SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?"
-
@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
@Dumpsterac1d I assume you are referring to me and Steve? Except that I've already stated multiple times that either a Mentor, or a Gush restriction would be fine with me.
Honestly, as a Dredge player I would much prefer Mentor to go. People playing W is a much more difficult thing for me to beat, and having my opponent durdle around with Gush is much easier to win against than a Mentor killing me on turn 2. But that wouldn't be objective. Objectively, either is a fine restriction.
Steve's argument has been that if a restriction should occur, it should be Mentor and not Gush. I'm arguing that there shouldn't be a distinction. Either card could satisfy reducing the power level of Mentor Gush.
Gush has mostly homogenized draw engines similar to how Mentor has mostly homogenized win cons. Both seem problematic in terms of diversity to me.
Not specifically talking about you both, I'm referring to everyone who says "Gush Decks" are the problem, and that Gush is the problem and needs restriction. i.e. Rich says on stream regularly (and more frequently as of late) that "Gush is the only way to beat Gush", like he's playing Pyromancer to beat Mentor or something ridiculous. The distinction needs to be made between Gush Mentor and every other Gush deck because it's useless to lump them together unless your main goal is to get Gush restricted.
In a perfect world I'm for the Brian Kelly approach (get rid of all of them) but that is based on the type of Magic I want to play. If the target is to hit Gush Mentor, it's a missed opportunity if you just hit Gush, simply because the deck works fine without Gush, it doesn't need Gush, and will probably reformulate it with Moxen and an alternative draw engine and be similarly oppressive, or find a way to abuse another "formerly restricted" draw engine that will also come to be oppressive and people will want re-restricted (jeez, Gush would be re-re-restricted).
Prioritizing the existence of Mentor the card vs Gush the card in vintage is the problem because Mentor amplifies minor problems in Vintage that become major problems and need dealing with.
edit: People will probably argue that Gush does a similar thing, but when in the past 10 years of Gush's unrestriction have people legitimately been calling for 5 cards to be restricted from Gush-based decks at once? The targets of restriction are erratic in ambivalence and target; Probe, Gush, Misstep, Preordain, Mentor, Outcome are all being discussed. The thing linking all of these to this specific moment in time is the card Monastery Mentor.
-
Exactly. This, and your post 155 were brilliantly elucidated.
-
There was a poll in the Vintage: Magic the Group where the number of those in favor of changing the restricted list this month surpassed the number of those wanting no changes, 73% to 27%. At the time of posting, there were 89 respondents. The cards whose statuses were most desired to be changed in descending order were Monastery Mentor, Gush, Gitaxian Probe, Mental Misstep, Paradoxical Outcome, Preordain, Mishra's Workshop, Thorn of Amethyst, Ponder (Unrestrict), Mox Opal, Wasteland.
Monastery Mentor had a clear majority in favor of its restriction (66%), Gush was in the 40% zone, and the rest were lower.
This seems in line with the chatter heard & seen at paper events, Magic forums, social media, VSL spectator input, and so forth. Given the reports that two other polls showed a near tie, I didn't expect the results to be so lopsided but they were resounding and unequivocal in favor of change. It seems restricting Monastery Mentor would be an excellent well-received decision.
-
@celticgriffon said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
Not to take away from the discussion, but is it possible we are just missing obvious answers to Mentor aided via its Cantrip/Gush/Git Probe/Misstep enablers?
Swords and bolts won't necessarily do the trick anymore. But surely somewhere in the other 10K+ cards designed for magic there is an answer.
I often feel we get too focused on things being solved. I still believe there are hundreds of decks unexplored which could likely turn vintage on its head. But perhaps it is just my own wishful thinking.
Cheers,
MichaelThere are answers that are unmisstepable however they are normally very narrow (like Snuff Out) or not free (like Abrupt Decay). Your opponent is playing 12-16 free spells and you are paying mana, that's rarely going to work out. Additionally your opponent may have perfect information for +1 mana and 2 life and no card investment. So if you have something like a Dismember, they will be able to play around your silly spell that costs mana and at least salvage a couple of tokens. Well how about you Thoughtseize it out of their hand whilst they wait that extra turn to play around your Dismember? Not likely since Misstep has a chokehold at 52% dominance at a rate of ~3.8. Oh you spent mana on your discard spell? That's cute. I tapped out to cantrip for answers while still being able to protect my hand. Try Addle next time! Get rid of Misstep and Probe and bring mana back to Garfield's creation, if Mentor is still demolishing everything then maybe it or Gush (if it is even present in the dominant Mentor shell still) needs to go.
