One of the great mysteries of 2018 is why so many successful Oath of Druids decks are running a copy of this unusual werewolf who, until recently, seemed to have passed by like an unremarkable breeze along with the rest of her low-impact set, Shadows over Innistrad.

Like most novelties, her initial reception was jeered by long-time aficionados. Her presence in the format was uncharitably described as an embarrassment and a "fiasco." But as of June, she is officially the fourth most played proper planeswalker in Vintage of 2018, only a few appearances shy of longtime staple Tezzeret the Seeker, and vastly far ahead of Chandra the Rules-Neutered, Nahiri of the Yesterdays, and Teferi, the Fashionable who does a pretty good Dark Confidant impression for only five mana. Ms. Kord has appeared in several winning lists both online and has seen significant play in paper. Her range extends primarily to Oath of Druids though she has also appeared in RUG Planeswalker Control and the RUG Paradoxical Outcome list floating around that runs Titania, Protector of Argroth. For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on her utility in Oath of Druids.

We'll begin with a poignant anecdote. In April of this year at Waterbury, witnesses gathered around an Oath match-up with an unknown pilot. Arlinn Kord was on the battlefield and the Oath player won. Afterwards, the pilot was asked politely (though with typical incredulity), "Why is Arlinn Kord in your deck?" He responded, "I don't know. Brian Kelly plays it." They both laughed.

It is admittedly humorous that in a format of such astronomical threshold and caliber this seemingly ridiculous card would see unabated persistent play. How did we get to this point?

It starts with recognizing that despite all of the cantripping, Planeswalkers, Delving, and even Pyroblasting, Oath of Druids is a very different beast from its blue stew brethren. Unlike Jeskai, BUG, or Landstill, and to an even greater degree than Paradoxical Outcome, Oath of Druids is a special needs deck. The triumvirate of known paramount necessities are 1) safeguards against self-milling, 2) safeguards against dying to Spirit tokens, and 3) mitigating the virtual card disadvantage of drawing into fantastical beasts who might not be ready for their stage debut until the curtains have already closed.

Another differentiating factor is less overt but just as critical in today's metagame. That is its relationship to Planeswalkers. Unlike other blue decks, Oath of Druids cannot pressure opposing Planeswalkers with garden variety creatures and cannot protect its own. We will never flash in a Snapcaster Mage at the end of your turn. Sometimes we even give our opponents the very 1/1 tokens that attack our planeswalking allies.

A final consideration is the notion that, in theory, Oath of Druids can win by activating Jace's ultimate. This was historically accurate but over time, it's become increasingly infeasible, with Snapcasters, tokens, Containment Priests, Pyroblasts, and Mishra's hyperaggression flying at him every second. So if the Oath and hardcast plans fail, the pilot is generally disabled.

Those things considered, we turn to Arlinn Kord.

These are the main reasons she slots into Oath of Druids:

-Significant independent threat and viable alt-win
-Heavily threatens opposing Planeswalkers
-Defends our own Planeswalkers
-Cannot be Pyroblasted or Abrupt Decayed
-Neutralizes Containment Priest
-Diminishes risk of dying to Spirit Tokens
-Enables victory after Oath activation where passing the turn is hazardous (similar to Dragon's Breath)
-Allows Griselbrand to kill Jace immediately, rather than being bounced by him
-MVP in the dreaded Oath mirror
-Strong in matches that are most difficult for Oath (BUG Fish, UW Landstill)
-Helps stabilize against Workshops

Arlinn Kord gives us the longtime staple of Dragon's Breath on a planeswalker instead of an otherwise dead card, which happens to address many of the weak spots endemic to the archetype. She may not have a home in the more combo-centric builds like Burning or Paradoxical Oath but she's a very reasonable and powerful inclusion in the more mainstream Inferno Titan/Griselbrand decks. Below, I'll discuss her role in various match-ups. She is rarely boarded out.

Dredge: Game 1, her general job is to use the +1 on the Oath creature which is usually the difference between life and death. I've had several games where Griselbrand is not enough, but using the Arlinn on him enabled him to generate more life, resources, and ability to find Time Walk.

Post board, her use more commonly involves Wolf creation and Zombie burning, since you will be more disposed to keep hands that stop the Dredge plan rather those that advance our Oath plan, which is a bit slower and easier to disrupt. She will prevent dying to that lone annoying Bloodghast and the residual Zombie that snuck in before the Tormod's Crypt. Less commonly, she will just function as the win-con, as a temporarily neutralized opponent is floundering around looking for colored mana or a Nature's Claim while all you're drawing is counterspells or redundant Dredge hate.

Storm Combo: In game 1, her primary relevance is being able to get material value out of the Inferno Titan who doesn't actually do anything immediate to impede the opponent's game plan. 3 damage is negligible, but 12+ damage is not, particularly if the opponent intends to use Yawgmoth's Bargain. It's tempting to think that she gets boarded out, but she doesn't. The reason for this is that you should be boarding out at least 1-2 Oath of Druids and the third creature here, since you're in the control role. The match will be all about counterspells, draw spells, Planeswalkers and specific anti-Storm hate pieces. While you're expending resources to stop their main plan, you may find that it's become necessary to give them an uncomfortable abundance of Spirit tokens, especially if you've Null Rodded or Chaliced out the artifact mana. Arlinn is a godsend there. Additionally, it may not be wise to expend resources assembling both Oath of Druids and Forbidden Orchard when you need to devote your attention entirely to stopping their more exigent game plan. You may have had to discard Oath creatures to Dack Fayden in order to responsibly control your volatile and dangerous opponent. Even removing one creature dramatically increases the risk of losing by self-mill so you'll want a win condition that isn't being cannibalized by your deck's need to withstand the Storm threat. In one instance, I was able to refrain from countering Sadistic Sacrament and simply let a Ritual opponent take out every beast in my deck because I knew I would be better off saving my countermeasures for things that can actually kill me and then inevitably just winning with Arlinn. (*Similar things have happened with Jester's Cap.) Overall, this is not a showcase match-up for her, but she doesn't get boarded out since she smooths out rough edges that subtly become problematic after sideboarding.

BUG Fish: Hmm, costs 4, populates the board and kills any of their creatures or Jaces. Very good.

