Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017


  • TMD Supporter

    @Smmenen

    When Gush was last unrestricted, it took a long while before it started to become mainstream again. Initially people were continuing to play with Dark Confidant/Jace TMS/Time Vault decks while Gush would sporadically appear as Lotus Cobra brews. Why would you expect the metagame to mature so immediately now when it hasn't in the past?

    Gush was unrestricted September 2010 and it took almost a full year (Gen Con 2011) before it replaced Bob Jacevault as the best blue deck.



  • What implies a "broad consensus"? How does anyone formulate a "broad consensus"? These are challenges that are likely more difficult for WotC to obtain than their current method to determine when/if a restriction is necessary.



  • @enderfall said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    What implies a "broad consensus"? How does anyone formulate a "broad consensus"? These are challenges that are likely more difficult for WotC to obtain than their current method to determine when/if a restriction is necessary.

    I don't disagree that its tough to define exactly what a broad consensus is when we have it. But its very easy to define when we do not have it. And in the case of the past few restrictions (even ones I agreed with) we did NOT have a broad consensus.



  • @Naixin said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    "Paper's too OP we should restrict it; but Scissors are fine" ~ Rock.

    I'm so stealing this.



  • @desolutionist Some random idiot realized that Gush could be played in a tempo deck - the year after, they printed Cruise and Dig. That's what did it.



  • @MSolymossy said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @desolutionist Some random idiot realized that Gush could be played in a tempo deck - the year after, they printed Cruise and Dig. That's what did it.

    Its your fault Gush is restricted.



  • @ChubbyRain

    Thank you for quoting circle jerks 😂 I'm not sure who would use such terms to define a metagame


  • TMD Supporter

    I rarely post, but I'm sufficiently dismayed by this thread, and all the other recent threads like it, that I felt unable to resist.

    We have a simple request from Matt and Ryan that folks please not post gripes, snide remarks, anger, insults, etc. in their metagame report threads. This isn't unreasonable. It's probably very disheartening to do all the work they do, share it with the community, and have the overall response be one of vitriol -- regardless of where that vitriol is directed.

    Let's be very clear. They aren't saying "don't post it anywhere", they're saying "please don't post this in direct response to my blood, sweat, and tears". I don't think that's much of an imposition, and it seems to me that honoring that request is the reasonable, empathetic thing to do.

    I'd also like to put out a general call for empathy in this forum. It's especially important when discussing B&R and the metagame, because Magic players often personally identify with their favorite strategies, and when discussing B&R it's easy to feel like the stakes are high.

    I think we'd all be a lot better off if we could collectively make an effort to be kinder to each other. Assume good faith and intelligence of others. Don't say things in a post that you wouldn't say to someone's face. Seek to find common ground instead of setting out to make caricatures of how you perceive the 'opposition'. Be patient with the metagame and with each other. And don't make posts that aren't how you'd like to be remembered as a human being.

    I doubt I'm alone in thinking that we have a severe degree of polarization, of entrenched viewpoints, and of the invective that comes with that. It's tiring! And it can easily become a downwards spiral that drives good contributions out of the community.

    Be well, folks.



  • @HouseOfCards said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @Khahan And if we lose the die roll our resistors can work against us. It goes both ways. You take thorn away and shops has no chance against any blue deck/combo at all. We would be down to 4 spheres, 1 thorn, 1 chalice, 1 lodestone and a trinisphere. You can't consistently impact your opponent with only 7 resistors as you would be very lucky to have 2 stick each game. Its like blue-mages want to take all the lockpieces away and leave shops with no chance against combo or blue-based decks. The resistors that shops currently has are the only reason we have any shot at placing well. Otherwise we would be stuck playing a deck with 26 dudes hoping we can kill you by turn 4-5 without any interruptions. Also, restricting thorn would create extremely boring and mundane game play for both the shops player/opponent minimizing sequencing and decision making. It would no longer be a "song and dance". Are people trying to turn this format into modern/standard or something?

    Actually Houseofcards you do bring up an interesting point about shops and the die roll. I would love to see a breakdown of shops game 1 win % when they win the die roll vs when they lose it.


  • TMD Supporter

    @nucleosynth When presenting metagame data, it's unreasonable to expect people to silence their concerns or critiques of the current metagame, especially when those concerns or critiques are based upon the data presented. Those two things are intertwined. As I said earlier : "To suggest that these discussions mask or hide the underlying work a false dichotomy. The data is the underlying layer for the metagame and B&R discussion. They are the same discussion at different levels."

    Moreover, I don't recall anyone being mean spirited or unkind in this thread, so that's a straw man. The issue here isn't a lack of empathy.

    It's justifiable anger at two restrictions that, thus far (and we have a 5 tournament sample size and a clear trend line) have had no discernible impact on the DCI's stated objectives or goals for those restrictions.

    Many, if not most, Vintage players play this format because it is the final place we get to play all of our cards. To have cards restricted or taken away unnecessarily (as it relates to the goals presented) is an affront to the foundation of the format, and it's insulting to ask those who are unhappy about the situation to be silent about it, when the data reveals the problem. It's all the more egregious when all of the prevailing evidence so far suggests that the majority of the Vintage community opposed those restrictions (support was especially small for restricting Probe).

    Before Gush was restricted, you could hardly silence the restriction proponents. Asking those who are now unhappy with the format is just as futile and wrong-headed. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any new level of invective or animosity that wasn't already directed at Gush by the pro-restriction crowd before it's restriction.



  • I can't believe I have to do this:

    (Hypothetical scenario for a future Vintage Challenge metagame report)*

    Wow, Shops really showed up this week. 4 decks in the top 8, best showing in a while. Looks like 3 of them have now adopted [insert name of artifact now being played] and it worked to fight all the Combo decks going around as they had a 70% win rate compared to previous decks not running that card when they had a 48% win rate. I wonder what Combo will do now to fight back? Will they play more of [insert artifact hate card]?


    Gee, that was really difficult!!



  • @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. Yes, you can drag out a few counter-examples, but for the most part, Gush's restriction has been great for those of us who want to sleeve up Mana Drain. And if you want to sleeve up a Turbo Xerox Mentor deck like before, well, you can still do that.


  • TMD Supporter

    This post is deleted!

  • TMD Supporter

    @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.