so many considerations to take into account.  The above situation doesn't make Ponder worse or Preordain better, but objectively it can probably be said that Preordain is the easier card to play, simply because while providing less information it simultaneously gives you slightly more flexibility.  Of course, less information is generally bad. Seeing three cards is better than seeing two cards.  I don't think I need to explain further than to say if the card with the best chance of either winning your game or increasing your chances to win the game is 3 cards from the top, why Ponder would shine over Preordain in such a situation.

My understanding of the reasoning for Preordain over Ponder in Oath was that the nature of the combo made the ability to bottom a blank more valuable than setting up your next few draws. If you already have Oath in play but you really need Orchard for instance, scrying those extra Oaths, Show and Tells, etc. to the bottom is probably better than shuffling them back into your deck and drawing a random card.

That's what I was going for. If I rebuilt my list I could make a case for including a ponder in addition to the other cantrips. I didn't specifically mention this in the article, but I didn't mean to imply that the deck I put together was better than anyone else's deck, I simply wanted to explain the thought process that lead to the deck looking the way it does. I played that deck almost exclusively for maybe 100 matches (give or take a few, I'd have to look to be sure), and I tested the Lotus Petal and land configuration for a long time before deciding I liked it. Jace was in my list for a long time before being cut, and I wasn't playing Thoughtseize until around a month ago. I got smashed pretty bad by Rich Shay's Sylvan Mentor and I decided I needed more early interaction and I switched the deck up a bit.

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to build an Oath deck that plans for a longer game, or perhaps play something without Show and Tell. Obviously someone did pretty good at champs with a very different deck, so I'd be foolish to suggest that I had something better. I think it's a good deck though, but certainly not perfect.

[diophan]

Preordain vs Ponder.

Let's take the situation where you Ponder in the mid-game and see Force of will, Land, Land.  If you really want that FoW, you have to accept your next two draws are lands (barring shuffling effects, which are at least moderately plentiful in decks running preordain and ponders).  Whereas with Pre-ordain, same situation, you get Force, move the land to the bottom and (unbeknownst to you) have only your next draw of a land. This is the kind of situation that makes Ponder look worse than Preordain.

I don't think this type of thinking is conducive to using these cards properly, or at least trying to judge whether using one over the other is the correct deck-building decision.  There are so many considerations to take into account.  The above situation doesn't make Ponder worse or Preordain better, but objectively it can probably be said that Preordain is the easier card to play, simply because while providing less information it simultaneously gives you slightly more flexibility.  Of course, less information is generally bad. Seeing three cards is better than seeing two cards.  I don't think I need to explain further than to say if the card with the best chance of either winning your game or increasing your chances to win the game is 3 cards from the top, why Ponder would shine over Preordain in such a situation.

My understanding of the reasoning for Preordain over Ponder in Oath was that the nature of the combo made the ability to bottom a blank more valuable than setting up your next few draws. If you already have Oath in play but you really need Orchard for instance, scrying those extra Oaths, Show and Tells, etc. to the bottom is probably better than shuffling them back into your deck and drawing a random card.

Sorry if I'm derailing the thread into just talking about cantrips, but unless I misunderstand you I don't think this is correct. If you're looking for a specific card and it's in the top 3 then they both accomplish the same goal. If that card is not in the top 3 ponder will give you another shot at it. In a non-combo deck the argument could be made for preordain over ponder, but in a combo deck I don't see how preordain could be better. I believe the DCI keeps ponder restricted instead of switching them around because ponder enables more degeneracy.

[ObstinateFamiliar]

Preordain vs Ponder.

Let's take the situation where you Ponder in the mid-game and see Force of will, Land, Land.  If you really want that FoW, you have to accept your next two draws are lands (barring shuffling effects, which are at least moderately plentiful in decks running preordain and ponders).  Whereas with Pre-ordain, same situation, you get Force, move the land to the bottom and (unbeknownst to you) have only your next draw of a land. This is the kind of situation that makes Ponder look worse than Preordain.

I don't think this type of thinking is conducive to using these cards properly, or at least trying to judge whether using one over the other is the correct deck-building decision.  There are so many considerations to take into account.  The above situation doesn't make Ponder worse or Preordain better, but objectively it can probably be said that Preordain is the easier card to play, simply because while providing less information it simultaneously gives you slightly more flexibility.  Of course, less information is generally bad. Seeing three cards is better than seeing two cards.  I don't think I need to explain further than to say if the card with the best chance of either winning your game or increasing your chances to win the game is 3 cards from the top, why Ponder would shine over Preordain in such a situation.

My understanding of the reasoning for Preordain over Ponder in Oath was that the nature of the combo made the ability to bottom a blank more valuable than setting up your next few draws. If you already have Oath in play but you really need Orchard for instance, scrying those extra Oaths, Show and Tells, etc. to the bottom is probably better than shuffling them back into your deck and drawing a random card.

Sorry if I'm derailing the thread into just talking about cantrips, but unless I misunderstand you I don't think this is correct. If you're looking for a specific card and it's in the top 3 then they both accomplish the same goal. If that card is not in the top 3 ponder will give you another shot at it. In a non-combo deck the argument could be made for preordain over ponder, but in a combo deck I don't see how preordain could be better. I believe the DCI keeps ponder restricted instead of switching them around because ponder enables more degeneracy.

You are correct that Ponder "digs deeper" by ~ one card (slightly less since you could draw one of the cards you shuffled back), but by shuffling those blanks back into your deck you dilute the quality of subsequent draws. If you scry them to the bottom they stay there until you shuffle again so even if you miss on that 3rd card off the cantrips you know your next draw won't be one that you bottomed.

That being said, I haven't actually mathed any of this out to see how relevant it is -- I'm just explaining the reasoning I was given.  Honestly I think it's probably close to irrelevant whether you run 3/1 Preordain/Ponder vs. just 4 Preordain.  Personally I feel like I'd try to find room to run all 5 but I have seen several Fenton Oath style lists with no Ponder so maybe I'm missing something.

[brianpk80]

Ryan is right that Ponder is better to dig for something specific.  I do also appreciate how Oath decks may get more mileage from Preordain because:

1. Due to Orchard, they lack the huge raw totals of fetchlands that allow you to shuffle away cards you wouldn't want to draw.
2. Oath of Druids decks have the largest quantity of cards that you don't ever want to draw.  It makes the lone dead draw Tinkerbot seem positively benign by contrast.
3. Knowing for sure a given card is on the bottom or second bottom of library helps insure against self milling, partcularly for those running commando style Oath (no Journey or Blessing). 

[diophan]

Thanks for the points Brian. I knew the reason had to be something other than just digging.

[Islandswamp]

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read this week's article and I have a special thanks to all who made comments. One of my favorite aspects of Vintage is that it is a very deep and complex format. Discussion of something like preordain versus ponder seems so trivial on the surface but the more we talk about it the more that the true depth of the subject comes to light I think that everyone made very good points about ponder and preordain and I'm glad that my work spurred such a conversation 😊