Landstill: This is another match where she is very strong, since the Wolves block Factories, Snapcasters, and Containment Priests and Arlinn, Embraced by the Moon can directly Bolt Jace without triggering an uphill stack war like Pyroblast. They may Swords a Wolf, but that puts them down a card leaving you with a dangerous and difficult-to-interact-with Planeswalker on the table. If they are splashing red, the Pyroblasts will be futile. They may eventually deal with the Arlinn, but doing so creates a major headache that demands their full attention, potentially becoming a diversion which can create an opening for your other threats to resolve. It's ordinarily very easy for Landstill to abuse and beat down an Oath mage so having this ability to create actual board presence without Plowable 6+drops is huge and in many ways unprecedented. It also goes without saying that you can't play Standstill over an Arlinn Kord.

Workshops: This is another match where she's going to be doing more Bolting and Wolf creation instead of haste-giving. Wolves can block Foundry Inspector, Phyrexian Revoker, and Mishra's Factory and Arlinn, Embraced by the Moon can remove creatures up to and including Lodestone Golem. She's not going to win the game by herself but she will play an important role in effectuating a path to victory. Post-board, she's even stronger as opponents are lighter on aggression and forced by Oath of Druids into running cards that don't directly advance their aggro-tempo plan. When they keep hands with one lock piece, Foundry Inspector, and 2 Grafdigger's Cages for instance, they will find themselves woefully unprepared to deal with a Wolf Planeswalker and likely lose when it resolves. She's much better at surviving than Dack Fayden or Jace, the Mind Sculptor.

Jeskai: She's better post-sideboard here due to the Containment Priests. A rule of thumb is that you should never attack with the first Wolf. If you do, they will probably flash in a Snapcaster or Containment Priest and exploit her vulnerability. If they are tapped out, you still likely shouldn't attack because these cantrips-as-heroin sleazebags always have Time Walk and of course they'll Snap it back and kill your Arlinn. The Wolf is your guardian here, not an attack dog. Arlinn is usually outclassed by Monastery Mentor but lines up well against most of their other threats.

Paradoxical: This is one match-up I might be inclined to board her out, but again, since I have to lean away from the Oath plan so much post board, it's good to have an actual win condition and she can remove Kambal, Consul of Allocation.

Oath Mirror: She does a great amount of work here, especially post sideboard. Most good Oath players board out copies of Oath of Druids so she presents a very uncomfortable clock given that a mere 2 Spirit tokens and Wolf on your side will be doing 7 damage per turn. Her aggression also disincentivizes and punishes gorging on the mirror-busting Sylvan Library and makes it difficult to extract significant value from the Jaces and Dacks that play outsized roles in post-sideboard games.

Thalia/Hate Bears: Block this hate bear, then Bolt that one. Heaven on earth. I'd run 4 if I could.

Now below are three additional notes on using Arlinn Kord that may be helpful.

First if you have Arlinn, Embraced by the Moon when there are two Wolves in play, it's tempting to keep flipping her back and forth every turn to generate more "value" but in this case, you should use the +1 and give them Trample. Consider an opponent at 13 life. If you attack with the 2 Wolves and use the Bolting ability targeting your opponent, you will deal 7 damage this turn with 4 potential damage on the next turn via attacks for a total of 11. This leaves your opponent at 2 life and you with an additional untapped Wolf in play. By contrast, if you use the Trample ability, the opponent will suffer 6 damage this turn, and then 7 the following turn, for a total of 13. You won't have the extra Wolf, but since 13 damage is lethal, the Wolf would be superfluous. Always bear in mind that using the +1 on Arlinn, Embraced by the Moon leaves the Lightning Bolt ability loaded and ready to fire while switching back to Arlinn Kord can give a window for an opposing threat to survive.

Secondly, looking ahead is also important if you want to use the haste ability. It may be correct to play Arlinn, and use the +1 with no target in order to preserve her haste ability for a forthcoming Oath creature.

Finally, there's the question of whether creating a Wolf on your side of the battlefield is at odds with the concept of forcing Oath of Druids activations by giving creatures to your opponent. In theory, yes, but in practice you should be able to determine how to sequence your plays and adjust accordingly. If it's imperative that your opponent not be able to use Oath, simply refrain from creating the Wolf. In other cases, you may actually want them to use your Oath. Consider playing against a Pyromancer deck where you have Oath of Druids in play but no Forbidden Orchard. If you sit around doing nothing, they will put a planeswalker on the board and get so far ahead that anything you Oath up will immediately become their property via Dack Emblem->Pyroblast. In this case, it's wise to use Arlinn Kord and force action. Generating the Wolf will tempt them to activate Oath and then having a Pyromancer in play will prevent them from casting any instants or sorceries without enabling you to trigger Oath on your following upkeep and obtain a much greater advantage. This is vastly preferable to remaining stationary while they begin their litany of cascading advantages and eventually win despite the Oath in play. I might also do this against Workshops, since many of their creatures are lackluster to Oath up on an empty board (Hangarback and Ballista are 0, Steel Overseer is a 1/1 with summoning sickness, Metamorph on a Wolf is unimpressive). Workshop pilots prey on Orchardless Oath mages by beating them down with Mishra's Factories, and in some cases Fleetwheel Cruiser. Arlinn's presence will entice them to play more creatures and you'll probably end up activating your Oath even despite lacking an Orchard. In sum, Arlinn Kord doesn't frustrate the gameplan of giving Spirit tokens to activate Oath of Druids and can even end up helping you activate it. You will know when it's a bad idea to give yourself a Wolf and it will never accidentally harm your Oath plan because it's an optional ability.

Hopefully this helps to demystify the confusion surrounding Arlinn Kord's popularity and recent success and provides some insight on how to utilize her optimally. Best to everyone,

-Brian Kelly

First, a big thank you to Nick Detwiler whose incredible events over the past several years were life changing. I mean that very literally because in 2013, when I returned to paper Vintage, I thought I would just be playing locally a few times a year. I was convinced, reluctantly at first, to try an event in Lancaster, PA and then take the giant step towards going full roadie to New York for the first NYSE. The experiences were so exciting--venues filled with people who shared our furious interest in this ancient format, faces put to names from online forums, people sharing hilarious stories all day long, watching the Top 8 matches in person at a marquee event, I could go on. With all respect to the nightlife era of our 20's, I remember thinking at age 33, "Hmmm, I don't think I've had this much fun since I was 17. This is where I belong." It's been an unforgettable journey since then--a windfall of strong friendships, great matches, deckbuilding discussions, Dragonlords, Wolf tokens, trophies, Notion Thieved Treasure Cruises, VSL, team Magic, one (and only one) Modern tournament, dozens of SMIP podcasts, 27,000 arguments on the Mana Drain, a partridge in a pear tree, and of course, making and witnessing our own hilarious stories like the legends of old. None of it would have been part of my life if I hadn't gone to New York in the summer of 2013. I'm eternally grateful to Nick whose superb events opened my eyes to how great paper Vintage at large events could be.

