Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017



  • As I indicated above, more specifically, non gush blue decks were choked out. Other non blue decks could adapt to Gush. But the entire meta was cast in the shadow of Gush.

    I really don't see why such a toxic card would warrent being retained. It is a broken draw engine that cost no mana.


  • TMD Supporter

    @The-Atog-Lord said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:

    "The hypocrisy is overwhelming. @ChubbyRain complained incessantly about Gush, but anyone who complains about the format now is annoying! You break it, you buy it."

    Matt doesn't care if you grouse about Gush being restricted. At least I don't think that is his concern. My guess is that his concern is your consulistently hijacking the tournament reports that he and Ryan put together. They put a lot of work into this, and are likely unpleased whrn you time after time steer the discussion off topic. If you want to complain about Gush being restricted, why not start your own thread?

    Just like they complained about Gush before it was restricted? Should I have asked Matt to "move his complaints about Gush" to another thread?

    The metagame reports reveal the current state of the metagame, and since the most important questions post-restriction is the effect of the restrictions, asking us not to qualitatively evaluate the metagame as a result of those restrictions is silly, if not ridiculous. It's the most important question answered by these reports, along with how to strategically position oneself in the metagame.


  • TMD Supporter

    @The-Atog-Lord said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:

    As I indicated above, more specifically, non gush blue decks were choked out.

    And, as I've said before, 1) that's greatly overstated or 2) a result of fair competition.

    Look at the last Waterbury:

    http://themanadrain.com/topic/1153/tmd-open-18-top-8-and-metagame-breakdown/2

    Gush was 21.7% of the metagame

    Other blue decks?

    PO at 10%
    Oath at 7%
    & other blue decks at 9.6%

    In other words, far more than 21%.

    Hell, in February P9 Challenge, PO were 20% of the metagame.

    This idea that Gush "choked out" other blue decks is verifiably false.

    But even if it were true, that's not a ground for restriction. We don't restrict Workshop parts that "choke out" other Workshop parts or Dredge parts that "choke out" other Dredge parts. What makes dominating a subset of a decks a B&R list policy problem? There is usually always a predominant blue draw engine in Vintage. That doesn't mean it should be restricted. It's only when it dominates the metagame as a whole that becomes an issue.



  • @diophan thanks for the data and write up.



  • So what was the dominant engine when they restricted Thirst, Gifts, Brainstorm, Ponder, Flash, and Merchant Scroll at the same time? Those were all used in various different decks that were all uniquely different and powerful. And I would have to say that "without gush and gitaxian probe" to fuel them, that a 4 Cruise 4 Dig Meta would be less powerful than a 4 Gush 4 Probe Meta. You have to spend mana and grave resources to fuel the Delve Team. Gush and Git Probe provide "free" draw, mana, and information accordingly. Without 4 Gush, 4 Probe, and 4 Preordain are Cruise and Dig even half as powerful as they were? A good question I think. Don't blame the Delve spells, blame the 8 free cantrips, and 4 unrestricted Preordains for fueling them so easily.

    Also, thanks guys for the info, very much appreciate your hard work.



  • @The-Atog-Lord
    Efficient spells are what make less efficient spells less efficient. Should we keep restricting cards until you can play Cancel and Doom Blade? Force of Will and Swords to Plowshares cast a shadow over the entire meta.

    You should explain why you apply this bizarre efficiency test to some cards and not others.

    You should explain why turn three Gush is "too good" for a format where turn one Oath of Druids, Monastery Mentor, Paradoxical Outcome, and Trinisphere are all plausible plays.

    Both your despised Gush and beloved Mana Drain are banned in Legacy. Mana Drain helps make spells free, while Gush is free. You can cast Mana Drain on turn two and have your mana on turn three, the same turn you would've been Gushing. They are different cards but good for the same reason, and no one plays Counterspell or Divination in Vintage. Why do you valorize one and demonize the other?


  • TMD Supporter

    About half the posts in this thread do more to hurt interest in the Vintage format than the DCI could ever hope to do.



  • @ChubbyRain

    Holy shit dude. Talk about spewing verbal diarrhea and hatred. Your post above should be moderated and warned. But I guess they don't do that on the new TMD site. It's posts like these that cross the line and go too far.

    You're a good person in real life but maybe you need to take a step back and look at what you post here before clicking submit or whatever. Good lord that was terrible.

    @Smmenen I agree the metagame is already pretty well decided. I was hoping from Probe and Mentor to leave, not gush. I will continue brewing, testing, and grinding.

    You cats need to settle down a little. See you guys at NYSE



  • @Smmenen What remedy do you suggest then, if you are so unhappy about the state of things? Unrestrictions?.... now?... really?

    I follow you so far as you point out the inconsistencies in the DCI reasoning around the restrictions. Their policy and reasoning around these changes is just about totally void of any leadership or transparency and I certainly won't defend it. The "prediction" aspect of it seems interesting as well. You seem to be suggesting that, should the DCI "prediction" not come true, the rest of the effort, and the restrictions themselves would be invalidated.

