SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review

@nucleosynth said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

http://themanadrain.com/topic/1376/dack-fayden-is-he-a-main-deck-solution-anymore

You are correct but the meta-game has shifted since then and I wanted to know why he is the best in the Vintage game now.

@protoaddct

Even though I played shops like 10 years ago, this entire comment is true. Shops doesn't need a workshop. Two mana lands are not "just as good" but sometimes they can actually be better, like if you're trying to cast a non-artifact.

Artifacts, particularly artifact creatures, have experienced a ridiculous power creep over the time I have not been playing.

Mishra's Workshop is easily the most powerful card still not on the restricted list, with Mental Misstep a distant second.

@fsecco said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

@protoaddct If Shops is restricted there's a high chance it becomes a combination of Shops, City of Traitors and Ghost Quarters and remains basically unchanged. The thing that changes the most is that 4+ mana cards become way less useful. For example, Witchbane Orb is no longer an answer to Tendrils.

Yes, and now they have D-sphere which is almost harder to deal with since it also protects itself against cards that would deal with it with its taxing effect. I recognize that it hurts the shops player as well, but shops can power through it where as tendrils basically HAS to deal with it.

@forceofnature said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

@protoaddct

Even though I played shops like 10 years ago, this entire comment is true. Shops doesn't need a workshop. Two mana lands are not "just as good" but sometimes they can actually be better, like if you're trying to cast a non-artifact.

Artifacts, particularly artifact creatures, have experienced a ridiculous power creep over the time I have not been playing.

Mishra's Workshop is easily the most powerful card still not on the restricted list, with Mental Misstep a distant second.

I actually contend that all things equivalent right now, if you banned shops, not restricted it, completely wiped it from the game, that mono brown would still be a deck in the format because of the moxen and sol lands just like it is in legacy. You may have a bit of a divide between artifact builds and Eldrazi decks, but it would absolutely still be a thing.

The deck literally has options it has never used that have strong vintage potential, simply because it didn't need them. Tiny robots builds with affinity tools have seen some fringe play and have been solid lists in the past, I cannot imagine that would not hold true today if the meta shifted to allow it. Blue affinity with spheres and blue power is still a list I think could hold up.

Steve,

Im finally getting to this podcast and listening to your comments on the restricted list policy. Youre right that defining pillars in historical terms is both arbitrary and props up the status quo... but isn't that what Vintage is? Isnt the legacy of what were pillars in the 90s part of Vintages DNA? Isnt Aaron completely correct that they manage it for the old farts who like that status quo?

I recall one of our first conversations here about Lotus Vale. Your point was that if it worked like lotus, it would be too coin flippy. I responded that this is just as true with respect to lotus itself, or any other of the power 9. Dont you, like everyone else, prefer the format not deviating too much from its roots?

EDIT: Also, Aarons expression about Itrying to serve players is also consistent with Tabaks discussion of errata policy, which ive talked about as a "cui bono" school. That is, they make policy to benefit the most people.

Really, is that more factiona-breeding or divisive? People don't get to vote on social media. Its still a judicial process, not a legislative one. Doing the most good for the most people is no more "problematic" than a reasonable person standard.

EDIT2: What about this; Aarons comment was no different from judges explaining their pet peeves at a CLE. This isn't the judges opinion, its just informative, and its not damaging anything.

last edited by MaximumCDawg

@maximumcdawg said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

Steve,

Im finally getting to this podcast and listening to your comments on the restricted list policy. Youre right that defining pillars in historical terms is both arbitrary and props up the status quo... but isn't that what Vintage is? Isnt the legacy of what were pillars in the 90s part of Vintages DNA? Isnt Aaron completely correct that they manage it for the old farts who like that status quo?

I recall one of our first conversations here about Lotus Vale. Your point was that if it worked like lotus, it would be too coin flippy. I responded that this is just as true with respect to lotus itself, or any other of the power 9. Dont you, like everyone else, prefer the format not deviating too much from its roots?

Let's just assume that what you say about the pillars is true. I would like to make 2 arguments.