Congratulations also are in order for the deserving champ, phenomenal player Joe Brennan, JP Kohler, other members of the Top 8 and the cadre of Vintage scientists whose rigorous work I witnessed firsthand as they designed and tested the [censored] out of their airtight Karn Shops list: Vasu Balakrishnan, Will Magrann, Ryan Eberhart, Joel Lim, Will Dayton, and Rich Shay (who audibled to evil Dredge at the last minute. Karma does not reward necromancy! ) Sending a unit of 8 Academians largely on an identical 75 to this event and having the 50% of the Top 8 come from this squad was a great testament to the value of dedication, brainstorming, and recorded testing. I salute them all.

I tried experimenting with a blue Forge list while this was going on, but it didn't come together. As I was not able to stain my soul by serving Mishra or the Grave Troll, I went with a BUG deck that eschewed Deathrite Shamans in favor of the classic Tinker mana base, sans Sol Ring, but replete with Yawgmoth's Will, Academy, Bob-Jace, and removal options that went bigger like Deed or ones stuck around and generated additional utility, including the Queen. Notably, Deed, Vraska, and Garruk Relentless are all part of responsible Bob management. That doesn't mean they'll always be there in a pinch, but it means if they aren't, it wasn't for lack of planning.

The list had good results for me in testing and I noted that in many of the games I lost, the deck came through but I wasn't paying close attention or chose an incorrect line. With more practice and knowing that I'd be paying more attention in paper than on PC, I thought as a descendant of the Bob-Jace/Tinker decks with which I'm comfortable and experienced, it was a reasonable choice.

The night before the event I cut Dig through Time for a Sorcerous Spyglass since it seemed that being alive or meaningfully participating in the game on Turn 3 was more of an aspiration than a given in the format's current iteration. It worked out since I was able to Spyglass a Karn in the quarter-finals where Dig would have been a total brick and I never missed the spell once throughout the day. Bob was also happy to never see it.

Additional thanks to Calvin Hodges and Shawn Anthony who helped offset a minor setback where a certain West Coast vendor somehow mistook 2 day shipping for 7 day shipping, the end result being that Garruk, Ouphe, extra Dazes and the Queen herself ended up appearing in my mailbox in Pennsylvania around the same time as we were checking into our hotel in New York.

Thank you to my friend David Kaplan who I always enjoy seeing. His company provided a raffle and refreshments for the whole group, including sparkling water which was heaven-sent on that 100,000 degrees Fahrenheit day.

I enjoyed playtesting with Rich the night before even though I died once to a Hollow One. Someone is going to sneak a Hollow One ornament on my Christmas tree at some point leading to a tragedy.

Thank you to Andy Probasco for bringing his multimedia wizardry to New York and allowing everyone to follow along from home.

And finally, thank you to my agent, antagonist, secretary, publicist, protégé, travel companion, and virtual younger brother Matt Murray (ChubbyRain) for an unforgettable trip, even though he pretends he never heard the original version of "La Isla Bonita," only the rock cover of it that is often played on his channel while streaming. I don't believe him and neither should you.

Big BUG
Deck List

Mana Base:
3 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
1 Island
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Strip Mine
5 Moxen
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt

Extra Artifacts:
1 Sensei's Divining Top
1 Sorcerous Spyglass

Critters & Sylvans:
2 Dark Confidant
2 Sylvan Library
1 Snapcaster Mage
1 Trinket Mage
1 Collector Ouphe
1 Yixlid Jailer
1 Blightsteel Colossus

Countermagic:
3 Force of Will
2 Daze
2 Mental Misstep
2 Flusterstorm

Instants:
1 Brainstorm
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Peek
1 Assassin's Trophy

Planeswalkers:
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
1 Narset, Parter of Veils
1 Vraska, Golgari Queen
1 Garruk Relentless

Sorceries:
1 Gitaxian Probe
2 Preordain
1 Time Walk
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Tinker
1 Yawgmoth's Will

Extra:
1 Pernicious Deed

Sideboard:
3 Tormod's Crypt
2 Yixlid Jailer
1 Grafdigger's Cage
2 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
2 Nature's Claim
1 Mindbreak Trap
1 Null Rod
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Ophiomancer

Some notes on card choice:

I don't run Scalding Tarns because it is the fetchland I am most likely to encounter and name when I do a blind Spyglass v. blue.

Ophiomancer is a buffer against Hollow Ones and other large creatures (cough Eldrazi) that could steam roll my poor army of fragile worker bees. It needed to be there because I changed Infernal Reckoning to an extra Nature's Claim hedging more against Karn Shops than Eldrazi.

I didn't run Sol Ring cause it doesn't help with turn 1 Bob/Sylvan or hate pieces (Jailer, Rod). Also, I'm not interested in keeping hands that rely on it for obvious reasons.

Thrun is for blue. Rush him out, ignore their PW's and focus on keeping their critters off the table is a solid strategy that's been successful more often than not.

Decay comes in against blue because Assassin's Trophy is so much worse there, but it's a blank in too many other important match-ups to be maindeck when Vraska, Garruk, and Pernicious Deed can already dispense with most things I'd want to Decay anyway.

Rumors of Jace's demise are exaggerated. I was pretty down on him too in my Xerox lists and what I've discovered is that it's not the card JTMS that's the problem but the lack of acceleration. He really wants things like Mana Crypt, full Moxen, and Tolarian Academy to be happy. It makes a world of a difference and he was great all day.

Never Force something if you can Daze it. Especially against Dredge.

Pernicious does a lot of things and is ideal in responding to the multiple CMC critter hordes one might see from the "Bane of BUG" Young Pyromancer and friends.

The potential for discord between Collector Ouphe/Null Rod and acceleration/Top is offset by the fact that the former responds to imminent threats so urgent that I couldn't care less if I can't spin a prospective Top or use a Mox Ruby if it means shutting down Karn's toys or Outcome. In other matches where Null Rods aren't good, if the Ouphe is going to be painful in a lopsided way for me, naturally I won't play it (unless we need an emergency blocker) and it gets boarded out. Classic Bob-Jace wouldn't run Null Rod, but this one keeps the Tinker without doing Vault-Key, so having the Rods is worth it.

I finally kicked the Library habit. My favorite card. It seduces me into keeping hands I shouldn't. Could not do it in this uber-punishing metagame.