    I don't follow that at all. Firstly, the "prediction" itself is terrifically open ended. It has no time frame, it only really predicts that Mentor based strategies will be "significantly" weakened... whatever that means. And the change in the meta game it mentions is only "hope"ed for consequence in the statement, not really a prediction at all, which is the aspect you seem to be focused on. (do correct me if I'm wrong here, I am certainly not trying to strawman what you've been saying.)

    Additionally, why should a failed prediction necessarily invalidate the change anyway? If they made a prediction that fails to create the specific changes that were called for, but creates other positive changes, or even fails to create compelling negative side-effects, then who cares? Leave the change in place and move on.

    At this point, the biggest negative side effect of the restriction is easily the gripping about it with no end in sight... If Gush got restricted, and didn't change anything at all... which, going by only this top 8 result (a silly-small sample) it would seem to have done... then leave it in place and move on. Changing the status quo has inherent cost, as does complaint.



  • @The-Atog-Lord said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:

    As I indicated above, more specifically, non gush blue decks were choked out. Other non blue decks could adapt to Gush. But the entire meta was cast in the shadow of Gush.

    I really don't see why such a toxic card would warrent being retained. It is a broken draw engine that cost no mana.

    I agree completely with this.



  • @Topical_Island What you and many people seem to be missing in all this is that this isn't a fight over what the metagame looks like. It's a fight over the fundamental principles of the format. As I said last week, many Vintage players believe Vintage is the least restrictive format. Vintage is a place to play Mishra's Workshop, moxen, Time Walk, and Bazaar of Baghdad. Other people believe Vintage is a place where Mana Drain is good.

    The first group are and will continue to be so upset by the Gush and Gitaxian Probe restriction because these cards are obviously acceptable in a format where you can play Mishra's Workshop, moxen, Time Walk and Bazaar of Baghdad. We don't just object to Gush and Probe being restricted, we object to the idea of restricting cards simply to adjust the metagame and in the absence of dominance or power level concerns.

    The second group argues that it's fine to restrict cards to tailor the metagame to meet their arbitrary tastes. They can't present an argument against Gush other than their preference of Thirst and Drain to it. They also believe that preferring Thirst of Knowledge and Mana Drain to Gush is reason enough to restrict a card in Vintage. The specifics of this last restriction are important, but it's the DCI's validation of this belief that is so alarming and worth combatting at every turn.

    The proper remedy is the immediate unrestriction of Gush, Lodestone Golem, Dig Through Time, and Gitaxian Probe. None of these cards performed well enough to deserve restriction. Golem, Gush, and Probe were all VSL-complaint restrictions, while Dig was randomly restricted for being "comparable to other restricted card drawers", a profoundly dumb reason.


  • TMD Supporter

    Sigh.

    Sometimes I believe I'm a masochist when I even attempt to start reading these. Like I said, it's like a dog chasing it's tail- perpetually. I have to agree with @nucleosynth, I think the amount of anger being thrown back and fourth is doing more harm to vintage than the DCI.

    Honestly, if you were a newbie thinking about getting into vintage and you read this thread, what would make you want to play? Would it cause someone to back away? Vintage is a small format of some of the best, most awesome vintage players. Let's prove that.

    I'm not saying everyone should be happy and shouldn't disagree, but there is a line people. Constructive criticism and disagreements that are written down maturely go a long way.



  • alt text


  • TMD Supporter

    @wappla said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:

    @Topical_Island What you and many people seem to be missing in all this is that this isn't a fight over what the metagame looks like. It's a fight over the fundamental principles of the format. As I said last week, many Vintage players believe Vintage is the least restrictive format. Vintage is a place to play Mishra's Workshop, moxen, Time Walk, and Bazaar of Baghdad. Other people believe Vintage is a place where Mana Drain is good.

    The first group are and will continue to be so upset by the Gush and Gitaxian Probe restriction because these cards are obviously acceptable in a format where you can play Mishra's Workshop, moxen, Time Walk and Bazaar of Baghdad. We don't just object to Gush and Probe being restricted, we object to the idea of restricting cards simply to adjust the metagame and in the absence of dominance or power level concerns.

    The second group argues that it's fine to restrict cards to tailor the metagame to meet their arbitrary tastes. They can't present an argument against Gush other than their preference of Thirst and Drain to it. They also believe that preferring Thirst of Knowledge and Mana Drain to Gush is reason enough to restrict a card in Vintage. The specifics of this last restriction are important, but it's the DCI's validation of this belief that is so alarming and worth combatting at every turn.

    Exactly.

    A small group of people hijacked DCI policy and got Gush and Probe restricted, contrary to the wishes of most Vintage players.

    A new poll by Shawn illustrates the depth of unhappiness with this decision: https://www.facebook.com/groups/VintageMTG/permalink/1302708723160538/

    By a more than two-to-one margin, players are expressing their unhappiness with the 4/24 restrictions.

    And yet, we are being told to sit here and present a happy face despite a disastrous and misguided B&R policy led by a small group of players.

