No idea, unfortunately. Remember that the earlier chapters were written years ago. The editor and I have to go through the entire book with a fine tooth comb (I've already re-written and expanded the Introduction and Chapter 1 - but it hasn't been uploaded yet). Then we have to format it for a physical book, and work on the layout. There are a number of places I want to 'touch up' and update the book. It's really up to you whether you want to wait or not, but my guess is September or October.

I enjoyed this a lot, especially the Metagame analysis and prediction. This tournament has very unique attributes (Price, non-proxy, location, timing) which I was pleasantly surprised that you debated and came to a logical consensus on. For what it’s worth, I think there will be more Jeskai and less Shops which is more in line with Steve than Kevin’s predictions. I may have missed this, but I would have liked for a prediction of attendance, because I think that will determine a lot of the Metagame. My thought is somewhere between 100 and 150 players and I think the expected metagame will be different at 100 vs 150 players. Vintage is a format with a lot of die hards who show up and play their deck regardless of what is at the top of the heap. I think that if this event got to 200 players the meta would more closely resemble NA EW 2017 than Waterbury. One thing which is more a compliment to the work that Ryan Matt do than a criticism of your analysis is the limited value of just having Top8 data as compared to full MW% by archetype. I know you cannot control what data is published and available, but in your analysis I think it would be beneficial to spend less time stressing what deck won the event. It goes without saying, but there are a lot of factors other than what archetype someone played that contribute to whether someone makes Top8 or not let alone wins the event outright. I think more value could be drawn from looking at the non-stock cards in the lists rather than Workshops Top8%.

Erayo is good against the control and xerox decks of the format. It's bad against Shops, Dredge and Combo. Metagame accordingly.

@dshin quantifiable and objective can be very different things.

Y'all mentioned in passing at the start of the podcast the possibility of the Vintage community maintaining its own B&R list, separate from WotC's own list. Is there any historical precedent for this? Have any major past Vintage tournaments experimented with a custom restricted list?

@grandpabelcher I havent played enough of these to have 9 top 8s. I do also have 2 last place finishes or close to it. I either come in first, second, third or last.

@jaco said in [Book] Eldrazi Meditations: For those who have purchased this book in the past, what updates or issues do you wish to see addressed in future versions? What else would you like to read, or thought could use more detail (or was not addressed)? Feel free to post here or email me at jaco@eternalcentral.com, as I'm always looking for feedback. I will update this at some point, I just don't know when with the other stuff that's on the calendar that needs to be finished beforehand. A tournament report from Eternal Weekend 2017, or at least a detailed description of how you arrived at that decklist, would be a great start.

That's not the issue. It would be too cumbersome to track when we haven't figured out any details of the book whatsoever. We don't know how long it's going to be in print, let alone how much the book would be. There are so many details that have to be ironed out that we haven't even begun to discuss. Stuart sent me some great feedback. If you do get the chapter, be sure to post your thoughts!

I pet my Juzams also

@dshin said in [Article] 100 Matches with the Best Deck in Magic: @smmenen said in [Article] 100 Matches with the Best Deck in Magic: Actually, Max's article is a devastating argument against the case for restricting Misstep. Restricting Misstep will just replace those slots with other cards that are bad against Shops, so restricting Misstep will have no net effect on Shops. Restricting Misstep won't make Shops weaker in the metagame. If Missteps get replaced by Pyroblasts, that indeed will have little effect on the blue-vs-blue match, and also on the blue-vs-shops match. However, there can be effects on other matchups that can theoretically have cascading effects. Misstep differs from Pyroblast in that it has utility against non-blue decks, some of which might match up favorably against shops. For example, Vintage Lands. Restricting Misstep could make a deck like Vintage Lands more playable, which could force shops to devote more sideboard slots to that matchup, which could weaken shops as a whole. As it stands, shops decks are effectively able to pack hate against Vintage Lands without using up a single slot in their 75. Instead, they are packing the required hate in the 75 of their blue opponents. Vintage.. Lands!? Well, since that deck couldn't be any less playable than it already is, I guess you're right. The only thing restricting Misstep accomplishes is that even more start playing red in combination with blue than what we already see right now. Color combinations like UWB will get pushed out in the dark.

I since changed the file, so I had to reconstruct it as best as I could recall. It would help if I could just link to the Results site, but alas, no entry on February 10th...

@womba said in Math and Max: A statistical analysis of "100 Matches with the Best Deck in Magic": Additionally, I had MULTIPLE OPPONENTS keep cards like Mental Misstep and Gush in against me, on the draw no less. Good points added. It's generally not right to keep Misstep in but I figured I would add that Oath pilots should generally keep 1 (possibly 2) in post sideboard due to the importance of stopping Grafdigger's Cage. If they weren't on Oath, they probably have no excuse aside from "I just had so many Pyroblasts and Flusterstorms I didn't have enough cards to take out" in which case, again, no excuse. :-D

It's pretty surreal that the series is almost done. I literally have one chapter left to finish writing, and the other three are under various stages of editing. That said, I'm still putting the call out there for players to: spot errors share anecdotes or stories that might be used in the main body or in an endnote identify big tournaments I missed send photos or graphics we can include These chapters are dirt cheap - just spare pocket change - so I really hope that folks can help crowd source these answers. The chapters will need to be reformatted for the book, and so we'll be doing another edit through all of them for the book. But once that's done, and the book is published, it will be too late to add or correct anything. I'm hoping that this book will be a definitively history of the format to be enjoyed by all Magic players for years to come. So PLEASE be sure to help with the items above. Anyone complaining that I missed something will be immediately directed to this thread in a few months, when the book is finally published.

@smmenen said in [Premium article] History of Vintage - Schools of Magic: 2012: And modest, too, I see. ;) I learned from you. :)