SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?"
-
This is a quote from an earlier thread:
I said: "I predict that if Gush is restricted it's more likely that Mentor decks become a larger part of Vintage metagame than the probability that it becomes a smaller part."
In other words, I think the probability that Mentor increases as a portion of the Vintage metagame is greater than the probability that restricting Gush will shrink it. I realize that's counterintuitive, but that's what I think.
You make it pretty clear here that you think this will be the case, and that you are predicting. Your stance and language on this seems to have have gotten much stronger. What has changed in the last couple of weeks to make you think this is a forgone conclusion now?
And yes, you've brought up multiple times how you think more combo oriented broken Mentor lists will start to take over (and Gush is the thing "saving" us):
Gush is a pretty slow card and a big disincentive to playing fulll Moxen, let alone Mana Crypt, etc. Mentor decks want to play Mentors faster with more artifact mana for faster Mentors and monk production. If Gush is restricted, we're gonna see more big mana blue Mentor decks with Top like the 8th place deck from EW Europe (with Delve spells) or like Brian Pallas's deck from the 2015 Vintage Champs top 8. But much better and more tuned. Without Gush in the metagame, I think there is a real danger Mentor will become worse, not better.
That is one of many quotes on the subject.
Even if all these players stayed on some version of Mentor. What exactly is drawing more players to play Mentor?
My argument is that any loss of Mentor decks in the Vintage metagame resulting from the restriction of Gush will be equaled or surpassed by the number of new Mentor decks that arrive in more traditional blue shells. Reasoning is presented more systematically above.Please answer my question. What decks are decreasing in %? Are you implying that Shops will decrease in %? Dredge? Eldrazi?
-
Could you provide an actual argument as to why restrictions intended to revive or support some strategic class are "illegitimate"? What do you mean by illegitimate? I think if the DCI makes that decision it's a legitimate decision (I.e. those really are the rules), and I think you would agree, but would say the decision is bad or mistaken despite being legitimate. I think the use of 'legitimacy' as a concept is inappropriate here.
I get that you don't want the DCI to resurrect Keeper (or Control Slaver or Grixis Control or whatever) but what is actually wrong with the attempt? Almost all UNrestriction announcements seem to be worded as attempts to do exactly the thing you are saying is bad (that is, B&R decisions to strengthen particular strategies)
-
Also its Gush Mentor that is specifically 23%. Paradoxical Mentor is a separate category under Storm for MtgTop8. MtgGoldfish also estimates Gush Mentor specifically at 24%. That archetype itself has a large portion of the metagame, on par with Martello before the Chalice restriction.
If Mentor decks maintain increase their % of the Vintage metagame if Gush is restricted, it will be because the diminution of singleton Gush decks with delve cards is smaller than expected and/or because that diminution is offset by an equal or greater number of non-Gush blue Mentor decks. The estimates or projectsion to support this conclusion are reasonable and drawn from data and an understanding of the current metagame.
No where in here your formulation do you prove the greater portion. You only bring up how these current Gush Mentor decks will transition into different types of Mentor decks.
Its also way more than 45-50% blue right now. We are more like at 60% based on what's in Mtgtop8.
-
Its also way more than 45-50% blue right now. We are more like at 60% based on what's in Mtgtop8.
Vintage has and will always have a high percentage of blue. There are 43 cards on the restricted list, and blue has the most powerful & highest quantity out of all the other colors.
Artifacts: 16
Black: 7
Blue: 13
Green: 2
Land: 3
Red: 1
White: 1http://mtgtop8.com/topcards?f=VI&meta=71
Now look at the Top 20 cards played in the format.
8 artifact mana
3 lands (strip, waste, delta)
6 restricted blue (ancestral, brainstorm, dig, ponder, time walk, treasure cruise)
3 unrestricted blue (force, misstep, preordain)Not on shops, white eldrazi, or dredge? Say your prayers, eat your vitamins, and fill your deck with busted blue cards. Tired of blue shell decks? Maybe Modern or Standard would be more to your liking.
FWIW, I play ravager shops, white eldrazi, BUG oath, UWR mentor, and UBR storm. I'm a nobody but I've been having fun in Vintage/type 1 ever since I picked up my first handful of Alliances boosters back in middle school. I've always been from the school of letting the format develop naturally through the future printing of cards.
-
@seksaybish said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
I've always been from the school of letting the format develop naturally through the future printing of cards.
