Hey thanks for posting this - this was my appearance on David's excellent podcast, Geeks Guide to the Galaxy. Hopefully it reached a wider Magic audience or some number of lapsed players who might be tempted back to the game. Certainly been a few pick up their cards again since reading my book, which is nice to hear.
Thanks for the support, glad you enjoyed this.
@Islandswamp My wife points out that it might be even sicker tech in a white eldrazi deck that was running Karakas. Now you can bounce any creature on the board with an uncounterable tap? Now you can disappear the mentor if they drive up the prowess, or rip their hand apart turn after turn with a single TKS.
Not sure if there is as much room to jam it in to that deck though.
@Smmenen That's fair, I was unaware of the previous discussions and will do some reading in the linked thread.
Another way to read scenario 1i is that the format is Deck A vs Deck Anti-A (Z?) and they knocked themselves out of the tournament - it's a technically bad choice because of the over-representation, but it's also a bad format.
I recognize that we don't have hard data to pull from, but I think that the Top 8 is a much more limited pool and we ought to do what we can (redesign match slips or how things are reported) to have a full metagame report, but until those steps are taken, do some kind of poll or take into account people's feelings on the events. The feelings of the participants, not the sour grapes on losing but just the general sense of how the tournament felt, is valuable data in this entirely elective pursuit.
So if polling people gets a consensus, then we ought to take that consensus into account.
And maybe it's in the thread, but how do we weight the winner of the tournament? It's still got some amount of variance and is match up dependent and the tournament isn't round robin, etc. So if the winner doesn't get a weight, then it seems that the Top 8 is getting an undue weight in statistics.
But ultimately, if it's the only data we have then I guess we just use it as we can for now and work on changing other reporting solutions. It is unfortunate that WotC doesn't want to share as much of the data from MTGO with us.
Game 1 Turn 2: Blind-naming Force of Will is interesting. You didn't have other action to win that turn and you were very likely to hit more Therapies with double Bazaar active next turn and a couple of big Dredgers available. I would lean towards Time Walk, Containment Priest, Monastery Mentor, or Preordain there (having seen Library and a discard of a blue fetch). With two Therapies there is at least a case to name Force (and push through the second Therapy on a real card) but I think when the Therapy resolves that's a reasonable indication that there's not a critical card being protected (specifically because Force is such a common card to name)
For the Game 1 reanimation sequence, I think nailing Black Lotus and his dual land is probably better than hitting both his lands (his perspective makes that clear, but I think it's true in general). I didn't track your Therapies closely enough but you might have been able to nail all his permanents by sacrificing the Archon to a Therapy and bringing it back, which I think would be the best line. I think Ruric Thar is unusually weak because he's running Swords to Plowshares, which you should be able to deduce because you saw Monastery Mentor.
Game 2 Turn 2: He had only 3 cards and 2 lands in play, so I'm also iffy on the Monastery Mentor name here. I think you're far enough ahead that you should just name Ravenous Trap. If you're worried about Mentor I think Gush might be the correct card to name as land, Mentor, Gush is the most likely hand to beat you from that point and Gush is valuable without Mentor but Mentor is not valuable without Gush or Black Lotus (even if one of the cards is a Mox he would have to topdeck the final ingredient in a four-card exact lineup just to cast a cantrip). It was reasonable to identify Mentor as the biggest threat, but I don't think naming Mentor is the highest-value way to address that threat.
@ribby I've given it some thought and I think I'll add a tab to the CDF tool that does what the website you linked does, but includes mulligans as well. Thanks to you and @wappla for the conversation here :)
My next article will likely be an update to the CDF and example questions/answers to questions like wappla's (but done without approximation and including mulligans.
@Macdeath said in Vintage 101: More Masters Sets Please!:
I'll admit my experience at building and playing this deck are limited , but I don't understand how you can run 4 smashers after cutting eldrazi temple? I would think that as soon as you remove temple, tks and smasher would follow. It's a whole package, as even displacer gets a lot worse without temple. Wouldn't you be better off just playing white trash with ancient tomb for thorn and chalice at that point?
I agree. Could even just play Stoneforge Mystic rather than Smashers.
@themonadnomad I don't know. That belongs to Kael Williams, and I forget his TMD name so I can't tag him. He has an entire set and I agree they're very nice. I'd like to have some myself, as I'm not going to be buying real power anytime soon (probably ever).
That last sentence was great. Though, I think Mentor/Gush may have gone beyond that and deserve at least a discussion on restriction or not. However, there is a lot of truth to that sentence.
It's common in Magic, where the best deck is always talked about needing a restriction, no matter the format.
Standard = Saheeli / Goat thingy / Heart of Kiran
Modern = Mox Opal / Tron Lands / Become Immense
Legacy = Brainstorm / Sensei's Divining Top
Vintage = Mentor / Workshop / Gush / Mental Misstep
EDH = Iona / Dead Eye Navigator
Obviously that's not everything and that ebbs and flows, but that's the last I recall at least. I'm not saying some of those restrictions are or not warranted, just going by what I hear.