  • A card can still be considered a pillar and be restricted at the same time if there is enough redundancy. The moxen are in many ways pilliars simpily because there are multiple of them. I would argue that Workshops would still be a pillar at 1 because it has redundacy in academy, tomb, etc. The pillar of the format in is not and in many ways never has been workshops, that was just the posterboy for the deck, when in fact it was fast, restricted use mana or argually even the spheres. Likewise ritual was never really the pillar so much as a piece of the storm puzzle, and likewise dredge. I also think it would be absurd of someone to say that Lotus, Ancestral, and Timewalk are not "pillars" of the format.

  • The DNA of vintage is not only in the wide selection of cards and power level, but also the spirit of what the designers originally intended with the game. Just the fact that you can use one copy of a given card is more than other formats and provides identity for the format. But the DNA of magic is and always was that it would be ever changing. New cards enter all the time, and the formats look and feel changes. Vintage has been in many ways the format that is the least accepting to change, which to me is not at all in the spirit of the games design. Standard is far closer to what the original creators intended in spirit than anything.

@maximumcdawg said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

Steve,

Im finally getting to this podcast and listening to your comments on the restricted list policy. Youre right that defining pillars in historical terms is both arbitrary and props up the status quo... but isn't that what Vintage is? Isnt the legacy of what were pillars in the 90s part of Vintages DNA? Isnt Aaron completely correct that they manage it for the old farts who like that status quo?

I recall one of our first conversations here about Lotus Vale. Your point was that if it worked like lotus, it would be too coin flippy. I responded that this is just as true with respect to lotus itself, or any other of the power 9. Dont you, like everyone else, prefer the format not deviating too much from its roots?

Yes, in terms of errata, but B&R list policy is another, different matter entirely.

Errata policy already has contained within it a status quo bias - the entire concept of "original ruled functionality" is based on making cards work as they were originally designed and understood to work.

There is no such analog for B&R policy. I don't care if the Vintage metagame deviates entirely from it's roots, as long as the cards work like they always have.

With respect to B&R policy, IMO there should be no sacred cows, and statistical diversity/ dominance should trump all other considerations. That's why Mana Drain got restricted in Old School, despite all of the hand ringing.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

Yes, in terms of errata, but B&R list policy is another, different matter entirely.

Errata policy already has contained within it a status quo bias - the entire concept of "original ruled functionality" is based on making cards work as they were originally designed and understood to work.

There is no such analog for B&R policy. I don't care if the Vintage metagame deviates entirely from it's roots, as long as the cards work like they always have.

I'm not sure I follow. I mean, sure, you can make a choice that errata policy is different from "Cards That Were Pillars In 1998." But can't you also make the opposite choice? It seems perfectly consistent to say "Cars That Were Pillars in 1998" are immune from restriction just because that's a marker of Vintage as a format. You gotta wear the clothes that were in fashion at that time, so to speak.

I know you could make a different choice and NOT do that, but it seems consistent and readily definable... so a pretty good analog to original ruled functionality.

@maximumcdawg said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

I'm not sure I follow. I mean, sure, you can make a choice that errata policy is different from "Cards That Were Pillars In 1998." But can't you also make the opposite choice? It seems perfectly consistent to say "Cars That Were Pillars in 1998" are immune from restriction just because that's a marker of Vintage as a format. You gotta wear the clothes that were in fashion at that time, so to speak.

Cards that were pillars in 1998 were not necessarily the pillars we have now are they? Bazaar was not heavily seen as a pillar until dredge was introduced, and even then probably not more than fringe until Bridge from Below hit. Rituals were a pillar then, and they have all but gone away in this day and age.

As long as new cards are entering a format and the card pool is not a fixed and static thing, the formats pillars can and will shift away from what they were in 98, so there is really no use protecting them like is being discussed. If lotus was not restricted you can bet your bottom dollar there would be a lotus.dec at this point, but we accept that it does not exist because it was restricted at the time. The same can be said for so many cards on the list including fastbond, Hermit Druid, etc.

The BR list exists for the purpose of maintaining game balance and diversity in the format, pure and simple. If something is throwing the balance of the format off like many of us contend that shops is doing, you restrict it. If later on it comes to pass that the card is no longer that good because of more recent printings, you remove it. It is actually befuddling to me that people are having an almost philosophical argument about this. If you do not believe that workshops is bad for balance that is a fine argument, but to argue the core reason the BR list exists is something entirely different.