Tournament Report

Round 1: Pitch Dredge, Win 2-0

I had no idea what he was on and he seemed well-dressed and sophisticated enough to not be on Dredge. Kidding, necromancers. But I was deceived. He led with Bazaar. I Probed him, saw no interaction, Time Walked and played Peek, drawing Yixlid Jailer leading to concession. In the maindeck? Of course. Crimes against the living cannot go unpunished.

Game 2, I had a hand that beautifully reflected the decklist's and creator's unabashed abhorrence of Dredge. At one point, I played a Tormod's Crypt and after it was on the table for 15 seconds, my opponent said, "Wait, I can counter that? Can I counter that?" I let him. He said he was new to the format and I was there mostly to have a good time and support the event. It didn't matter and I figured it was more important to give a good community impression. He still died to double Jailers and his Hollow Ones did not pay tribute at the Tabernacle so the high priestess, a benevolent scarlet minister named Lady Melisandre incinerated them at the pyre.

Round 2: Jeskai, Win 2-1

Game 1:
He won the die roll, played a cantrip, and passed. I played Time Walk which resolved. I played a Sensei's Top and declined to "Misstep back" when he countered it, then Bob, pass. He played an Arcanist and passed. He called it Smashcaster Mage and I liked the nickname. I played a Snapcaster and Time Walked again, followed by one of the green planeswalkers that eats Dreadhorde Arcanists. He conceded.

In Game 2, I mulled to 6 with a control heavy hand and Top. At one point, I blind drew off Top for a blue card to Force his Dack Fayden and the blue card miraculously ended up being Daze. But he threw more threats at me than my three counters could handle and ended up with Dack in play at the end which turned into the typical Xerox parade of horribles. After drawing a blank on my turn, I conceded.

Game 3, I kept a hand with 3 lands, 3 Moxen, and Jace. It was risky cause it was all on in Jace, but when the Jace didn't get Forced and his +0 Brainstormed into Misstep, Daze, and some other counterspell the game was taken over quickly. Garruk came next. Then Vraska. Each of the planeswalkers including Jace did something horrible to a Dreadhorde Arcanist. I Decayed his Dack and he was able to resolve Treasure Cruise but nothing else of any consequence. I sacrificed one of Garruk's wolves to his flip side and tutored up Thrun, the Last Troll.

Round 3: Jeskai, Loss 1-2

Game 1, I kept a hand with Daze, Flusterstorm, some other counter, Sensei's Top; I think we both mulled to 6. He played an Arcanist turn 1. When he untapped he Ancestralled himself and I got a pit in my stomach. He Misstepped one of my Flusterstorms and paid 1 for the other. The first Recall did not resolve but the second one did. I was depleted; drew and saw no action, condeded.

Game 2, I kept a hand I usually despise due to double Force to Tourach but it served me well (for once). He played Turn 1 Lavinia, I Forced it, he Forced back, I Forced back. He had a lot of Moxen but no red Mana. He Wasted my land. I got a Sylvan to stick. The first 3 had no land so I gorged. He played a Lotus and did not crack it. My next 3 had no land again so I took 2. The following turn, I found the fetchland. He cracked Lotus for red to Pyroblast my Narset and I decided not to counter back because I suspected he had another Pyroblast, which, with Lotus gone, could be rendered impotent later due to lacking Volacnics. He had been passing the turn back several times previously with no action and no red mana. I blew up his 3 other Moxen with Pernicious Deed, Garruk came and the Wolves were hungry. After the game, he showed me his hand was Pyroblast, Pyroblast, Dack Fayden.

Game 3 was broadcast. This match was my only loss in the Swiss so naturally it was featured on camera for the whole world to see. He mulled to 6 and played Ancestral, it resolved. I played a turn 1 Trinket Mage getting Top and had Cage in my hand for Arcanists. He played Lavinia and Strip Mined me so even with multiple Moxen in play, I couldn't even play a Cage or Sensei's Top. I drew no land. I drew spells that could remove Lavinia, including Abrupt Decay, but no land. His Arcanist got going while I drew more non-lands, culminating in an insult-to-injury Mox Emerald and then I conceded.

Round 4: Shredge, Win 2-1

I had a delightful opponent who said he played on MTGO often and I asked what his screen name was. He said he couldn't tell me because it would be a dead giveaway. I stated "The only person I could think of whose name would be a dead giveaway would be Zias." I didn't think it was really him. But it was! He introduced himself then. I couldn't believe it. He is famous for his innovative Shops/Dredge hybrid which I always admired.

I had a bizarre opener of Lotus, Mana Crypt, Jet, Vraska, gobble my own Mana Crypt. It was decent but he very quickly had that Hogaak thing in play next to a Hollow One + 2 Bloodghasts and an Amalgam and I couldn't mount a commensurate defense or find the really broken cards in time.

In Game 2, he had a Leyline of Sanctity in play pre-game which was okay cause I didn't board in all of my Dredge hate for Shredge, leaving out many of the Crypts due to Null Rod. I played a Grafdigger's Cage. He played a Trinisphere. I Spyglassed Bazaar. I played a Jace. I wanted to Nature's Claim his Trinisphere and start doing fireworks but he suddenly put one half of Depths combo and Urborg into play with very few, if any, cards in hand. Having already used my Spyglass, I was pretty cold to it aside from one Strip Mine wherever it was so I had to claim his Leyline to start fatesealing and keep that evil at bay. He didn't assemble it.

In Game 3, my hand was 3 accelerants, Fetchland, Tolarian Academy, Jace, Cage. The kind of thing that looks super strong but I know to be susceptible to certain Shops-esque openers on the draw which I expected. Still I kept. He led with Null Rod. I played all my Moxen, fetchland, and Recalled. Next turn I played Cage and used Academy for UUUU to cast Jace. Things got out of hand. He Wasted my Academy but predictably, Jace kept finding land. I think I beat him down with a Bob and Yixlid Jailer.

Round 5: BUG Depthstill, Win 2-0 (?)

The only reason I know this was a Standstill deck is because much later on, I heard people mention a Depthstill deck having been played at the top tables. To me it just looked like BUG Depths in our match. I saw Life from the Loam, Trops, Seas, Wastelands, Hexmage, Assassin's Trophies, blue countermagic, but not a single Standstill at any point, not even in the graveyard while he was Loaming deep.

Depths makes me a bit anxious since I don't play Legacy and have to pause and parse through the correct timing steps in my head with Wastelanding the Stage every time it comes up. He started Strip Mining me with Life from the Loam. My Spyglass showed he had Depths, Stage, Force, Trophy and Hexmage in hand. Scary! I named Stage. I got Bob and was able to draw land at critical times. He Trophied my Spyglass and I was sad about that but happy to get an Island to put a Jace on the stack despite the incessant Strip Mining. He tapped 5 to Force, which I Dazed. I drew a Strip Mine which complicated his Depths plan and prevented his Hexmage from making Marit, but for a while I was certain I was going to lose somehow. Something I did got Mindbreak Trapped. Eventually I played Yawgmoth's Will and Demonic Tutor for Tinker, Time Walk. I used a Force from my graveyard on his second Mindbreak Trap. It was the first time I cast Tinker all day.