@TeamTuskMTG on Twitter
Sometimes caster on Tusk Talk -
I like your idea and reasoning, but in operation it's clunky, simply because we'd be asking fir two cards to be restricted instead of one, with the knowledge that we'd be looking for further interventions at a later date. I'm no huge fan of Misstep and am agnostic on Probe (though I do see the argument), but I still think Mentor is the card to hit.
All of those things you mention are annoying, things getting countered without any real investment is very annoying, and an opponent with perfect information on turn 1 is unfortunate at best and game-deciding at worst. The problem is that in Mentor each of these spells creates a gro creature which is exacerbating their effect to a degree that makes the spells themselves seem much worse than they are. Like I mention, Pyromancer had all of those things AND Cabal Therapy and it was a beatable deck... could it be that the white in Mentor decks helps it to a degree that red doesn't in Pyromancer decks? Maybe, but I think it's MM. The nature of Monastery Mentor forces you to find that one answer much faster, and that "one answer" is regularly 2 cards, with the caveat that another Mentor is coming sooner rather than later and you need to be prepared for that one too.
It seems like Wizards saw how "successful" Pyromancer was and decided to play with the mechanic more, which is cool in theory, but in the end we get Mentor in Vintage, which is the only format with unprecedented ability to dig, cast spells for free, etc. One of these things is just a fact of vintage, the other one is a new printing that is forcing us to evaluate what belongs in vintage...
In summary, I'd rather restrict 1 card than a possible 3 if there is a problem that needs addressing, I'll argue that those cards that are on the chopping block were fine (or at least beatable) when Pyromancer was the go-to creature for Gush decks which is no longer the case, and that for efficiency's sake, Mentor should get the restrict. I do agree with your assessment though of the power level of those cards, I just think the power level of Mentor is drastically underrated by a lot of people.
-
My only issue with restricting mentor is that I actually find mentor games more interesting than pyromancer games, which is my guess for what the format revolves to in the event of a mentor restriction.
-
Great post. I just wish there was an axis which could attack the free spells, specifically Git Probe, Mental Misstep, and Gush, while keeping mentor from exploding. Or alternatively find a way to make a million mentor tokens worthless..
-
@Dumpsterac1d said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
I like your idea and reasoning, but in operation it's clunky, simply because we'd be asking fir two cards to be restricted instead of one
I agree it's not ideal. But as others have pointed out, allowing for example Probe to run free without Misstep might allow Dark Ritual or the Therapy token engine to run wild. My counter to that would be to say Dark Rituals haven't been very successful lately at all. If Mentor and Thorn are Rock and Paper we've basically had no Scissors. The other counter argument to Misstep being restricted is that randomly having Ancestral early makes for a more swingy game. That's certainly true, but it applies to many restricted cards. That's the nature of Vintage, the power level is such that some games may take a hard swing in one players favor because of a restricted card. The % of having the Ancestral is exactly the same as having the (now) restricted Misstep, or Library, or Lotus. Ancestral actually costs mana as well, and on the draw the counters that replaced Misstep may also counter Ancestral. The obvious candidates being, Pyroblast, Flusterstorm, Pierce or maybe even Misdirection (which has certainly been on the wane). As far as 1 Misstep making the top deck tutors return, I'm all for it. Mystical for Ancestral is 2 for 3, more than acceptable. The return of top deck tutors means they are actually resolving with some regularity which allows some of the 'bombs' room to return, like maybe Tinker, Will, Vault, Tezzeret or other interesting 1 ofs. I think blue decks would be less homogeneous.
@TeamTuskMTG on Twitter
Sometimes caster on Tusk Talk -
@nedleeds I can't even imagine that making too much of a difference, though. Take the idea of restricting multiple spells to it's absurd conclusion. Let's say you restrict every blue Instant or Sorcery that has "draw..card" listed on it. All of em. AND Misstep. Don't you STILL have a functional Mentor deck?
