I did not see this article until the above post, but WOW, this article is full of unsubstantiated and factually incorrect claims.
"For Steve, Trinisphere was an acceptable restriction, as was Chalice of the Void, as was Lodestone Golem, but not Gush."
Wow, is this an inaccurate and false statement.
Just a few days before the restriction of Trinisphere, I was on record asserting that Trinisphere should not be restricted at that time:
What do you think should be restricted and what do you think will be restricted?
Stephen Menendian (Smmenen)
Should: Goblin Welder
Then, if you go back and listen to the podcast or read the old mana drain boards, I repeatedly and vocally opposed the restriction of Chalice of the Void.
Here's just one post example of that: http://www.archive.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=48138.msg667573#msg667573
If Chalice was actually the problem, then why was it allowed to exist for 12 years? It clearly was not the problem, to the extent that there was one, or it would not have been unrestricted all this time. Except the last 12 months and the first few months of its existence, there were few calls to restrict Chalice.
I suppose publishers will publish anything these days, but there are so many unsubstantiated and factually incorrect claims in this article, it's actually shocking.
Thank you both for recording this! I've been trying to find the reason why I am so unenthusiastic about the format lately. I thought it may have been about other reasons, such as my lack of budget to switch archetypes or my daily dose of Vintage being tainted by the vitrol of anonymous users on TMD and Facebook. The fact of the matter is, I don't want to play Mentor or against Mentor. Unfortunately it's the TOs, and not WotC, that count the dollar votes of an angry userbase due to the low percentage of new cards finding a spot in the metagame. While the post-restriction metagame was inspirational, it was solved rather quickly, and decks that I might have been able to play were easily showcased as simply not good enough. I hope the mismanagement of Vintage is just that, and not a WotC tactic to kill support and visibility of a format that most players are priced out of.
@evouga said in June 13, 2017 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
It's interesting that they considered reintroducing functional errata (a terrible idea, IMO).
I think you mean terrifying.
Functional errata happens all the time. What they were batting around clearly seems to be the old school Power Level Errata. Like, the sort of solution they came up with to "save" standard in Urza block.
When I said Kaladesh was the second coming of Urza, I didn't realize the analogy would go so deep.
@desolutionist I understand that Gifts is very good. I was just pointing out that in that blank Turn 1 scenario you pointed out (of 3 Moxen and Land) Outcome is better because it puts 3 cards in your hand + gives you 3 mana to work with.
Gifts will give you cards to work with next turn, which is way slower.
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage 101: More Power!:
@thecravenone said in Vintage 101: More Power!:
Cool article. I'd like a bit more than a list of what decks are doing well online. Maybe a deeper dive into why those decks are doing well and how they might change.
The Gush restriction went live 4/24. We'll (@diophan and I) do a data dump next week of the first month of Daily results.
Don't forget to data flush after you data dump.
@Smmenen I concur. I took your 4-0 mentor deck and tweaked it due to the cards I had (-2 flip jaces, +1 big jace, +1 Snapcaster) and had my first 4-0. The paradoxical outcome decks were so easy to beat when you can now main deck artifact hate.
@Teazia my new favorite is As Foretold+Ancestral Visions. Really good in slower control decks since then you also have the time to suspend Ancestral Vision on turn one without having to wait for As Foretold to cast AV immediately. .