@protoaddct

Those are all fine arguments about whether we should be maintaining the Pillars of 98, and I agree you can have that debate. But, what I was taking issue with was Steve's suggestion that deciding to maintain past pillars at all was toxic as a general concept.

I don't think there is anything toxic about WotC saying that: (1) they have identified that the kind of people who play Vintage, by and large, want it to pivot around the same pillars it did in 98; and therefore (2) B/R policy must ensure that these pillars remain unrestricted. Like original ruled functionality, there is a clear definition of what those pillars are (Rod, Drain, Shop, Bazaar, Ritual). There's no lobbying or factionalism in the democratic sense because the rule just is what it is. There's no voting on it.

If you were to re-define the pillars of Vintage at a later point in time, you would, naturally, have different results. But, WOTC seems perfectly comfortable to smash more recent candidates for "pillar" status, like Gush, Mentor, Thorn, or Golem, to name a few. Only the original cards are sacrosanct. And this really does make sense if you consider that they're looking to cater to a market that is older and remembers that time. Does anyone seriously disagree that the Pillars of 98 are really critical to what makes Vintage Vintage instead of Powered Legacy?

To re-iterate: Of course you could agree or disagree with the wisdom of holding the original Pillars sacrosanct in the first place, but there is nothing inconsistent or inherently problematic with doing so as a basis of your B/R policy.

last edited by MaximumCDawg

@maximumcdawg said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

Does anyone seriously disagree that the Pillars of 98 are really critical to what makes Vintage Vintage instead of Powered Legacy?

I do. Being powered alone to me is enough of a change from the legacy meta that it validates the formats existence. But to be realistic, there are more than just power cards in the format that change the contours of it from legacy.

Actual Power - Moxen, Lotus, timewalk, timetwister, recall
Restricted cards not in legacy that enable prominent strategies in vintage - Demonic tutor, Fastbond, Vampric tutor / Imp seal, Yawgs will, Wheel of fortune/Windfall, Academy, Sol ring, library of Alexandriam, even more.
Cards that are super powerful that are allowed without restriction in vintage - Shops, Bazaar, Survival of the Fittest, Misstep, etc

I contend that the presence of power alone is enough to define the format and are really the only pillars it could have to still be a unique format, but it goes far beyond that. The very presence of any one of some of these restricted cards is enough to enable some lists and disable others that would have otherwise been lists in vintage. it would not be different if you only had 1 shops instead of 4, the formats would still be unique and play out very differently.

I mean, case and point, I think that mono red burn is a tier one list in legacy because of its speed, yet in vintage where you can make it even faster because of lotus and mox ruby its not even a list because the power alone changes the scope of the entire format.

@protoaddct

Been loving this discussion, honestly. This thread is awesome.

Mishra's Workshop is more like Black Lotus / Moxen than Bazaar/Misstep/Survival.

That is my only argument in this classification system.

@forceofnature I kinda put Shops and Bazaar in the same tier. Both are lands so there is a parallel right there, but in their respective decks they both do the same thing, which is to let you play things faster than the mana cost of said cards would have normally intended. With Shops its a much more direct path to do so, but Bazaar in a dredge list is the thing that lets you play cards most of the time because of its interaction with dredge, narco, and bloodghast and co.

I think the starker difference between those 2 is that graveyard hate is plentiful, cheap, colorless, and has 0 mana options that come online when you need them (Leyline, Rav Trap). Dredge does not have a compelling way to deny you gravehate either outside of reacting to it once it is out there with a natures claim, where as shops using its spheres can keep you off the answers to not only its other cards but the spheres themselves, and the only 0 mana option I can think of is crash which becomes a 1 mana spell under a sphere anyway. If there was a free red counterspell for artifacts, I'm not even sure we would be having this discussion in the manner that we are.