Game 2 He had DT, Hexmage, Depths, Time Walk, and some mana. I don't remember everything but I know I Strip Mined his Depths, he played a Sylvan and drew all 3 but did nothing (I assume it was countermagic). He was having trouble finding Depths. I was debating playing Jace to tease out a Force but instead I drew my own Force and played Tinker for the win.

It's possible that this round was 2-1 and I can't remember a whole game I lost or if I just felt like I was going to lose for so long that I can't be entirely sure I didn't. It was a long match and "5 minutes left in the round" was heard shortly before the Tinker.

Round 6: Paradoxical Outcome Win 2-1

This match was featured here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/455452179?t=06h04m01s

The only thing I'd add from seeing the commentary is that the reason I conceded Game 2 is because my hand was Lotus, Mana Crypt, Jace, Flusterstorm, and some other demanding CMC things like Assassin's Trophy/Garruk so when he put Lavinia into play turn 1 even after using his land drop to Preordain, it meant that I would not be casting any spells for a very long time. Hand goes Treasure -> Trash. Jeremy had Outcome immediately after Lavinia, not visible on camera, which was enough for me to concede.

Also, I boarded out Tinker/BSC since he was on something extreme like 4 Chain of Vapors and I'm control here rather than Robot-Aggro. I did keep Garruk as a wincon though since it's only one card and it could keep things like Lavinia or Dark Confidant at bay if it lands early. I didn't know if he was on sideboard Bobs but I've seen them before in Esper PO; they're extremely effective for the PO pilot and I liked having floodgates for that kind of thing.

Round 7: Ravager Shops, ID into Top 8, 6th Seed

Top 8 & Top 4:

Quarterfinals and semifinals matches are here:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/455452179?t=05h54m57s

I haven't yet watched the replays but after I do, if there were audience questions I could address, I'll return an respond in the comments below or edit the report to include them.

I hope to see everyone again at the next big event (Waterbury!) in October. Best,

-Brian Kelly

On a lighter note, if Mentor is restricted, it will be a huge relief for players on MTGO. Those triggers clutter up the screen like mosquitoes. I want to swat them away even though they indicate the game is going well.

I noticed an assumption stated above that Chalice on turn 1, presumably Chalice @ 0, was not so much of a problem. But IIRC, that was exactly why it was restricted.

I think the series of restrictions was the inevitable result of high level attention suddenly being paid to a format that had been allowed to go so far off the deep end due to neglect. As soon as Wizards moved forward with plans to monetize Vintage (VSL/MTGO, Eternal Masters, Vintage Masters), they began reining in its excesses. Unfortunately, due to the neglect, those excesses were numerous and subsumed into a temporarily skewed vision of what is "normal" or "acceptable" in a competitive but aspirationally vibrant format like Vintage. The tragic 2008 "re-interpretation" (to put it charitably) of Time Vault was the biggest affront that began the era of treating Vintage like an abandoned train wreck beyond repair. It took years for the format to become fun again. During that time disaster upon disaster accumulated; "horrible" and "beyond the pale" became the norm and now the antiseptic process is more painful that it would have been had there been timely intervention (including proper printings to address taxing).

The reason a handful of restrictions has not led to utopia is not because those restrictions were incorrect but because the amount of offensive cards exceeding historical norms of Vintage was allowed to reach saturation levels. It will take more than a little nip and tuck to get that face ready for prime time. I'm glad they're attempting to clean the format again but the attention comes much later than it should have. It's also discouraging to think of how much could have been avoided by effective printings, particularly when they began releasing sets that would never be Standard and Modern legal (thus throwing out the only justifiable excuse for not doing so).

Just about every card in the Jeskai Mentor deck was/is inappropriate as a 4x: Gush, Probe, Cruise, Dig, Mentor, Misstep, Preordain, and then even JVP + Dack Fayden are comparable to JTMS whose legality was a subject of off and on debate for years. If more of the deck needs to be discarded and whole thing is relegated to the history books, so be it. It might be the most universally despised deck the format has known.

Shops has the issue of containing several 4x cards that are interdependently problematic because of 4x Mishra's Workshops. It has the "Academy" problem, where a host of cards end up needing to be restrained due to the problems created by one. However, the case here differs as it would be tangibly cruel to so many community members to restrict the Workshop. It's preferable to restrict other cards that allow the Workshop to stay in the format.

On a final note, I don't believe there's a serious chance the DCI is going to roll the dice on unrestricted Gush for the fourth time at any point in near future. Stare decisis.

Good questions.

I think there can be a successful Oath deck out there right now, but it needs a lot of focus and testing to generate the optimal configuration of creature package, counter package, draw suite, removal suite, planeswalkers, Dredge plan, PO plan, Null Rod choices (run it, ignore it, fight it), TV/Key choice, Karakas plan, and managing the triumvirate of intrinsic self-inflicted wounds: automilling, useless cards in hand, and death by Spirit token.

Punishing Oath Emrakul/Griselbrand is formidable overall, and can run Null Rod/SS but is slightly soft to combo and soft to Karakas.

Saheeli Oath transfers the issue of useless draws away from the creatures but then moves that onto a combo piece that is generally horrible by Vintage standards. We call her the "blue Bridge from Below."

Gush Oath was smooth and consistent but now Gush is restricted.

Auriok Oath is likely good right now with the right supplements but can't be tested on MTGO where many of us get some portion of our testing experience.

Landstill/Oath decks seem as fine as ever, attacking on two distinct axes. Still, it has the "Treetop Village, go" thing going on.

Evil Oath decks might offer a lot. By Evil Oath, I refer to prison-esque strategies that can use Sun Titan, Trinisphere, Rod, and land destruction to help combat a natural predator which is combo. I've started looking into a preliminary build but am not sure whether it will be ready in time for something like the NYSE.

Overall, it takes a long time to get Oath "right" and there is a lot of analysis and balancing that must occur. The end result can pay off spectacularly but a lot of the format's mental energy is being poured into neo-Mentor, Big Blue, Paradox, Shops/Eldrazi, and Dredge atm.

@chubbyrain

Thank you for posting this. It's so refreshing to see 0 Eldrazi represented; finally some semblance of peace and harmony is achieved. Now if only we could do away with all the other creatures...