Yeah, me too. The DCI kinda killed that off when they restricted card after card in quick succession in recent history.
-
@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
This is a quote from an earlier thread:
I said: "I predict that if Gush is restricted it's more likely that Mentor decks become a larger part of Vintage metagame than the probability that it becomes a smaller part."
In other words, I think the probability that Mentor increases as a portion of the Vintage metagame is greater than the probability that restricting Gush will shrink it. I realize that's counterintuitive, but that's what I think.
You make it pretty clear here that you think this will be the case, and that you are predicting. Your stance and language on this seems to have have gotten much stronger. What has changed in the last couple of weeks to make you think this is a forgone conclusion now?
By making it clear in post 102 that I was talking about estimates with confidence intervals (recall the extended discussion of temperature/climate and DOW Jones averages), I thought it was clear I was talking about probability, not "forgone conclusions." I've been consistently talking in terms of probability, forecasts, and estimates.
Post 112 was my most systematic attempt to estimate or forecast those forecast bands for various strains of Mentor. You specifically asked me my reasoning. I presented general principles, background metagame data, and then, building on those, presented my specific range estimates. After presenting forecasts, I requested that you tell me what your estimates are for those subgroupings if you disagree with my conclusion.
Going back to post 102, I set out three possibilities, and said that I believed (2) or (3) were more likely than (1). That doesn't mean it's a "forgone conclusion." Probability doesn't work that way. As for my statement that "If you've been paying attention, I've been arguing throughout this entire thread that if Gush is restricted, either (2) or (3) will happen." That doesn't mean I'm saying that (2) or (3) will happen. Rather, I'm saying that I'm developing an argument that, together, they are more probable. I would have thought would have been clear from a full reading of the post.
And yes, you've brought up multiple times how you think more combo oriented broken Mentor lists will start to take over (and Gush is the thing "saving" us):
What??
Now you've really lost me. That's not at all what I've been saying in any of these threads. For example, read this post in another thread or re-read post 112 in this one. My main point isn't that Gush is saving us from combo oriented Mentor decks. Rather, my point is that Mentor will appear in the best blue shell, whatever that is.
Since Gush is unrestricted, it's the best shell for Mentor. If Gush is restricted, however Mentor will simply migrate to the next best blue shell. I'm not talking about Combo decks. I outlined what these decks look like in post 112. I'm talking about blue "control" decks with 3-4 Mentors, like the 8th place deck from BOM, for example. I've said this many times, so I'm not sure how you're missing this point. I described these decks at length in the Poll thread, where I talked about what these decks look like if Gush is restricted.
Gush is a pretty slow card and a big disincentive to playing fulll Moxen, let alone Mana Crypt, etc. Mentor decks want to play Mentors faster with more artifact mana for faster Mentors and monk production. If Gush is restricted, we're gonna see more big mana blue Mentor decks with Top like the 8th place deck from EW Europe (with Delve spells) or like Brian Pallas's deck from the 2015 Vintage Champs top 8. But much better and more tuned. Without Gush in the metagame, I think there is a real danger Mentor will become worse, not better.
That is one of many quotes on the subject.
Even if all these players stayed on some version of Mentor. What exactly is drawing more players to play Mentor?
I've already said this before, so it simply follows from what I've said:
- Mentor is the best win condition in the format
And - Mentor will find the best set of blue cards around it, and automatically be the best deck in the format.
My consistent claim in this thread is that that I believe scenario (2) or (3) is more likely than scenario (1) described in post 102. In other words, I'm not saying that it will increase. I'm saying that that chances that it stays the same OR increases is greater than decreases.
So, under scenario (2), I'm saying that any decrease in Gush Mentor will simply be offset by other blue decks with Mentor.
My argument is that any loss of Mentor decks in the Vintage metagame resulting from the restriction of Gush will be equaled or surpassed by the number of new Mentor decks that arrive in more traditional blue shells. Reasoning is presented more systematically above.
Please answer my question. What decks are decreasing in %? Are you implying that Shops will decrease in %? Dredge? Eldrazi?
Well, under scenario (2), no other deck has to decrease. Remember, my claim is that (2) and (3) are more likely than (1). Under scenario 2, Gush Mentor is simply replaced by 1 Gush Mentor and/or other blue decks with Mentor.
But, taking your question seriously, let's use the BOM metagame.
