Oh Boy I Can't Wait For VSL Season 5!



  • @Kai said:

    @JuzamJim said:

    Match 2 game 3, Rich Shay seems to forget that fatesealing with Jace into his ultimate doesn't actually win the game. He still needs to find an aswer for Marit Lage.

    he had multiple swords in hand, didn't he? pretty sure rich's line is way better.

    @varal no, that is fine afaik. cage just sais 'can't come into play'. containment priest is a replacement effect. there's no reason why that effect doesn't trigger. the interaction with dredge is different. dredge is also a replacement effect but I think the problem here is that the draw never happens so dredge can't replace it.

    No, not at the time. He found two Swords by Brainstorming with Jace.



  • @ajfirecracker said:

    Do "can't" effects work by creating a replacement effect where nothing happens instead? If so it seems like a time stamp issue and Cage was more recent

    No, replacement effects include the word "instead", "skip", and a couple others relating to how creatures enter the battlefields. Also, replacement events are not a time stamp issue, the controller chooses which to apply.



  • You're right about "can't" not being a replacement effect, I was thinking of the "skip" rules which do the thing I described.

    I would have to imagine then that Grafdigger's Cage always trumps Containment Priest regardless of timestamps due to 101.2 ("X can't happen" always wins over "do X")



  • @JuzamJim said:

    Match 2 game 3, Rich Shay seems to forget that fatesealing with Jace into his ultimate doesn't actually win the game. He still needs to find an aswer for Marit Lage.

    Rich was not forgetting about Dark Depths/Marit Lage at all, which is the point of Rich's (correct) line. If you bounce the token with Jace immediately (-1, Jace goes to 2 loyalty), then every subsequent turn under Standstill you you can use Jace's +2 fateseal to race the counters being manually removed from Dark Depths. In 6 turns your opponent will be dead from Jace, as compared to 8-10 turns of your opponent manually removing Dark Depths tokens, 3 mana at a time. If you do what Shuhei did you are going to be forced to play in to Standstill at some point, because you will not be able to race the manual draining of counters from Dark Depths, if you leave the token on the board, attacking Jace (because Jace's fatesealing will no longer be able to race, if it has 1 loyalty removed every turn from an attacker).



  • @JACO Jace takes at least 14 turns to win. 5 Fateseal, 1 Ultimate, 7 cards drawn and the empty library.



  • @varal said:

    @JACO Jace takes at least 14 turns to win. 5 Fateseal, 1 Ultimate, 7 cards drawn and the empty library.

    Technically, yes, it might take longer than 6 turns. In reality, no. Your opponent will have no cards in hand, while you will have a full grip, and continue to accumulate resources. When Jace, the Mind Sculptor ultimates, 99.9% of the time the game is effectively over.



  • @JACO said:

    @JuzamJim said:

    Match 2 game 3, Rich Shay seems to forget that fatesealing with Jace into his ultimate doesn't actually win the game. He still needs to find an aswer for Marit Lage.

    Rich was not forgetting about Dark Depths/Marit Lage at all, which is the point of Rich's (correct) line. If you bounce the token with Jace immediately (-1, Jace goes to 2 loyalty), then every subsequent turn under Standstill you you can use Jace's +2 fateseal to race the counters being manually removed from Dark Depths. In 6 turns your opponent will be dead from Jace, as compared to 8-10 turns of your opponent manually removing Dark Depths tokens, 3 mana at a time. If you do what Shuhei did you are going to be forced to play in to Standstill at some point, because you will not be able to race the manual draining of counters from Dark Depths, if you leave the token on the board, attacking Jace (because Jace's fatesealing will no longer be able to race, if it has 1 loyalty removed every turn from an attacker).

    Yes, I think he did forget about Marit Lage. Look, Rich's line was the obvious one and clearly the better line to take, and I think that Shuhei played the game really poorly. I think the the obvious line of bouncing the token and fatesealing Jace leads to highest win-%. However, that doesn't change the fact that the game win is by no means a certainy. You say it yourself: "When Jace, the Mind Sculptor ultimates, 99.9% of the time the game is effectively over" - although the 99.9% is clearly an exaggeration, this could be one of those "0.01%" because Erich has the win on the board. Shuhei still needs to find a Plow or a way to find Plow in the next, say, 7 turns, so the win os by no means deterministic to use one of Rich's phrases.



  • This whole finals was super disappointing. The decks chosen were just aweful piles of garbage on Eric's side and they were basically just "Shuhei Haterade." These decks give new vintage players no real clue as to what one should take to a large event and as a hatebear/human pilot the first list was, quite frankly, insulting. 4 Cages maindeck and your largest threat of damage being a 3/2 will not fly at a real vintage event.

    -Storm



  • @Stormanimagus said:

    This whole finals was super disappointing. The decks chosen were just aweful piles of garbage on Eric's side and they were basically just "Shuhei Haterade." These decks give new vintage players no real clue as to what one should take to a large event and as a hatebear/human pilot the first list was, quite frankly, insulting. 4 Cages maindeck and your largest threat of damage being a 3/2 will not fly at a real vintage event.

