@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!
I think outcome mentor will continue to succeed as lists become better and better, cutting bad cards like drain for more efficient ones. Props to Hoffman for his list, which is about as aggressive as you can possibly be, and providing one end of the spectrum for us to compare decks to. My list has shifted to be slightly more aggressive (3 mentors instead of 2) but still doesn't include the synod/thoughtcast package and includes more md bounce to deal with thorns, rods, and stonys.
Sounds like an amazing event. I haven't played much Type 1 since Neutral Ground closed, but I'm starting to get back into it online. By next year I'll hopefully be back on form and ready to come to NYSE VI. Looking forward to it!
@The-Atog-Lord said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:
@Smmenen said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:
Many, if not most, Vintage players play this format because it is the final place we get to play all of our cards.
Well, we get to play Gush. Or Mana Drain. But they were nearly mutually exclusive.
Which merely underscores the unjustified and unprincipled nature of these restrictions.
The foundational principle of the format is that players get to play with all of their Magic cards so far as can be reasonably accommodated. That doesn't mean you have a right to have any card be "good."
If Mana Drain wasn't playable because of Gush that doesn't justify restricting Gush. There are literally thousands of cards pushed out or marginalized by other cards in Eternal formats.
Arguing that the restriction of Gush is a "good thing" because it makes Mana Drain better is not only unjustifiable, but it is reminiscent of the darkest days of the format, where Keeper pilots or even Brian Weissman had a heavy hand in B&R policy.
It's completely illegitimate, factional, and unprincipled.
Mana Drain does not have a right to be good in this format. A right to play it, sure. But manipulating the B&R list to make Mana Drain good is completely unjustifiable.
Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.