It was:
20% Mentor
15% Workshop (Stax and Aggro MUD)
10% Misc. Control (Bomberman, Gifts, Planeswalker etc.)
8% Eldrazi
8% Oath
7% BUG Control
5% Storm
And so on.If Gush is restricted, I agree with the critics that Workshops and Eldrazi will decrease slightly because Thorn based strategies become less potent. But, I think most of the gains in Mentor Control decks will come from Misc blue decks and from the space by 4 Gush Mentor decks. Again, look at the 8th place deck from BOM for an example.
Recall, as well, that not all Gush decks are Mentor. If Gush is restricted, a non-trivial number of decks will just dissappear. Some non-trivial % of those players will likely pick up Mentor.
@ajfirecracker said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
Could you provide an actual argument as to why restrictions intended to revive or support some strategic class are "illegitimate"? What do you mean by illegitimate?
These points were developed and elaborated upon in many other disparate posts. I can't possibly cover them all them here. Take a look at posts 78 and 83 in this thread, for example, to cover some of that ground in more detail. But I will try to briefly summarize a few key points, but request that you review those other posts for a more detailed explication.
In essence, the DCI is the primary policy making body for Vintage, and the legitimacy of the format and the DCI depends upon impartiality and fairness as such, and by maintaining objectivity and neutrality.
The best case of this is when the DCI restricts a card that is the centerpiece of a dominant deck, like Thirst for Knowledge in Time Vault decks in 2009.
The worst case scenario is when the DCI either caters or appears to be catering to a vocal minority. In that case, it's the equivalent of crony capitalism: the policymaking captured by a powerful lobby.
Thus, when the DCI restricts to neuter a predator strategy in the interests of proponents of thale prey strategy, it has a corrosive effect on the format.
People remember how Keeper players lobbied for restrictions that weakened keeper. That's why I keep directing people to this table: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/5980_You_CAN_Play_Type_I_108_The_State_Of_The_Metagame_Address_The_Charts.html
Just look at the hypocrisy there. Look at how Team Paragon members voted, and look how I voted (I am a man of principle!). Look how Weissman voted.
After years of struggle, we finally moved away from that mode of decisionmaking and the format gained legitimacy and respect. This format does not exist to serve Mana Drain pilots. It exists as an independent format, and any B&R list policy that even has the whiff of serving Mana Drain pilots (or any other player segment) is damaging. In other words, it's not even a question of whether the DCI is actually restricting to serve those pilots. The mere perception causes damage.
Just look how unfair and aggrieved Workshop players felt after the restrictions of Chalice and Golem. Part of their grievance was that it looked as if the DCI was responding to vocal players and VSL voices.
As I said in post 83:
when a discrete segment of players who appear to be associated espouse the same view, and then publicly advocate that position, it raises certain concerns about when and how the DCI responds as the policy maker. It raises the appearance - if not the actual fact - of impropriety - that the policy maker is responding to a vocal and influential lobby rather than reflecting the general will. This was the criticism that was also leveled at certain Pro players on the VSL preceding the restriction of Golem; and not entirely unjustifiably.
Restricting Gush in pursuit of the objective of allowing Mana Drain decks or any particular mode of style of blue decks to ascend back into the center of the Vintage metagame is a fundamentally improper objective because 1) it undermines the legitimacy of the DCI as a neutral policy maker and 2) the B&R list does not exist to ensure that any particular card, deck or strategy sees play.
Now, between those two extremes: restricting based upon objective metagame data and historical baselines of dominance or restrictions based upon VSL or discrete segments of player lobbying, there are other grounds for restriction.
The DCI is on safe ground when it restricted cards like Trinisphere, Chalice and Flash, not because of metagame dominance, but because those cards created extremely swingy results based upon whoever was on the play, and create extremely unfun and non-interactive games. I have no problem with that.
But if the DCI appears to be captured by a vocal lobby or discrete player segment, that's just toxic to the format. It's especially so when serving that segment means harming another. That's why the Workshop players were so upset. And just watch how many people will be pissed off if the DCI restricts Gush for similar reasons.
That's why I distinguished earlier between two different objectives near the end of post 30 in this thread
I've heard two separate descriptions of a problem. One is that the Gush Mentor deck is too good. Another is that Gush decks oppress other blue decks. Those are different goals with different means-end implications. [...] I do not recognize the second objective sometimes articulated as either legitimate or as the 'problem' to be corrected.
