A U/B winning list without Time Walk, Demonic Tutor, or blue Delve draw engine? How exotic is that? Murderous Cut over Dismember makes sense to me if you're not running the other Delve spells. I still feel I'm missing something, but maybe I'm not seeing outside the box.
It would be close to disastrous if workshop were to be restricted alone. Nothing but C-c-combo everywhere.
If shops is too good and needs restriction, then ancient tomb should go first but I say it shouldn't be restricted at the moment.
The situation isn't so cut and dry anymore. Wotc have shaped the current meta and it can only get worse on the current path.
Sphere needs to go.
Mentor needs to go.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind scrapping the current meta (B&R list) and starting from scratch. I believe Vintage is overdue for a rebirth.
@islandswamp said in Vintage Challenge - 8/12/17:
@smmenen Well, people can definitely play what they want more often on MTGO than anywhere else (besides 100% proxy and cockatrice, but for sanctioned, competitive play it's MTGO).
The other thing is that card availability on MTGO is instantaneous. Let's say I play one of my terrible brews and get frustrated with the results. Then I see how Thiim's awesome MUDrazi deck has been crushing people. So I add my entire deck to my trade binder, get a few hundred tickets, and buy Thiim's deck card for card. That process is as quick as five minutes (if you want to scout the best deal it could take longer).
This makes the case for paying attention to MTGO results as a barometer of the health of Vintage stronger, not weaker. Less stickiness in deck selection implies a "truer" representation of metagame composition and health of the format. The fact that Shops are so expensive on paper suggests that their actual metagame representation is artificially suppressed, especially in paper environments, relative to non-Shops strategies. That MTGO has greater substitutability generally makes it all the more remarkable that Shops are dominating.
@chubbyrain said in Vintage Challenge - 8/5/17:
Hope that answered your questions, Josh.
Great response and exactly what I was looking for. I know some players can get pretty micro on evaluation of a single tournament and when you are dealing with only 3-4 decks being able to skew percentages, I was wondering if you thought that significant. You and Ryan spend a ton of time on this and that's why I was curious if it was lining up with your personal experiences and perhaps biases. When you see the data in a total sum, I think it paints a clearer picture, and I would agree with every point you made. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
I do want to add a caveat to this, as someone who also played in these events.
The TO wasn't initially going to run them as Swiss. They were advertised as such. However, when we assembled at the Gathering Point, we were informed by a judge that because there were less than 16 of us that it had to be single-elimination if we wanted to play for the bye. We were told this is what Nick Coss wanted, and that the TO was simply going along with his wishes.
It was only after Solly personally called Nick that the TO reversed their stance, and we were allowed to play four Swiss rounds, with the 4-0 players receiving the bye.
@Khahan said in Vintage Challenge 7/29/17:
@BobbyVictory said in [Vintage Challenge 7/29/17]
I would guess its a meta-choice. Right or wrong, many feel that mentor falls too easily to shops.
That's definitely a possibility. Strangely, I feel pretty confident that Mentor is the best anti-shops deck right now. (Oath is possibly better, Oath is a deck I've never quite been able to understand).
Outside of mirrors, I don't feel like I've had a better shops matchup since before Lodestone was printed. If other Mentor players haven't been having the same experience, I don't know if that's just anecdotal luck on my part.
@PeAcH said in LCV 2017 - July - 25 Players - Barcelona - top16 decklists:
@hierarchnoble said in LCV 2017 - July - 25 Players - Barcelona - top16 decklists:
Do you happen to know the total number of players?
It's in the title :P 25 players (last year we used to have 6 rounds though)
Bah, my eyes scanned that as the event happening July 25 for some reason. Thanks for entertaining my dimwitted question.
I love seeing 2-Card Monte taking it home! It certainly helps that there was enough Dredge in the event to make the maindeck Leylines live threats.
@biggysmallz77 I'd love to hear about your experiences with the deck if you're up for writing a report (or mini-report, or rambling series of mostly coherent words).
I am interested to see the number of anti-shops cards that the PO decks were running, and also to know whether or not the shops decks were running null rod. same for how many stonys the mentor decks were running.
I guess in the top 32 lists we have 2 null rods in the 1st and 11th place shops decks.
12th place mentor deck has 1 stony in the board, 20th place has 3(!) in the board, and 32nd has 1.
I'd say all of the top 32 PO decks are softer to shops than my list...
Thanks for the replies @ChubbyRain, @Brass-Man and @KingLeovold. Pre restriction, I would always play a 2 - 2 split of Flusterstorm and Pyroblast in Mentor decks but have found Flusterstorm to be less good since the restriction.
Last week I spent an evening trying out Scabs' Esper Mentor deck. His list played 3 Flusterstorm and I was interested to see how it would perform against Jeskai Mentor. We played for about 5 hours and it didn't go well for Esper. One of the things I missed most was Pyroblast, especially because my friend was playing 2 Jace, TMS which was often quite tough to deal with.
As Matt said, I have also found that Flusterstorm is quite strong in Thirst for Knowledge & Paradoxical Outcome decks.
Thanks again for your replies!