    -Storm

    I don't agree at all. Although the matches wasn't the greatest of the season, I think the finals was entertaining, especially the matches where Eric played White Trash. Honestly, if you want to blame anyone, blame Shuhei and not Eric. Eric made a clever choice of creating a White Trash deck that beats the shit out of Oath because Shuhei had been playing Oath in every single match. It was a great metagame choice. I have no idea how many "new vintage players" even watch these games, but I think it's a good thing to let potential new players know that Vintage isn't always only about playing the best spells ever printed but actually to think about the metagame and go from there.


  • TMD Supporter

    I have to agree with the games being entertaining. It was the correct deck choice given the information that he had. Also if you look a few years back, white hatebears had 4 grafdigger's cage and 4 stony silence maindeck.



  • @jester said:

    I have to agree with the games being entertaining. It was the correct deck choice given the information that he had. Also if you look a few years back, white hatebears had 4 grafdigger's cage and 4 stony silence maindeck.

    Yes, or at least 3 of each. I have argued several times that playing less tan 3 Cages maindeck is wrong. However, that is obviously an outdated statement because of Containment Priest. Having both Priests and Cages maindeck is redundant but from Eric's perspective it makes sense.



  • I love seeing new/weird decklists that deal with specific matchups. When I played actively I would often see the same guys make it to the top of my LGS' vintage tournaments, and creating weirder decks that could deal effectively with them while not sacrificing too much regular power was often a good way to deal with them and improve your chances.

    There is about 50-60 (+?) hours of great vintage in the VSL this season, and many excellent matches with classic archetypes facing off if that is what you want to see. That vintage is not some stale, simple metagame where the same 3-4 decks always wins is - to me - super cool. And Efro is an extremely talented player (much better than most vintage players I've seen) in my opinion, seeing him both metagame like this and make many smart plays was a lot of fun.



  • @Stormanimagus What was the most disappointing is that the most important match of the VSL was apparently decided by a bug but it seems fitting for a MTGO tournament.



  • @varal said:

    @Stormanimagus What was the most disappointing is that the most important match of the VSL was apparently decided by a bug but it seems fitting for a MTGO tournament.

    which one? what bug?



  • @Stormanimagus Auriok Salvagers was exiled instead of staying on top of library. Containment Priest shouldn't exile it because the creature can't enter play when there is a Grafdigger's Cage in play. The reasoning is the same as the interaction between Dredge and Spirit of the Labyrinth.



  • @varal said:

    @Stormanimagus Auriok Salvagers was exiled instead of staying on top of library. Containment Priest shouldn't exile it because the creature can't enter play when there is a Grafdigger's Cage in play. The reasoning is the same as the interaction between Dredge and Spirit of the Labyrinth.

    Not a bug. The rules governing replacement effects that modify permanents entering the battlefield are different from other replacement effects. They have to predict how the object would exist on the battlefield and the process for that is below.

    614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.

    Edit: For clarification, Grafdigger's Cage is a continuous effect, not a replacement effect, according to the rulebook.

    611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.



  • @varal cage is a continuous effect

    edit: @ChubbyRain gave a better less lazy explanation



  • @ChubbyRain Rule 614.12 doesn't apply because Containment Priest doesn't affect how a permanent enters the battlefield. It replaces entering the battlefield with something else. This rule applies to effects like those:

    614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects.
    614.1d Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.

    Important rules are:

    101.2 When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

    101.3 Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)

    614.7 If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything.

    It's the same interaction as Dredge and Spirit of the Labyrinth.


  • TMD Supporter

    @ChubbyRain said:

    @varal said:

    @Stormanimagus Auriok Salvagers was exiled instead of staying on top of library. Containment Priest shouldn't exile it because the creature can't enter play when there is a Grafdigger's Cage in play. The reasoning is the same as the interaction between Dredge and Spirit of the Labyrinth.

    Not a bug. The rules governing replacement effects that modify permanents entering the battlefield are different from other replacement effects. They have to predict how the object would exist on the battlefield and the process for that is below.

    614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.

    Edit: For clarification, Grafdigger's Cage is a continuous effect, not a replacement effect, according to the rulebook.

    611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

    614.12 speaks to whether a replacement effects modifies "how a permanent enters the battlefield." In the case of Containment Priest, I'd argue that 614.12 is inapplicable because Priest explicitly prevents certain cards from ever entering the battlefield, not modifies how they enters the battlefield (via a replacement effect).

    In other words, the bare text of 614.12 does not seem to me be obviously applicable to cards that prevent, rather than modify, cards entering the battlefield. In order to modify how something enters the battlefield, it must actually be capable of entering the battlefield to begin with.

    The application part of the rule reinforces this natural reading. It says "check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield." Yet, again, in Containment Priest's case, the card never enters the battlefield. Thus, an embedded assumption within this rule appears to be that a card enters the battlefield.

    cc @CHA1N5

    EDIT:

    Now that @varal has flagged it, 614.7 appears to be the relevant text.

    The event never happens because of the continuous effect, and rule 614.7 carves out no exception for continuous effects.

    In short, 614.12 speaks of modifying cards entering play, whereas 614.7 speaks to what happens when something is prevented from happening. Cage prevents something from happening (and Priest does not modify how something enters the battlefield). Therefore Rule 614.7 appears to be the applicable provision.



  • @Smmenen Both of your cards do the same thing, excluding the untapped requirement, since they're both replacement effects written differently.

    614.1d Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.


Log in to reply
 

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