If the DCI is restricting to neuter a dominant deck, and concludes that Gush Mentor is too strong, then that's a legitimate reason to do something. That is, the objective is legitimate, and the only question is whether the data supports their determination.
But if the DCI is restricting because they believe Gush is dominating a subset of decks, then that is an illegitimate objective (because it necessarily favors one player segment over another. Moreover, for the reasons I explained in posts 33 and 36 of this thread, implementing such an objective is inherently impossible. The problems aren't just conceptual, they are practical, as detailed there.
I think if the DCI makes that decision it's a legitimate decision (I.e. those really are the rules), and I think you would agree, but would say the decision is bad or mistaken despite being legitimate. I think the use of 'legitimacy' as a concept is inappropriate here.
No, it's actually perfectly appropriate. If a judge makes a decision because they personally like a plaintiff over the defendant, that undermines the legitimacy of the court. Similarly, if the DCI appears to be catering to one player segment (Mana Drain players) over another (Gush players), it undermines the legitimacy of the DCI as a neutral and fair policymaker.
I get that you don't want the DCI to resurrect Keeper (or Control Slaver or Grixis Control or whatever) but what is actually wrong with the attempt?
Restricting Gush to get there is wrong and an illegitimate means to achieving that objective. It's artificially sculpting the metagame by suppressing one force, unfairly, to raise another. The B&R list doesn't exist for that purpose in Vintage.
The B&R list does not exist so that certain cards, decks or strategies will see play. It doesn't exist so that Mana Drains can exist in this format, or else we are back in the dark days of Type I, where Paragon players lobbied for restrictions and Brian Weissman threatened boycotts over B&R list policy.
The purpose of Vintage is to allow players to play with as many cards as can be maintained without having an oppressive metagame force, generally defined as a dominant deck.
Restricting cards so that one strategy won't be oppressed by another is the most illegitimate use of that power.
Almost all UNrestriction announcements seem to be worded as attempts to do exactly the thing you are saying is bad (that is, B&R decisions to strengthen particular strategies)
Unrestricting cards lets players have more tools in Vintage. It serves the purpose of Vintage (of allowing players to play with all of their cards) without unfairly harming any other player segment. If a deck can't handle natural competition in the market or metagame, that's it's own fault.
But a restriction is a totally different matter. Every restriction takes away someone's favorite toys or cards that they have spent time to study, learn and master. It's inherently harmful, and should only be used as a last resort, not to give someone else a leg up.
- Mentor is the best win condition in the format
-
There's nothing unfair about restricting Gush to promote other decks. Cards aren't people. There is no such thing as being unfair to Gush. There is such a thing as being unfair to (e.g.) Gush pilots, but if they are playing with the same restrictions as everyone else no unfairness would occur when Gush is restricted.
Your whole thing about group diversity and subgroup diversity is entirely arbitrary. If half the format is Gush and you restrict Gush and then half the format is split evenly among 3 strategically distinct blue decks (the other half being totally unchanged in this example) that's an increase in real top-level diversity. There's nothing illegitimate about the route taken to get there.
Do you think holding off a restriction to appease a vocal minority does not threaten the view of the DCI as legitimate?
I think either you are not understanding me or there is a bait-and-switch element to your argument.
The DCI should restrict Gush so Keeper sees more play
and
The DCI should restrict Gush so there is more diversity within blue decks, including possibly but not certainly Mana Drain-based decks
are two different claims. I am saying that the second is proper and legitimate and frankly normal. You are arguing that I'm wrong because the first is illegitimate (and even that I'm not totally convinced about because blatantly promoting deck X at the expense of deck Y really does promote diversity if Y is seeing more play than X and the promotion doesn't totally kill Y)
-
The DCI is on safe ground when it restricted cards like Trinisphere, Chalice and Flash, not because of metagame dominance, but because those cards created extremely swingy results based upon whoever was on the play, and create extremely unfun and non-interactive games. I have no problem with that.
Quoted by Steve.
Mentor, and Gitaxian Probe, and Mental Misstep all do exactly this. They swing the game so much in the favor of whoever has them in thier opening grip, that it is not "fun" for the other 50% of the field who were not playing those cards and/or had them in thier opening grip.
4 Mentor is like 4 Tinker, sure you can run Tinker in Blightsteel, or Belcher, or for Jar, or for TV, dont matter the list, its simply too game swinging as a 4 of. Mentor will always be the same, whether in Gush, PO, or more Controlish shells like Sylvan Mentor or Stony Mentor, still too game swinging to be a 4 of.