I mean, here's a pile based on this deck: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/vintage-jeskai-mentor-27051#online. Take that deck, and replace the 27 spells like so:
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Brainstorm
1 Gitaxian Probe
1 Mental Misstep
1 Ponder
1 Preordain
2 Pyroblast
3 Swords to Plowshares
1 Time Walk
4 Force of Will
1 Gush
1 Dig Through Time
1 Treasure Cruise
1 Peek (Some 1 casting cost cantrips)
1 Impulse (...and some 2 cost cantrips)
1 Opt
1 Paradoxical Outcome
2 Flusterstorm (its in your board anyway)
2 Surgical Extraction (it looks at your enemy's hand for free just like probe)I'd argue that you end up with a deck that may not play quite as consistently, but actually still has all of the tools it needs to operate smoothly. Obviously you'd want to streamline the card choices, but even with a **tshow like this, I feel like Mentor still remains viable and powerful.
EDIT -- This actually leads to an interesting question. Why don't folks with all the Vintage cards on MTGO actually try piloting "restricted Mentor" lists and see what happens? We'd all watch em. One Gush, one Probe, whatever? People with a stream could advertise and see how it works. You might be at a disadvantage in the mirror, but you could see how such a deck plays against non-Mentor decks anyway.
-
We just need.....
Costs of Life
G
Enchantment
Cost of Life always costs one green mana.
Cost of Life cannot be countered.
Hexproof
Players cannot cast spells unless they have lands on the battlefield equal to the spells converted mana cost. -
@Serracollector said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
We just need.....
Costs of Life
G
Enchantment
Cost of Life always costs one green mana.
Cost of Life cannot be countered.
Hexproof
Players cannot cast spells unless they have lands on the battlefield equal to the spells converted mana cost.Right, because Devotion was a fine mechanic for Vintage and I'd love to see something similar come back and apply to all cards.
I mean, point taken though. You CAN design cards that specifically destroy Mentor. The trick is to do one that isn't too narrow and that doesn't just make life miserable anyway.
-
This stops Mentor, all free spells, dredge, workshops, and moxen sir.
-
@MaximumCDawg said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
EDIT -- This actually leads to an interesting question. Why don't folks with all the Vintage cards on MTGO actually try piloting "restricted Mentor" lists and see what happens? We'd all watch em. One Gush, one Probe, whatever? People with a stream could advertise and see how it works. You might be at a disadvantage in the mirror, but you could see how such a deck plays against non-Mentor decks anyway.
Or someone could do the same thing, except with Mentor and the various win conditions you could throw into a deck. Like instead of four Mentors, they could play 1 Seeker of the Way, 1 Thing in the Ice, 1 Managorger Hydra, 1 Young Pyromancer.? Heck, how about a Magus of the Future? Why not? Or they could take it even take it further and run 1 of each non Gush, non Misstep, non Force of Will, non-land card. Would you say that this is evidence blue would be fine without Mentor?
What? Someone did this almost a year ago? Oh...
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/434730#online
Edit: Really...Brian and I have been playing around with Emrakul, the Promised End in our Gush decks. Brian 3-1'd with Dragonstorm, yesterday. The other 3-1 Gush deck was Grixis Thieves. The problem isn't Mentor. Well, Mentor isn't the only problem...
-
@ChubbyRain if restricted Mentor would allow people to play Dragonstorm, Grixis Thieves and Emrakul, the Promised End to good results, how is that a problem? I find that great for diversity.
-
@fsecco While I am happy for people to expand their win conditions. I don't really consider changing the win conditions of a Gush-based deck to be true diversity. Some exaggeration here, but if we're playing 70/75 of the same deck and just switching win conditions around, I don't find that very engaging.
-
@MaximumCDawg said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":
@nedleeds I can't even imagine that making too much of a difference, though. Take the idea of restricting multiple spells to it's absurd conclusion. Let's say you restrict every blue Instant or Sorcery that has "draw..card" listed on it. All of em. AND Misstep. Don't you STILL have a functional Mentor deck?
You may be correct, I certainly haven't tested this new format. But I will stand by my earlier argument that a fast Mentor would be more vulnerable to the best removal spells and targeted discard if you remove Misstep. It would be more difficult to play optimally if you didn't have perfect information for 2 life and +1 mana. To reverse it on you, if we restrict the Grey Ogre, and it's replaced with 3-4 Pyromancers how much changes? I think you make the turns up on the back side, because Pyromancer is a faster play but a slower clock. You also have more effective answers to non-Prowess tokens (remember Electrickery and Static Caster?). So maybe it "improves" things. I fundamentally think the proliferation of the free spells are a huge problem, bigger than just Mentor. The impact on deck building is awful. The play pattern of derpstepping the misstep is banal.
