Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@chubbyrain1 said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

@botvinik said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

This is even more true if you as a player are better than your opponent whitch chubby seems to be in most cases.

I always find this reasoning odd. We aren't talking about someone else's results - we are talking about my own results. I played each and every game of every match and are describing first-hand experience with the card. You aren't inferring a card's merits based on LSV's play, whose rationale you aren't privy too. So you are attributing my success to my playskill, but denying that I have the level of insight to realize why I am having that success, and furthermore, that you have more insight than I do into the games and matches I actually played.

@botvinik said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

@chubbyrain1

At this point we can probably agree omnath is reasonable to good in the deck you put together. This then leads to the natural questions:

  1. do you think there is something better for that slot?
  2. do you think omnath is good enough for other decks who do not have to go singleton?

@botvinik said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

I have played exactly 3 matches with the deck omnnath did not impress me but it did not seem bad either. Seemed like an ok card in my limited experience. Hard to cast but while it is in play it is nightmare fuel for aggro shops.

So, this is a shift in perspective from where I think you were originally where you were much more down on Omnath's utility and asking what you could do with the mana generation. Which is good, it's why I put the effort into making this thread, to have this sort of dialogue and talk about how a card could evolve to see play based on how people use it, ideally getting different ideas and inputs along the way.

I actually don't care where people rank the card on the axis of "ok", "good", "reasonable", "Mentor 2.0" or whatever. Such rankings are I guess fun to discuss but have little practical merit when it comes to building decks. During deck construction, what matters is the card's functional roles. With that in mind, to answer your questions:

  1. Omnath is the newest and perhaps best "Banedrifter" - card that enters the battlefield, generates both value and board presence. Vintage is a format that is becoming increasingly dependent both on board presence and on card advantage. For instance, you have the Bazaar decks that can generate 10+ power in a single turn and PO decks that can draw a ton of cards if you can't keep up with answers. The ability to have a threat that also generates value with card draw/mana generation/or even pitching to Forces, is really really strong. It's important to identify the role of your deck at certain situations. Like against HogaakVine, you kind of need to stick a Mentor or an Omnath asap or you are going to be overrun. The mana, life gain, body, and card are all relevant there. Against Combo, you may just need to pitch it to Force to not die. That's actually a pretty good use of a card. If you have to choose between pitching your non-blue win condition and Ancestral Recall against Doomsday on turn 1, you probably want to toss that 4/4 away.
    Very few cards have the same functional role. Mentor generates pure board presence (or is effectively a storm kill). It doesn't have the other variables and I actually board out Mentor frequently against Combo decks. Snapcaster, Arcanist, etc, all have less of an impact on the game, though Arcanist can be close. JTMS is not longer a great card at managing the board state. Oko does not fight along the card axis. The closest card is Uro and Uro is obviously insane in other formats but is limited in Vintage due to the unfavorable interaction with Moxen and other taxing effects on the graveyard such as Dig and Cruise. You can argue for more unplayable options like Dream Trawler or some Oath packages but those are very different decks. So no, I don't think there is a functional replacement for the card here.
  2. Yes. There is only one of me. I can't build and play every possible shell in which I think a card might be viable. A reason I made this post was to try and convey my thoughts experiences and encourage others to brew decks they might enjoy with this card. It's not to convince people a card is an arbitrary metric of playable. People want to try it with Coalition Victory or Panglacial Wurm, don't let your memes be dreams... The companion mechanic had not been seeing a lot of play since the nerf and if I think a new printing can revive a previous archetype, I will often try to explore that.

@thewhitedragon69 said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

@chubbyrain1 My point is that, with that list, if Omnath were pretty much any other blue cantrip (Uro, for example), the deck would have 5-0d.

You didn't play the games. I played the games and disagree with you. My opponent played the games and disagrees with you.

Also, I have put up more results than anyone else with Uro in Vintage. A deck with singleton cantrips lacks the card velocity to adequately fuel Uro and the two Delve spells. The 4 color manabase running two Triomes cannot reliably cast a late-game UUGG spell against Wasteland decks. I was running a Breeding Pool as a 5th Tropical island in my one Uro deck.

This is a hell of a post and the best part is most of it makes sense and is even probably correct.

  1. You find that reasoning odd because the way you presented it it makes very little sense. Here is a better developed version that might help you understand why people say things like that.
    A) Personal experience even from the best players is basically untrustworthy at all but the largest sample sizes. You must also see this point because you post results to support your argument rather than explaining how games went and why it mattered. Results should be what we use to define deck quality.
    B) The data you generate is shaped by how good you are. No matter the meta Reid Duke can make modern jund win 55+% of the time. Does this mean that jund has been a tier one deck at every point in modern history, no it means Reid is a great player. The results you post are on average expected to just be better than those of the average vintage player. So comparing the deck you used to theirs and saying it’s good because it wins more is a fallacy. Effectively by being better than most players you make your 5-0s less meaningful to deck assessment because less of the burden rests on the deck to cary you than it would for them. If you wish to argue the best deck should be decided by perfect rather than average play that is a different story and doomsday was probably the best deck in vintage all along in Mr. Menendain’s hands.

The argument is not your insight does not count or I know better it’s your results may be inflated by your play skill and so should be assessed with some skepticism. Or at least that was what I was trying to say I can’t truly speak for the other guy.

  1. Playability metrics. I disagree with you here but that may be because we are using them to mean different things. I want to know how “good” a card is inside and outside a deck because if it’s mentor 2.0 I need to find the shell that’s good enough to get this thing restricted and start grinding with it ASAP. Where as if it were just ok or reasonable in a specific deck I should consider it for other decks in the colors but not be forcing it in like mentor and gush were in every blue deck before restriction. We treat black lotus differently from lotus petal when we think about, build, and modify decks and I haven’t seen anyone playing burglar rat in vintage yet. Understanding how good a card is in an absolute sense is very useful information when brewing and deciding wether or not to add it. Knowing how good a card is in the context of a spesefic deck is also very useful stinkweed imp and shambling shell have the same purpose in dredge but I will cut shells and never imps because I know shell is barely playable in the deck and the imps are essential to its function. Goodness is very useful information for both construction and play.

  2. And finally let’s be a little kinder to dragon I think the idea that he was trying to communicate was on the aggregate scale rather than for your individual matches. And read that way the post raises a valid point about the card and deck even if it is ultimately incorrect.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

I have played exactly 3 matches with the deck omnnath did not impress me but it did not seem bad either. Seemed like an ok card in my limited experience. Hard to cast but while it is in play it is nightmare fuel for aggro shops.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@chubbyrain1

At this point we can probably agree omnath is reasonable to good in the deck you put together. This then leads to the natural questions:

  1. do you think there is something better for that slot?
  2. do you think omnath is good enough for other decks who do not have to go singleton?
posted in Vintage Community read more

Thanks wizards I hate it.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

This is even more true if you as a player are better than your opponent whitch chubby seems to be in most cases.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@stormanimagus

Would you mind if I cloned your list and tried it out? I think it looks like an interesting deck and I would like to see what all this humans buzz is about.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

To be clear I entirely agree archon is not dead against me I run 1 basic that card is hung to hurt.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

So game one is not great but games 2-3 pick up for you? Also I can see how Knight could be quite unpleasant for me.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

To be fair to legacy for a while the best deck in vintage was the worse version of a legacy deck.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@vaughnbros said in [ZRN] Omnath, Locus of Creation:

I mean, you are basically playing a Legacy deck at that point...

You know you are kind of not wrong. Not a actually but closer than is probably wise.