Gitaxian Probe in the opening hand of "glass cannon" decks is also just as game swinging, if not MORE so, than Chalice or Trinisphere. At least you have hope of drawing lands or removal later on against those. A 12 year old Git Probes you, sees you dont have FOW, they can count to 7 and drop Belcher, or know to drop 500 Moxen and PO/Storm out killing you before you have a chance to draw an out. Without the information provided by Git Probe, that same 12 year old would be hesitant in going all in on turn one due to the what ifs of magic, which is PART OF THE GAME. Bluffing, worrying, calculating odds, these are all part of the game. What if in poker they allowed Joker cards, and if I got one, I got to draw another card to replace it and got to see my opponents cards? How would that be fair at all? See the correlation?
As for Mental Misstep......it, just like Chalice and Trinisphere, is unfun because it essentially BANS all good one drops. Swords, Bolt, Dark Ritual, etc etc all see much less play, and even when played arent really played because they are countered for free with no loss in tempo or card advantage. Having Mental Misstep in your opener against anything other than MUD variants is the sane as having Zurs Wierding turn 1. Naw, I pay 2 life just put that Ritual in your grave.
More options is more fun. Less options is less fun. Mentor nulls other options for win Cons in various decks. Git Probe nulls the options provided to players due to natural player error, and experience in when to go for it and when not to. And Mental Misstep shuts down about 80 bajillion cards, to the point where ppl had to simply stop playing them. When ppl start saying Lightning Strike is better than Lightning Bolt because of Mental Misstep, there is obv something wrong.
Vintage Magic should not be Magic for Dummies, and these 3 cards have done exactly that. The game is far less "skill intensive" with those cards free, and far less divergent due to them.
I want more options, as I know many others do to. Restricting these 3 would do that, no doubt.
Gush is fine without the other 3 mentioned. Gush is usually a turn 3 play, putting it on par with Thirst, Gifts, and FOF. Its Mentor, Git Probe, and Misstep that are the bandits keeping other draw engines, one drops, and different deck archetypes from being playable.
-
@Serracollector I disagree completely on your statement about Misstep. Not having the format revolve around tutoring for Ancestral Recall is awesome. Also nerfing Dark Ritual seems great to me. Misstep's presence also helps Workshops a bit. The format was way faster and more broken before it and I love how it slowed things down and made people play with more care around it. I love how you have to think before casting Ancestral Recall these days.
And as I said before, all this Preordain/Probe nonsense would stop if Chalice was unrestricted.
-
Lets list out the assumptions that you are making in the estimation of post Gush restriction meta (in no particular order):
- Players will always play the "best" deck.
- The dynamics of the metagame will stay relatively the same.
2b. All blue pilots will stay blue pilots.
2c. Gush restriction will just make players switch to more restricted Draw spells. - Misc blue decks fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than Mentor Gush and other Gush decks.
3b. Shops/Eldrazi fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than against Mentor Gush, and other Gush decks. - Mentor is the best win condition.
4b. Weaknesses of Mentor itself will not be exploited with Gush out of the picture.
I'm not sure if even a single one of these assumptions is supportable by evidence. Let alone all of them collectively.
You also keep mentioning how Mentor will still be dominant without Gush, but how about Gush still being dominant without Mentor?
We actually have evidence to support that as Gush was one of the best decks before Mentor was even printed. In fact Gush has pretty much always been one of the best decks when its been unrestricted. A Mentor restriction could cause more Gush decks to be played, over things like Paradoxical Mentor.
That is because Gush has proven itself as the best draw engine. Even as a number of other historically powerful draw engines have been unrestricted, Gush has remained at the top with little competition from others. No matter what people will find some sort of win-con to play in their Gush decks. Pyromancer, Tinker, ect. were all popular in this role before Mentor's printing.
@seksaybish I was bringing that up since the numbers Steve keeps presenting are not based in reality. The format has been 60+% blue for a long time. This isn't a new revelation. Even at the height of Shops, blue still held around 60%.
-
To introduce another thread to this conversation, let's look at what we heard in the March announcement from WoTC
For Vintage, data is often difficult to gather because the sample size is so small. However, we have a large data set coming with the European Eternal Weekend Vintage Championship at the beginning of April. We'll be watching that tournament closely. For now, we are watching the results, and continuing to listen to feedback from the community.