    The format is more polarized in terms of Mentor/Thorn than before the restrictions, and everything the DCI said would happen is not happening, and yet the Restricted List is two cards larger. That's a completely unacceptable result. The only reasonable response to this situation is anger.

    Asking people to put on a happy face, and accept this outcome is itself completely unacceptable. After all, the anti-Gush crowd hardly suppressed its unhappiness with Gush before it's restriction. And, now the majority of Vintage players are being asked to be silent in the interests of format comity? Please, what a joke. Maybe if the pro-restriction crowd had done the same.

    Yet, at every single opportunity to complain publicly, the pro-restriction group whined about Gush. Now, the people who opposed that restriction and surveying the wreckage are being asked to hold their tongue? Friends, please.

    The proper remedy is the immediate unrestriction of Gush, Lodestone Golem, Dig Through Time, and Gitaxian Probe. None of these cards performed well enough to deserve restriction. Golem, Gush, and Probe were all VSL-complaint restrictions, while Dig was randomly restricted for being "comparable to other restricted card drawers", a profoundly dumb reason.

    I agree with one slight modification: I would unrestrict Gush, Probe, and Chalice, and leave Dig and Golem restricted at this point. Chalice was the first Shop card restricted as a result of the the complaining you talked about, and I would unrestrict it first.



  • @Smmenen said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:

    A new poll by Shawn illustrates the depth of unhappiness with this decision: https://www.facebook.com/groups/VintageMTG/permalink/1302708723160538/

    There also seems to be an n>1 concern about Montana, which we seem to be completely avoiding in this discussion.



  • @wappla I pretty much agree with everything you just said... especially in terms of the cards you named. (Although you can still play all of those cards in Vintage, just in fewer numbers. So we aren't really talking about not getting to play cards... But I shan't quibble too much with you.)

    If those cards got immediate unrestrictions, I honestly would not mind a lick in terms of game-play. I had no problem with any of those cards when they were in, and I barely if ever sleeved them up... (Did I ever? YES... I ran double Dig in a deck pre-restriction, and that was it.) I was always playing against them, and I lost a lot to them. I also won a lot against them, and had fun doing both... so no worries.

    But let me just suggest that there is something more fundamental to the game at work here... namely, how restriction decisions get made. If those cards saw the unrestrictions which you want, and which I'd be fine with, it would be for one reason - there was enough complaining to make it happen. Already we are going from online hew-and-cry to being a contributing factor in the restriction process, to it being the main way business gets done.

    Honestly, at this point, if you are a serious vintage player, and you aren't complaining about something, if you aren't trying to influence the DCI in some way, can we even say you are playing the whole game? Just as deck selection, and building is a huge part of the game in addition to actual play, campaigning for or against restrictions is becoming just as much an aspect of the overall game. Just look how much time people spend doing it. Should that be? Is this what we want?

    I like to play Oath and have a build that does pretty well against the old Lodestone Shops, but worse against Ravager. I've logged 500 games easy with this build, and can make pretty good decisions even when I'm tired or under pressure. So really, one of the best strategic things I can be doing with my time is working hard to get the DCI to unrestrict Lodestone. I could be practicing other decks. I could be working on building other decks to beat Ravager. But honestly, I'm not that good at those things. I could work to get better... but I'm already good at making pointed comments on the internet (who isn't?), and I'm good at playing my Oath deck, so how am I incentivized to do anything else but find the twitter handles of anyone who has a say and lite them up until I get my way?

    If this is the way decisions get made, and it causes the exact unrestrictions you want, what do imagine will be the very next thing that will happen. Maybe our decision making process needs some tending first eh?


  • TMD Supporter

    @Smmenen I'm not sure if what you said was directed at me or not about anger. I'm going to respond as if it was, but my apologies if it wasn't.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry about the restrictions. I think that's a legitimate beef and worthy of discussion. It's the anger that basically adds up to grade school name calling I have an issue with. That's the line I'm referring too that has been crossed by some people. That has no place here.

    On a side note, I voted no on Shawn's poll, as I'm not happy with the restrictions either. Only on the basis on Wizard's explanation did not add up. I don't know how you could argue that their explanation does.

    However, I am still enjoying the format and will take a lot for me not to enjoy it. I've liked watching the changes that have happened, regardless of how I feel. I'm generally a huge proponent of less restrictions and would love to see some love given back to shops (as a non-shops player). Vintage is the place of broken spells, I want to play with broken spells.



  • Wizards should just Unrestrict Gush, Git Probe, Fastbond, Lotus Petal, Mana Vault, Chalice, Lodestone, Dig Cruise, Library of Alexandria, Balance, Channel, and Flash. How much would that lead to new Archetypes and a completely different t8 every week as people try all kinds of crazy stuff? Im ok with these things, and honestly do not believe it would lead to any one dominate deck.



  • Unrestrict everything! Let's see what happens! Exciting!!



  • @enderfall Love your style. Let's dance bro!



Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.