That being said, to me the pillar of the vintage format is the restricted list itself. It is one of the unique features of the format that no other can claim. I enjoy the deck building challenges of a heavily singleton format as well, so I am totally ok with many more cards winding up on the list, including Bazaar and workshops. I think if you restrict bazaar you likely have to restrict Mental misstep as well, since that would have a far more profound effect on dredge than restricting workshops would. Dredge does not get the equivalent sol lands parallels for Bazaar, and would then have to rely on one mana spells which would likely kill the deck.

@forceofnature said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

@protoaddct

Been loving this discussion, honestly. This thread is awesome.

Mishra's Workshop is more like Black Lotus / Moxen than Bazaar/Misstep/Survival.

That is my only argument in this classification system.

We should really, like REALLY stop comparing Workshop and Lotus. It's a very bad categorization of the card since they couldn't be more different.

@fsecco I mean come on. Two things that give you three mana could definitely be more different. Are there differences yes. But to say Black Lotus and Workshops couldn’t be more different is a laughably stupid comment. Workshops and ancestral recall is a more apt at completely diffenent. Workshops is a narrowly usable repeatable black lotus. Definitely different but still somewhat similar.

@fsecco

  1. I was not directly comparing Lotus and Workshop, re-read my comment.

  2. I disagree with everything you wrote.

We should really, like REALLY stop comparing Workshop and Lotus.

Why? The entire point of a forum like this is to draw comparisons, differences, play scenarios, deck choices, etc. It's literally why people come here.

Again, I wasn't even directly comparing the two.

It's a very bad categorization of the card since they couldn't be more different.

They could not be more different? Really? You could not think of a less different card than Mishra's Workshop to compare Black Lotus to, or vice versa? Is this meant as hyperbole or sarcasm?

An old saying is never mistake for malice what could be a misunderstanding, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment here, but it seems like you're trying to scold me for something I did not write, meanwhile hopefully writing something that you did not actually mean (they could not be more different).

EDIT:

@Protoaddct

Sorry I forgot to reply to your post.

I kinda put Shops and Bazaar in the same tier. Both are lands so there is a parallel right there, but in their respective decks they both do the same thing, which is to let you play things faster than the mana cost of said cards would have normally intended. With Shops its a much more direct path to do so, but Bazaar in a dredge list is the thing that lets you play cards most of the time because of its interaction with dredge, narco, and bloodghast and co.

I had not considered this immediately! I think you could definitely draw a comparison between Bazaar and Workshop in that they are enablers of playing your strategy, both lands, etc. I do think Bazaars are an entirely different classification than conventional mana sources, however, because Bazaar is a graveyard abuse strategy, while casting spells via tapping and paying mana is quite different. This is largely the axis I was thinking about Workshops on.

To put it in a different way; Dredge is an entirely different beast all together, in the sense that the deck so heavily relies on mulliganing to Bazaar. Shop decks, on the other hand, do not necessitate the card at all, just a combination of spells and mana sources, with which Workshop is just one of many tools the deck has access to. This is why I think Shops are more similar to Lotus / Moxen then Survival, Misstep, and Bazaar.

last edited by FORCEOFNATURE

@kingleovold @FORCEOFNATURE This kind of generalization is the opposite of why a site like TMD matters. We're here to actually think through this kind of stuff.
Workshop is not Lotus because it takes a land drop; because it works in basically the only deck that can support it; AND because the kind of stuff it casts is WAY, WAY less agressively costed than the stuff Black Lotus casts. It you told me Workshop could cast 3 spells that had the power of Ancestral Recall, Time Walk or whatever per turn, THEN we could be talking about this. Not even Mana Vault and Dark Ritual are comparable, why would Workshop and Lotus. This may seem irrelevant to you, but it's a kind of thinking that leads to wrong B&R policy. Saying it's like Lotus, specially in a B&R context discussion, is counter-productive to understanding its actual place in the format.
So yeah, it's VERY different from Lotus, because cards are not like each other just because they do similar shit.

And @FORCEOFNATURE you should think fucking harder before calling other people stupid without even knowing them, thank you very much.

EDIT: let's state the obvious: I clearly get why people compare the two cards, I'm not dense. I'm just saying it's a wrong assessment of the card's playability, power and restrictability.