Wizards wanted more data, they told us exactly what data they were looking at, and we also have access to that data.
Wizards will look at the Euro Top 8 and see:
- BUG Fish, with 3 Leovold, 4 Dark Confidant, 0 Gush
- URB Control, with Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, Blightsteel Colossus, 3 Gush
- URW Mentor, with 3 Mentor, 3 Probe, 3 Preordain, 3 Gush
- URBW Mentor, with 3 Mentor, 2 Mana Drain, 1 Gush,
- MUD
- MUD
- MUD
- White Eldrazi
And Wizards will then hear people complaining about a lack of diversity of of blue decks and think those people are just being lazy.
I can't help but think people are being so vocal because they know the data doesn't support restricting anything from the Gush decks. And that's fine, but I just wish we could agree that Wizards doesn't have evidence to support the oppressiveness of Misstep, Probe, Preordain, Gush, and Mentor that people are convinced exists.
-
@wappla That's not diverse though. That's Mentor Gush, Gush, Mentor, and 4 Thorn decks. We have 1 deck that isn't playing Gush/Mentor or Thorn.
-
@vaughnbros Wizards will see six distinct decks in the top 8. It doesn't matter what you think.
Diversity in Magic formats is incredibly overrated. Diversity is just what happens when enough cards are of similar enough power level that people can’t decide what’s optimal. Diversity is almost always an illusion. There are twenty linear aggro decks in Modern. Having twenty doesn't really make the format more diverse than having two. If you want that type of false diversity, go play Modern! Go play Commander.
In-game decisions often come at the expense of deckbuilding decisions. That's how Magic works. You can play any card you want in Vintage, but if you play Siege Rhino, your in-game options will be substantially reduced because the card isn't good enough. In Modern, there's a ton of playable cards, but your in-game decisions are reduced because you get paired against Burn or Tron or Affinity or Storm and you're decisions don't matter. You can't have it both ways precisely because the more deckbuilding options you have the higher variance your games will be and the less decisions you will have. At the other extreme, you could have a format with a card pool no larger than Manta Ray, Dandân, Goblin Guide, Mental Misstep, Preordain, Repeal, Lightning Bolt, and Volcanic Island and have a great playing experience.
You can't have both it ways. Restricting Gush or Mental Misstep decreases in-game decisions and increases variance of the format. I don't mind if people still want to hit those cards, I just wish they would stop pretending luck wouldn't become more important as a result.
-
It doesn't matter what you think.
go play Modern! Go play Commander.If this is really your best argument, I think you've failed.
-
If you really think you should be able to commandeer any format to fit your aesthetic preferences, you're delusional. Magic has different formats for a reason.
-
@wappla Like the people that got Lodestone restricted in first place?
-
@wappla Taken that logic to the extreme, it boils down to 75-card mirrors once the must-include cards are recognized and take over the slots. Ugh. Variety is good and requires good deckbuilding skills, good metagame adjustment skills, good info gathering skills, and deeper knowledge of a wider variety of archetypes. There may be somewhat less interactivity within a given matchup (that's a shaky argument of yours), but the upsides seem worth it, if a restriction can breed that creativity. Under your theory, WotC should print, Double and Triple Misstep to counter cards costing 2 and 3 for double and triple the Phyrexian mana. Misstep was a clear design mistake; is it restriction-worthy? I don't know.
-
If the set of things you are maximizing in your B&R policy category excludes deck diversity, then isn't the ideal "Vintage" format two (or one) purpose-built 75-card duel decks?
"Pitch Dredge is the worst thing to happen to Vintage this decade." - 2015 Vintage Champion Brian Kelly
youtube.com/user/ajfirecracker/videos
twitch.tv/ajfirecracker -
@wappla As primarily a Modern player now (I rarely play Vintage due to location, but the narrow options of viable decks is also a turnoff), I think you have a wrong view of diversity. In modern, there are 20ish linear decks, zoo/burn/GW CoCo/eldrazi/jund/death's shadow/etc. (all of which are viable depending on the meta), but there are also various combo decks, mill, lantern control, Esper control, Bant, Grixis, etc. There is real diversity (not an illusion).