First of all, this thread is loaded with beautiful quotes, so props to the below:

@cutlex said in [M19] Tezzeret, Artifice Master:

@evouga said in [M19] Tezzeret, Artifice Master:

I'm extremely hard-pressed to think of any situation where I'd rather draw two cards than win the game.

You might be in the minority of Vintage players.

and

@topical_island said in [M19] Tezzeret, Artifice Master:

I mean, is it really better than, I can't believe I'm saying this, Arlin Kord?

It's significantly worse than Arlinn Kord in Oath of Druids and probably in a vacuum as well. It's bad enough giving a Spirit token and paying 3 to have Dack Fayden Pyroblasted on the stack, but this unwieldy thing is just asking for too much of a blowout.

Tezzeret, Artifice Master has some serious problems that need to be called to light. First, it's not going to be drawing two cards a turn reliably. You probably can't Lotus it out early on and have three artifacts in play unless it's Christmas in Pittsburgh. Secondly, this seems abominable against Shops, especially compared to Arlinn Kord but also to Jace and Dack. The Thopter can't trade with most attackers while Arlinn's Wolf trades with around half of them. And it only takes one shoot from a Ballista to remove it.

I do think it's valuable to compare new cards to existing options, contrary to the stated position of ChubbyRain above. He is a good apprentice but notorious for insubordination. It's reasonable to compare and contrast Anticipate with Impulse, for instance.

This card is not unplayable; provided you get to 5 mana and are relatively unimpeded, it will do very cool things. There might even be a forthcoming idiosyncratic shell that can twist itself into design contortions that make this card "correct" in the slot. I would find it pretty exciting at 2UU. At 5 mana, we have to ask ourselves "why am I putting this into play instead of Future Sight?" It reminds me of Teferi in the sense, that sure, the card is powerful but there's a world of a difference between 4 and 5 mana. Winning with Teferi is eerily similar to the days where I piloted Sylvan Mentor with all of its unrestrcted Gushes, Probes, and so forth; the deck was so overpowered, I could choose whatever otherwise out-of-place win-cons I wanted to seal the deal and still win major events. Narset? Sure. Dragonlords Ojutai and Dromoka instead of Mentor #2 and #3? Why not. Those were fun times. I'm not sure we have such luxuries today.

I should also add that I'm a fan of enthusiastic posts discussing new cards. I don't share the sentiment that it's embarrassing to enjoy musing over novel possibilities and that such discussions are inherently ridiculous. The recent troll post I felt was lighthearted enough that I added a jubilant comment. Discussion of why cards are unplayable is just as useful as discussing why they are unplayable. Never stop learning.

As the data points to an objective problem with Gush Mentor, I also want to add that subjectively I am really tired of seeing that deck. I have a friend who's a long time tournament mainstay in the Northeast that stopped playing Vintage specifically because of it; he just hated it. I suspect the feeling is widespread. Even as someone that's won a lot with it, I think it's time to put that blight out of its misery.

I enjoyed recording the podcast and was honored to be invited. Thank you to Andy and everyone who left positive comments.

Thanks, Topical Island. There's no conflict w. me and Paul; he's a great addition to the league and his journey into exploring Vintage as a master player in other formats is something many people are loving, as it combines both the excitement of discovery with high aptitude for play. With the Chalice question, I meant to reference some of the more notorious episodes of foul play we've seen in Vintage as the basis for why I don't even begin to crack the jar on that can of worms with things like testing opponents' awareness of Chalice of the Void. Afterwards, someone who watching said for a moment it sounded dismissive of him and I was surprised because that wasn't what was going through my head at the time. So when I watched it, I totally saw how it could have come across that way for a moment which was not my intent at all.

At paper events, I'm a pretty forgiving and accommodating opponent. I have let people take things back and vouched for opponents' good intentions, going on record that something was an honest mistake when for instance, an Undiscovered Paradise trigger is missed and a judge nearby issues a warning. Magic is a pleasant reprieve from academic, professional, family, and work life for the majority of Vintage players. Having learned the card pool and rules enclyclopedically in the 1990's then having seen that go entirely down the drain with the 6th Edition rules update, I'm partial to the view that it's not only impossible but also no longer pragmatic to be 100% versed in every interaction the game offers. Since I would never want to be in the position where I'm punished because, "You, sir, didn't see the obscure memo posted in July 2007 that changed the rule about the rule about the rule about the trigger that reversed the rule about the rule about the trigger," I afford opponents the same latitude. Overall, I don't think taking this more amicable approach to tournament play has hurt my performance. On the contrary, I think it promotes a more healthy state of mind to use for the other more important decisions that occur in matches (and we know them all, mulligan decisions, fetch decisions, what to counter, what to pitch, etc.). Hopefully that elaborates more clearly on how I'd approach play ethics at a live event.

-B

An enjoyable fun format is essential to its sustenance. In the past few months, I've seen the constant lamentations of the format translate into real departures that are discouraging. Justin Kohler for instance who used to be a mainstay at nearly every event in a 300 mile radius of Eastern Pennsylvania hates Gush tokens so much, he sold his MTGO collection and has skipped every event save last hurrah Waterbury. The dailies on MTGO are not firing and the P9 event sizes appear to be trending sharply downwards. The format is generally not as fun as it has been in the past. Many of us disagree on what the causes or solutions are, but there is a palpable malaise and distaste for current Vintage coming from multiple varied perspectives.

While Steve, who I generally enjoy and admire, may write off these losses as meaningless plebeians who don't truly understand what is good for the game or good for their own lives, I have a responsibility to take the more audience-friendly approach as the format's paper Champion. In my (strong) opinion, the concerns, engagement, and enjoyment of the players at all skill levels matter. "[Well then quit, the format doesn't need you]" is an asinine approach to leadership. In my (strong) opinion, the secondary market matters as well because I find it callous and nefarious to inflict economic hardship on community members who are like family to us merely to have a theoretically more "diverse" metagame by some arbitrary standard. I will never support the restriction of Mishra's Workshop or Bazaar of Baghdad because too many individuals have sacrificed or worked hard to acquire playsets and I can't even imagine what that would do to stores (who are likewise our TO's and friends) that are heavily invested in either. Never will go there. By the same token, I'll never support unrestricting Library of Alexandria because this will create an additional chaos and result that disproportionately favors the affluent. Finally, I don't want to restrict Gush right now because I do care about the incredible effort Stephen invested in his extremely well realized new Gush book and I'd find it disheartening to see such a triumphant accomplishment neutered at its onset. Maybe that's too "subjective" a reason for some, but because restricting Gush is a very 50/50 proposition (and since life will be fine overall regardless of whether we have Gush for another 6 months, a year, etc.), what makes it an easy call for me is that fact that restricting it will bring about tangible harm to an important member of our community and there is no compelling reason to do that. I'm also persuaded by stories people have told about spending months preparing for Champs and restricting it now is like pulling the rug. Those concerns matter and they -should- matter. The detached faux-scientific strictly mathematical approach to restricting cards in our hobby of enjoyment is not only entirely misplaced, but it is also comically pretentious and mismatched to the actual goals of a format voluntarily played more for fun than for stark competition. I believe the Gush question should be revisited next year.