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco said in SMIP Podcast # 78: Dominaria Vintage Set Review:

EDIT: let's state the obvious: I clearly get why people compare the two cards, I'm not dense. I'm just saying it's a wrong assessment of the card's playability, power and restrictability

It's strange that you can admit you understand why people make this comparison yet dismiss it with such voracity. It may not be an apt comparison in every situation but it is certiably a strong one in many conversations and I think a fair one here, since we are specifically talking about restruction level powered cards.

Given the choice between not being able to use a lotus and keeping 4 shops, or keeping lotus but having 1 shop, which do you think a shops player would pick?

By your metrics I am unsure how we ever compare any cards because they all have a purely situational nature. Workshops is in my opinion a closer comparison to lotus than something like lotus petal is and lotus petal is literally 1/3rd of a lotus

@protoaddct my point it that you shouldn't compare cards in order to evaluate them, specially if we're talking about B&R policy. I understand WHY you would relate the two cards, but not why you'd actually compare them in playability or power.
You could say a shops players prefers 4 Shops than 4 Lotus, but that's exactly my point. Only the Shops player would want that, so it tells a lot how the card works. Only an Oath player would want 4 Orchards and only a Dredge/Lands player would want 4 Bazaars. Saying Shops = Lotus is kinda saying Bazaar = Draw7s and Orchard = Time Vault, because that's what those cards do (kinda) but ONLY if you build around them.

EDIT: I'll add something again to try and make myself clearer. You can't just compare two cards in order tô evaluate them because they look alike. You can't compare Tolarian Academy to Gaea's Cradle or Serra's Sanctum. Sure, they look alike, but they play very different. An Elves deck would never want Academy in it, but that doesn't make Cradle powerful or relevant like Academy.

EDIT2: I just realized this is not Aaron's tweet topic, so I'm sorry to give room to the restriction debate that started here instead of letting it go and keep myself on topic. I should know better.

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco I still think using this term is totally fair game and Ill tell you why:

1 - It is a shorthand turn of phrase for "Thing that makes 3 mana". There are plenty of other game terms like mill that we tend to use interchangeably with similar cards that often have nothing to do with each other and we are perfectly ok with that usage. I have not once ever heard you complain about people saying "Sol Land" even though ancient tomb and Sol ring are at least as different as workshops and Lotus.

2 - In the context of the workshops deck, which quite honestly is the only context that I think matters when talking about the card workshop, it is a reusable lotus. Yes it would not be so in other lists, but here it is because shops does not care about colors of mana. And yes shops takes up a land drop, but since the usable land configurations in other decks typically cannot make 3 mana a turn and do not run 5 moxen and opal and lotus so on and so forth, you have to evaluate it within the dynamic it presents. Honestly if lotus were as broken as workshops in the context of workshops lists, why have we seen non budget configurations of the shops decks cut lotus in the past?

3 - A card need not be broken in every deck to be restrictable. It only need to be broken in one (assuming you consider shops one deck as opposed to many different decks over the years). That has been the long standing case with the B&R list. I will just go ahead and say that a great many cards on that list are broken in far fewer than every list, and a great many of them are really only abusable in one to two strategies. Lodestone Golem has only ever been proven to be broken with shops. Most decks do not run Demonic Consultation but the decks that want it use it to such effect that it needed to be restricted. Monastery Mentor was really only ever broken in the context of a monastery master deck, as there are plenty of other lists that would never run it.

I think my biggest issue with Aarons comments and really the tone of the discussion here is that to me it seems like Wotc and the DCI want to play kingmaker with deck types and prop up pillars artificially as sacrosanct. Through their actions and inaction they have allowed decks like Dredge and Shops to persist while removing others from the format. Now, I actually think that is ok if that is the path they want to take, but if it is the case they should publicly state it as the policy instead of dancing around the "data" and "criteria" they use that they often only provide when they need to justify a change in the list. There is a lack of consistency in the rulings, as shops is by far more problematic than some of the other cards they have taken action against in the past. If the criteria for restrictions includes financial considerations, "fun" as based on perception or focus group testing, or maneuvers for future releases, then be forthcoming with it and make it the policy for all changes.

  • 96
    Posts
  • 30462
    Views