Many cards are on a similar power level, but some are more powerful in certain builds and less so than others. Kalitas, for example, is a powerful creature in Jund. He is much less good in something like BW tokens. Vintage however...ancestral is just best in everything that taps islands, so there's no real thinking about what fits where when it comes to several staple cards.
Modern doesn't have the problem of people not knowing what is optimal...it's just that different lists can have different cards be optimal, and a card that is optimal in one strategy is just okay in another. Also there are a ton of solid decks that are viable choices to win any tourney. The entire color pie is equally competitive. It's not just blue splashing whatever support color. You can run into a billion different decks in a big tourney and your SB needs to really account for a lot of things (and your deck be fast enough or resilient enough to beat lots of other strategies). On the other hand, vintage basically has a big handful of cards that go in every deck and a chunk that is different depending on kill condition. Every blue deck runs ancestral, walk, FoW, (and lately gush), etc. Every shop deck runs thorn/chalice/golem, trini, etc. Vintage tourneys are basically a field of X workshops, gush decks, and bazaar...an occasional storm or oath deck in the mix.
You think in-game choices are all that matter, but many of us like deck building as much as the in-game. Modern also has a slew of in game choices outside of some super-linear aggro decks, but I disagree that in-game is all that matters. Winning with your own deck creation is also very gratifying as opposed to just grabbing whatever list so-and-so played and tweaking 2 cards. To me, that's letting someone else do the heavy lifting and claiming victory on the back of their work.
Side note, if you think your card choices/in-game decisions don't matter in Modern because you face one of 4 decks and lose no matter what, you have not been playing enough modern...at least not well. Play decisions matter a LOT in anything that's not all burn/creatures, of which there are a ton of choices. That's also where deck building choices come in - you need to build versatile decks that handle a lot.
I personally like being able to choose between one of 50 decks or building my own and being able to win a tourney. Having to pick between 7-8 deck choices to have any viable chance of winning is far more limiting to me. It seems you'd like a format of just 1 deck where the only decider of win/loss is how you play the deck. That's basically poker. And while I love poker, I also like games where I have choices and freedom to design outside of the game play. I don't like rock-paper-scissors. A format where a multitude of strategies and card choices are viable and equally powerful to the rest is a good thing IMO.
-
@ajfirecracker @BazaarOfBaghdad @Thewhitedragon69 Yes. I don't care at all about deck or archetype or card diversity. My ideal format is literally 75 card Delver mirrors. I am not joking.
But see I recognize I don't get to legislate B&R policy to fit my subjective ideals any more than you do. And unlike other people, I'm not arguing we change Vintage to fit my ideal format. The reason we use evidence like tournament results to make these decisions is because otherwise we're just arguing aesthetics.
And we can argue aesthetics all we want, but I think it's important for people to acknowledge that's exactly what they are doing, and that evidence doesn't justify hitting Monastery Mentor, Gush, Mental Misstep, Preordain, or Gitaxian Probe. There's a critical difference between something actually being oppressive and people saying it's oppressive. Calling a card too good does not make it so. Now, as I've said before, personally I wouldn't mind Mentor's restriction, but I also wouldn't mind if the format was 75 card Delver mirrors. And, importantly, I acknowledge no data exists to support changing the format in either of those ways.
If you're still not getting it, I would ask you to consider why you're fine with Oath of Druids being legal and yet you want to restrict Monastery Mentor. You have to have multiple sideboard cards to beat Oath, and yet everyone does it without complaining. Why are you fine being 0% against Dredge game 1 and dedicating seven or eight sideboard cards to the matchup? If you had even three sideboard cards dedicated to beating Mentor decks, you could beat Mentor decks. If Oath of Druids had been printed in Fate Reforged and Monastery Mentor had been printed in Exodus, everyone would be calling for Oath's restriction right now and hardly anyone would be playing Monastery Mentor.
It seems to me from this diversion in the thread that people not only want Monastery Mentor or assorted cards restricted, they also refuse to accept that such restrictions would be based only on aesthetic preference. I'm not asking you to change your mind, just to acknowledge the subjectivity of your position, and that all data we have support either keeping the status quo or restricting something from Workshops.
@Thewhitedragon69 You clearly don't understand my point. Modern doesn't have any more diversity than Vintage. There are a finite number of archetypes in Magic, and both formats have all of them. You don't get bonus points for having twenty aggro decks instead of one. That's false diversity. Like you said, you like to choose between one of 50 decks. That's why you play Modern. As I said before, we have different formats for a reason.