-
With all the discussion about 'the mentor problem' and 'the gush problem' and the 'free spell problem' in one spot I can't believe nobody has pointed out the obvious - none of these 'problems' on their own are a problem. Its the synergy all of these points have with each other that causes the power level of mentor decks. You could replace mentor with pyromancer. However now you are looking at a few attack turns instead of 1 1mentor, 2-3 tokens and an alpha strike.
You could replace mentor with managorger hydra, but again you are looking at 2-3 turns of attack with hydra instead of a few tokens and an alpha strike. No matter what though, you are still playing some instants and sorceries to filter your deck, draw cards and fix your draws while you generate tokens/+1 counters.You could restrict gush and stop that engine. And have it replaced with something else, basically anything else that draws cards is cheap and instant speed and you'll be pumping out monk tokens. Paradoxical outcome maybe.
You could stop misstep, probe, preordain etc. And there a hundreds of other cantrips that will draw cards and trigger mentor/hydra/pyro or fill the yard to make emrakul cheaper.
No one thing is going to stop this style of deck. Calling for 1 restriction wont have the effect you want. And calling for multiple restrictions just to target a deck that some people just don't like while many others are happy playing...that sets a horrible precedent and makes for a horrible use of the B&R list.
Most people refer to mentor and gush as problems. Yet over the past year when I've asked people to express what those problems are the most consistent answer boils down to, "I don't like playing against it." Sorry, but that is not a valid problem for the B&r list to tackle.
-
@Khahan I think you're underestimating the difference between 1 turn attacking with Mentor/Monks and 2-3 turns attacking with Pyromancer/Elementals or Managorger. Each extra turn allows you much greater opportunity to find your Slice and Dice or Staticaster or Balance or what have you, especially with all the card filtering available in this format.
That said, I agree with your conclusion that the Mentor deck is not unfair or oppressive in its current state. Shops, Mentor, Dredge, Storm, Eldrazi are all viable strategies at the moment, among others. Some more viable than others, but I wouldn't feel horrible showing up to a tournament with any of those.
-
The simple fact of the matter is that when Mentor is removed from the equation, Pyromancer is a much more power-leveled card.
Intimating Hydra or Pyromancer all of a sudden will have the same power level of Mentor should Mentor be restricted is frankly absurd. there is no precedence for that idea, and there are no new cantrips since the printing of Mentor that make Hydra or Pyromancer or any other wincon any better than it was in the past, which has been, "yeah, that's cool, but I'll pass,". The only card has been JVP, and JVP attached to a Pyromancer deck is the deck that's chilling at 3.5% of the meta. Pyromancer is clearly not the same power level as Mentor, Mentor an obviously stronger creature and most people who play Gush agree; they exist in the current metagame together, and only 12% of total Gush players are playing with Pyromancer. Getting rid of Mentor isn't going to make the Pyromancer deck any better, other than increase the number of people who decide to play it because it's the best option available. The problem is that "the best option available" at the moment is, in my opinion, amplifying irritations people have with "Gush decks" and creating a state of emergency about random cards from the deck that were only irritating before this, or were "ideologically stifling".
It's not a matter of "swapping wincons in a Gush deck", the wincons being swapped are clearly at different levels of power and the resulting decks will have different viability and put up far different results, IMO much worse results. We can't keep pretending that Pyromancer and Hydra (and obviously Seeker of the Way and Thing in the Ice or a "Magus of the Future for good measure") are as good as mentor, especially if that's the reasoning behind calling for an end to a specific kind of deck in the format and heavy-handed multiple restrictions from the DCI.
@Khahan, To your point about these things combining becoming a problem for the format, we've had unrestricted Gush for... a long time. Some folks are ideologically opposed to it being unrestricted, but until now there's not been a deck as oppressive as Mentor to bring everyone onto their side. This is my point, restrict Mentor, and people will be forced to use wincons that are clearly less good than Mentor, and the number of oppressive Gush decks (and specifically the Gush decks that are irritating people currently) will be replaced by less-good Gush decks and it would reduce the power level of Gush and take it off the hit list for the time being, which seems like a MUCH better action for the DCI to take rather than totally nuking every other card in the Mentor deck EXCEPT Mentor.
-
Mentor play patterns are terrible. Other Gush-fuelled play patterns are pretty great. That's pretty obvious once the theory crafting ends and the actual playing of games begins.