That said, since we have problems with the format, a reasonable inclination is to wait for Wizards to fix them with printings. They have demonstrated an inability to understand why a gazillion mana sorcery is not a competitive answer to a 2W army of Monks. Bear in mind, most of us who found Shops to be problematic several years ago wanted to hold off on calls for restrictions until Wizards had the chance to rectify things themselves. Rich Shay famously suggested a card with Kamigawa's "channel" mechanic that could destroy a single artifact irrespective of Sphere tax. When a year or two went by and nothing happened, we were dismayed. Three to four years was worse. "Well they can't really let themselves harm Standard with Vintage specific cards.," we may have reasoned. When Wizards began releasing eternal only sets and still didn't address the [censored] problem, that's when the calls to action began in earnest. But many prominent blue mages were not trigger happy in calling for restrictions. I waited a while,. I supported restricting Chalice and opposed restricting Lodestone Golem. This is a pretty measured non-radical perspective, IMO.

Since Wizards is demonstrating the same ineptitude in understanding how to craft a check/balance for Monastery Mentor and likewise never really provided an adequate inherent game balance to 1-mana discard spells (since anything that's not free will itself simply be forced via discard, Leyline of Sanctity is horrible since it's -CA even if oppo does not draw the discard, and here in Vintage we're not getting much mileage out of a vanilla 4/4 like Loxodon Smiter), we have a problem with token generators and Probe/Therapy and the obnoxious "misstep your misstep of my misstep on your misstep." It's time to say goodbye to New Phyrexia.

It has been said before that Magic is a zero sum game in terms of fun. I disagree. There are some games that are richly engaging and enjoyable for both parties regardless of who wins. And there are those that are miserable both for the loser and for the winner. Monastery Mentor is a net negative. My experience with the card matches what I hear from others. I don't like losing to it. I don't like winning with it (and heaven knows, I have won a lot of crap with it). I don't like winning after removing an opponent's Mentor. I don't like losing with Mentor in hand or in play. Anyway it's sliced, Mentor is negative. It's functionally a strictly superior Tinker that adorably does not require you to play an uncastable robot and then a self-help card like Thirst for Knowledge to shuffle the robot back. If there's any reason for Tinker to still be restricted (is there?), Monatery similarly should be restricted. But I would go further and Ban it as an incontrovertible statement that we don't espouse cards that Wizards fails to address with proper answers. The other card I would consider banning is Mental Misstep. It's banned in every format, universally recognized as toxic, not simply because it makes players win more or lose more, but because it leads to empirically low quality games.

I would keep the list as it currently is for Champs and then in January:

Ban Monastery Mentor
Ban Mental Misstep
Restrict Gitaxian Probe
Unrestrict Windfall (trial basis)

--Urge Wizards to print something that actually makes Thoughtseize/Duress/Therapy a risky proposition as Teferi's Response did for Wasteland/Rishadan Port. A trap with Rayne, Academy Chancellor's effect would be ideal.

And the watchlist would be:

Preordain, Gush, Show and Tell (this card is always going to be a headache from now until 2030 and beyond, even though our designers have not fully exploited it yet), Thought-Knot Seer, Windfall, Wasteland, Oath of Druids.

All good points, everyone.

If the card cost 2W, Beast Within would be better in most scenarios but the cost reduction is enormous in practice making it something I'll have to test in Oath of Druids decks that use white.

@maximumcdawg

How so?

They seem very different to me.

Regarding this card, bear in mind, no one would play a card called Fire that deals 2 damage to up to two targets nor would they play a card that calls Ice that taps a permanent and draws a card. But Fire/Ice is a longtime player in the format because of its versatility.

This card here is similar by having multiple modes and additional ones are added when piloting Oath of Druids, those being specifically "trigger Oath of Druids" and "turn imperiled Dack into Angel that protects me from the Spirit tokens I had to create."

The extra modes are what made Beast Within an MVP in Oath of Druids while I probably wouldn't run it in any other deck. This card is an upgrade in several respects (particularly CMC) but not without a few factors working against it. I think overall, it's better.

I think the best home would be in Oath of Druids which is uniquely soft to planeswalkers compared to decks that can run creatures. That's where I would run Beast Within, which serves so many purposes. By and large, I'd consider this card in upgrade in that slot.

@protoaddict

There's rarely such thing as being 100% optimal in practice. One optimal card is suboptimal based on match-up, game state, and vice versa. The shell one would have to use to support this thing would have to be fairly novel which gives a nontrivial advantage to the person who has all of the interactions stored in muscle memory while the opponent is improvising under pressure. The individual components would would have their own different sets of pros and cons. Somehow melding this with Bazaar allows obscene draw that itself can't be countered.

Like I said, overall, I think the end result would be a list that isn't as good as one built using the most generally efficient cards. But it's not hard to envision someone doing relatively well with a deck that includes this.

It's definitely playable. That doesn't mean it will or should be played but it has multiple modes at a low CMC all of which are moderate to high impact. It's similar to cheaper Beast Within with few more restrictions on targeting but with the upside that when you use it on your own permanent (in resp to removal perhaps) you get a much better threat. I've won many games with the end of turn Beast token.

I agree with Andy. Its normal use is the kind of thing we see approximated by often-played cards and the normal mode can help you synthesize the kind of set-up required for the Draw 3.

It has potential. It doesn't require pairing with any independently bad cards and its cost is low enough that it doesn't need cumbersome gymnastics.

It's not a strong card but it's not outright unplayable. By that I mean you can probably devise a shell and after a lot of careful refinement you'd have something that would be only slightly worse than other Vintage decks.

Matt's experience with Archive is valuable and echoed my own, though of course he can always benefit from being more amicable.

I enjoy the new card threads and seeing the bursts of excitement, even if initial assessments are overestimations or underestimations. People should speak freely, openly, and without judgment on such a relatively casual topic.

