As promised here are the point totals under our 2017 season scoring system. 3 points for a win, 2 for a tie and 1 for a loss for each round played. At the end of the year, the top 8 players will be invited to a special tournament hosted by Jason at Deal Me In Games. In alphabetical order for now because, lets see you sort thru and score 5 rounds of 25 players plus a top 8 and keep your sanity!
Josh Barkon - 20
Jeremy Beaver - 9
Joe Brennan - 17
Matt Buck - 11
Max Clark - 9
Samantha Dayton - 6
William Dayton - 16
Josh Fuller - 11
Stephen Ganter - 3
John Geras - 9
Chuck Greb - 11
Sean Higgins - 5
Greg Hoover - 9
Chris Hopkinson - 9
Evan Hundertmark - 9
Nicholas Kirkenbauer - 9
Josh Lalo - 20
Joel Lim - 11
Dan Miller - 7
Josh Potucek - 17
Josh Richards - 11
Keith Seals - 15
William Sees - 13
Dan Sollazzo - 7
Chris Varosky - 13
Top 8 as of now:
Josh Barkon 20
Josh Lalo 20
Joe Brennan 17
Josh Potucek 17
William Dayton 16
Keith Seals 15
William Sees 13
Chris Varosky 13
Our next tournament will be in April. We are eyeing the second Saturday. Check the forums and the Vintage facebook group soon for confirmation.
I've missed the last two Power 9 Challenges, sadly. I need to plan my schedule better. If I had made it, Oath would have performed better.
I'm generally happy for Saheeli Oath to continue to be underrated. If I sideboard correctly and play patiently, I can beat other Gush decks reasonably well.
Meanwhile, Shops is a good matchup if I can counter the first disruption spell (Thorn, Sphere, Revoker, etc.) and either lay down an Oath or get a Dack on the board. White Eldrazi, however, is a real problem: the new Thalia is even more painful than the old Thalia.
If I were to say anything about the results of this challenge, it would be that the MTGO meta is really swingy. People really move back and forth across the archetypes. There are some of us who play one archetype exclusively, or at least 90%+ of the time, but more people seem to really react strongly to the last big tournament.
What happened, wappla? You used to actually contribute things of worth to the Vintage community.
Perhaps it was meant to be a rhetorical question but it says quite a bit when you even have to ask it.
Take a look at his post history. Almost every single independent theory, deck list, and point he has tried to make has either fallen on deaf ears or been met by a wall of idiocy that would rival anything President Trump has planned.
There's a reason why the majority of invested pros have washed out of consistent Vintage discussion, it's often a waste of time on pubic forums such as this and contending with arm chair Vintage pros get's pretty tiresome I'd imagine.
Most people in my circle of Vintage friends value Wappla's theories and lists. They dislike the passive aggression in recent posts (not just by him and you) and have started to avoid TMD as a result. The problem is those types of posts do nothing to raise the signal to noise ratio of content or change the culture of the online community.
I'm not aware of any Magic-related forum that has active participation from pros. For the most part, competitive Magic takes place in teams and most pros only really interact with the community at large through paid articles and occasionally comments on those articles. Or Twitter, but that's hardly the same medium.
This is a fair point but I've been part of this community since 2002 and I've watched plenty of pros get pushed out who were trying to interact on more levels then mentioned.
@PeAcH you can start an account on MTGGoldfish for free and that allows you to post your results there. It's simple cut and paste and I'd consider it a favor if you all did this. let me know if I can help.
@spook My pleasure. I really do love doing it, and props to these fellas one for doing the real work and making this possible.
As for Missteps, I'm not really sure what it says about how to play or build around Misstep yourself in the micro level. On the macro level, it certainly shows that Misstep makes for this odd prisoner's dilemma, since the more an opponent plays Misstep, the more valuable additional Missteps are for you as well. (Assuming there are any other CMC1 spells in either deck to begin with.)
I think on the micro, level you want to decide what you think your specific Missteps are trying to (mostly) do in your specific deck, amid this play environment where you know opposing Missteps are everywhere. I'm seeing a lot of these decks that are blue and run few or no Missteps (Brian Kelly for example isn't on the no-Misstep list, but he only ran 2) and they tend to be these super aggressive combo style things, ala Reid Duke.
For more defensive hard control deck, I would guess that more Missteps might be better?
A side thought I had is, if people really did want to restrict a card that would balance out Shops decks, I really think the card to restrict would be Misstep. It would make blue decks automatically spend fewer card slots fighting each other, and make the field of non-taxing effect decks have far fewer dead cards game one against Shops/Eldrazi/Hatebears type things. Plus you would see expanded use of things like Dark Ritual/Deathrite Shaman/and Crop Rotation which are pretty good cards yet almost unplayable right now because of Misstep saturation. I feel like, in total, the deck that would be most hurt by restricting Misstep, ironically, would be Shops.
Full disclosure, I'm not saying that all should happen, only that if Misstep was restricted that I'm pretty confident those would be the effects.
I'm torn. Out of principle I don't think that Misstep should be restricted (because it's clearly not overpowered), but on the other hand I think that it would be very good for Vintage if it was.
I also don't entirely agree with your assessment. From a theoretical point of view, the shorter the games go, the better Misstep is. Reid Duke's deck doesn't care too much about opposing Missteps, so that's why it's not needed in his build.
@Winterstar I saw some workshops, dredge, and I saw paradoxical outcome when I opened the decks multiple times. I suppose Stax and regular shops aren't exactly the same, but they're similar enough to combat. All of the sideboard slots are dedicated to beating the other decks in the top 8 and felt super narrow.
@socialite Maybe I've just been running well, playing against idiots, or a combination of both; but I feel like the paradoxical outcome matchup is extremely in my favor, the mentor matchup is relatively easy, and the shops matchup is fine pre-sideboard and even better post-sideboard. Oath is also pretty easy to beat, and obviously I'm packing enough hate to beat dredge.