-BPK

@smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

Brian,

You've lost sight of the forest for the trees.

The issue here is the swiftness with which a card was banned in Vintage, based, I believe, on an over-solicitousness to the most-frequent MTGO players.

I started expressing my concerns on this topic nearly three years ago, including with this article here.

In that article, I wrote, with growing unease, about how the change in the format is being experienced, and how it underlies widening cleavages between segments of the player base regarding B&R policy. The article is brief (for me) and worth revisting in its entirety.

These are all legitimate concerns and I agree, they are worth revisiting. Of course I understand they were integral to your overall position here and mine is not that far off from yours.

Nor is that to say that no other motives or intents could be present in juxtaposing his tweets. It is, of course, always possible to do one thing for multiple reasons, as is called "mixed motives" in law. But you do not credit this motive at all. [] To be clear, one could more reasonably argue that my averred purpose was the primary purpose, but I had a secondary, or subsidiary motive among the list of 9 above. But you have foreclosed that possibility in your own posts.

I appreciate what, at long last, appears to be a tacit confession. I figured it was implicit that having a motivation to shade someone as well as one to make a valid point are not mutually exclusive. Certainly on a final exam, we would articulate every seemingly mundane and self-evident morsel of thought to demonstrate actual knowledge but outside of that context, I assume an understanding on your part that doesn't require me to insult your intelligence. This can be received as a compliment, but it certainly should not be misconstrued as me waiving (lol) an argument that's self-evidently part of the original one.

To be clear, I believe your concern about the celerity of B&R action is real and something worth discussing. I also think that the flow of the thread gave you an opportunity to sneak in a catty jab at Matt that was impulsive and not particularly calculated or diabolical. I don't believe this is a severe offense; you're not a bad person and you're not on trial. Again, it's all water under the bridge. I enjoyed this exercise but there is nothing more to say on this topic!

But my point remains: law provides workable definitions tested over generations that can provide clarity, guidance and structure to debates such as this. Does not mean we should always apply them, but they can be of use.

It can. I may be more pessimistic but my experience has led me to believe law is often a Rorschach test where normative actors see what they want to see (and even pretend to see for argument's sake). That's certainly true for Con Law (that stands for Constitutional Law, peanut gallery, not laws about fraud!). But certainly there are parts that are as close to unambiguous as we can hope given the limits of language. A drinking age of 21 is clean and straightforward for instance.

Oh, I absolutely do remember, but I disagree that that was the saddest November. You are referring to the November of 2004, but the saddest November was that of 2016.

What much of the country experienced in 2016 hit me in 2004. I'm sure you can appreciate how much closer I was to its impact cough cough, ballot box Constitutional Amendments fueling turnout The first shocking disillusionment is the hardest. Numbness mitigates subsequent ones. I'm very bothered by attempts to rehabilitate figures from that era.

@tittliewinks22 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

The word juxtapose is being used entierly too much in this thread about kitties.

That's Stephen's fault.

@serracollector said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

So for anyone still following this BANNED AND RESTRICTED announcement, Lurrus was banned, just wanted to make sure people who click this link can see what actually happened with B and R. Your welcome!

Oh no, did we vacuum the oxygen out of the thread? Wait, wait, don't answer.

Khahan, I love Paper Magic. I wish I could go to more events. It was more accessible when I lived 20 minutes away from The Player's Guild and before I had a few things pop up in the past few years that made regular travel out of state on the weekends not as possible to do regularly as I'd prefer. It has nothing to do with the caliber of events; as far as I can tell they've all been great. I still consider myself an IRL Paper Player first, despite enjoying MTGO quite a bit.

@smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

You and Matt claim that I misrepresented his position by posting the first tweet doesn't even make sense on its face. The second tweet in the same image dispels any illusions that I was attempting to demonstrate a contradiction with anything in this thread.

It was your truncation of his thread that gave an inaccurate portrayal of his position, hence the misrepresentation. Juxtaposing those two statements together made him appear fickle and inconsistent.

That's because the second tweet in the same image was consistent with his position in this thread.

There was nothing wrong with the second tweet.

So, here you are claiming not that I misrepresented his position, but that I was trying to "make him look bad"? How exactly? By suggesting a contradiction? I thought I already answered that charge before: the juxtaposition of the two tweets demonstrate not a contradiction, but a 10 day change of opinion, based upon intervening experiences.

Again, the overall effect made him look volatile and ridiculous. It was reminiscent of an attack ad.

Like most pseudo-controversies on The Mana Drain, the analysis does not actually call for legal skills.

No, it doesn't call for it, but it does help from time to time. Law provide clarity and well-worn guidance. Law has established workable definitions and elements that can be applied to adduce evidence or draw conclusions that might support one claim over another.

Matt claims I misrepresented his views. In law, a "misrepresentation" is a "false statement of a material fact."

No, there is no universal and ubiquitous definition of misrepresentation in "law." There may be one in some edition of Restatement of Torts. Some jurisdictions may decline to use it. It's used in Contract Law in ways that are not identical to Torts. It shows up in multiple additional areas of law, random subsections of statutes, international law, and of course then must be defined in any number of languages which opens the quest for precision up to any further number of adulterating factors.

Additionally, a misrepresentation is not simply a lie or a false statement of fact as one would find in defamation. A true statement of material fact can be presented in a manner that misrepresents its truth in context. For instance, "Bette said 'I ate my children' " is technically true because Bette did use those words when stating "I deny that I ate my children." But the former statement conveys something close to contradictory to what the full statement actually conveys. Hence, her statement was misrepresented.

Applied here, it is more likely that participants in this thread used the term misrepresentation as it is understood colloquially rather than legally, even setting aside the lack of a universal term definition. That means there was no shying from engaging with your technical analysis; I simply found it inapposite as I believe I've communicated previously.

If he or you wish to accuse me of something else, I would certain consider that accusation on its merits, but let's be as clear as possible about what it is we are accusing me of. Because if my "crime" is something else, then don't label me as misrepresenting his views. Call it for what it is.

You are not being accused of any crime or being sued.

My point was far more important than Matt's comparatively trivial tweets. I was arguing that DCI policy should be more balanced, and that a swift banning was too fast. Matt's tweet was buried in the middle of this much larger point. You seem to think that the main purpose of my post was to jab Matt. Quite the contrary. The purpose was to argue against a swift banning, and Matt's tweets nicely illustrated some of the premises to my argument.

I don't believe you're unable to understand how positioning two contradictory statements by one person next to each other is unflattering. Surely you remember a certain someone who "voted for" the war "before I voted against it" and how damaging that clip was. Saddest November of all time.