I am interested to see the number of anti-shops cards that the PO decks were running, and also to know whether or not the shops decks were running null rod. same for how many stonys the mentor decks were running.
I guess in the top 32 lists we have 2 null rods in the 1st and 11th place shops decks.
12th place mentor deck has 1 stony in the board, 20th place has 3(!) in the board, and 32nd has 1.
I'd say all of the top 32 PO decks are softer to shops than my list...
@Log Yeah, that was precisely the one score that got both teams through as well. A 1-1 draw would have left them with to few goals scored and Italy would have advanced. Good thing they "happened" to play a 2-2 draw then.... The Italian press was furious about it if I remember correctly.
Which is to say that I don't think the DCI decision is going to be able to evaluated for a very, very long time.
Look at the Lodestone Golem restriction. There are many who felt that it was not warranted by the data. There are those who think it needed to happen.
Many who favored the Lodestone restriction pointed to the development of the Eldrazi deck as proof that it was good for the metagame. They pointed to the flourishing of blue decks and commented that shops had been weakened but was still good.
Six months later there were grumblings that the rise of a third form of prison deck was starting to make events less fun. Monastery mentor driven by a gush engine coalesced into a very powerful deck, and some felt it was perhaps broken. Many bemoaned the "oh look, another mentor mirror match" feel.
Some of the same people that said Lodestone golem needed to go for the sake of the metagame and felt that the DCI was absolutely "justified" in its decision to do so were also saying the the vintage metagame was in shambles and had grown stale.
Magic players love to complain.
I don't know if restricting gush and probe were good.
I think it is too early to tell.
I don't know if restricting Lodestone Golem was good.
The metagame that occurred afterward (in which many people felt something was off/unenjoyable) suggests it was probably hasty.
All I know is I dislike seeing cards restricted because it takes years for them to get unrestricted if it happens.
And I 'd rather see a metagame have time to work itself out rather than needing "course correction."
Apologies for the lack of vault key tags. The tags weren't filled in until I made quick guesses as to the correct tags. An oversight on my part for sure on the thieves lists, but note that it there's a lot of variability in decklists.
I appreciate everyone pointing out the mistags and I'll recheck through the posted decklists as soon as I can stop using a cell phone for internet later this week.
@spook My pleasure. I really do love doing it, and props to these fellas one for doing the real work and making this possible.
As for Missteps, I'm not really sure what it says about how to play or build around Misstep yourself in the micro level. On the macro level, it certainly shows that Misstep makes for this odd prisoner's dilemma, since the more an opponent plays Misstep, the more valuable additional Missteps are for you as well. (Assuming there are any other CMC1 spells in either deck to begin with.)
I think on the micro, level you want to decide what you think your specific Missteps are trying to (mostly) do in your specific deck, amid this play environment where you know opposing Missteps are everywhere. I'm seeing a lot of these decks that are blue and run few or no Missteps (Brian Kelly for example isn't on the no-Misstep list, but he only ran 2) and they tend to be these super aggressive combo style things, ala Reid Duke.
For more defensive hard control deck, I would guess that more Missteps might be better?
A side thought I had is, if people really did want to restrict a card that would balance out Shops decks, I really think the card to restrict would be Misstep. It would make blue decks automatically spend fewer card slots fighting each other, and make the field of non-taxing effect decks have far fewer dead cards game one against Shops/Eldrazi/Hatebears type things. Plus you would see expanded use of things like Dark Ritual/Deathrite Shaman/and Crop Rotation which are pretty good cards yet almost unplayable right now because of Misstep saturation. I feel like, in total, the deck that would be most hurt by restricting Misstep, ironically, would be Shops.
Full disclosure, I'm not saying that all should happen, only that if Misstep was restricted that I'm pretty confident those would be the effects.
I'm torn. Out of principle I don't think that Misstep should be restricted (because it's clearly not overpowered), but on the other hand I think that it would be very good for Vintage if it was.
I also don't entirely agree with your assessment. From a theoretical point of view, the shorter the games go, the better Misstep is. Reid Duke's deck doesn't care too much about opposing Missteps, so that's why it's not needed in his build.
It takes money to get Hearthstone cards; I know people who have spent several hundred dollars and I probably spent about $100 myself. There is no way to get the cards you want directly either and no redemption or way of regaining money for your Hearthstone cards.
In other words, if the game is good, people will pay to play. But probably we all love Vintage more than the average magic player loves magic.
So I cast show and tell, put griselbrand into play, opponent slaps down leovold. I'm a little annoyed and worried but glad to get a chance to test against it.
Twice I activated griselbrand on my opponent's turn to draw ONE card for seven life :)
It still helped me win. The worst part was when I had to use forbidden orchard to make Mana and my opponent got a free card from it!
Painter or Bloodmoon decks seem the obvious start. The RUG (Gush obv) Lotus Cobra/Chandra/Titans deck is gonna catch someone off Guard. Chandra can be both better and worse than jace. Its all about the cards built around it.
I feel like my deck was unfavored in the finals. @diophan had a better "card advantage" gameplan. Its hard to win the control game vs 4 cabal therapy + 1 fluster/1pyroblast even though I also had alot of counters. My mentor build is/was not that fast.
I really like @diophan 's deck and I think he played well in our games. He deserved to win this thing imo.
Having all of the decklists from this available is a cool way to see exactly how 157 Vintage players approached one of the biggest and most prestigious events of the year, by seeing exactly how they each built their decks. Thanks again to Matt and Ryan for all of their hard work on this. Enjoy!
The way we have our spreadsheets written is that they deal exclusively in wins - The number of match wins Shops has against Gush is the number of match losses Gush has against Shops and so counting losses is somewhat redundant. Doing this, I guess Draws would count as losses for both parties, but the net result is that the match isn't counted as no winner was determined.
If you were to count wins and losses separately and include draws as losses you would depress the overall win percentage of the field (using our method, the number of wins is always equal to the number of losses so the overall win % will be 50% - counting draws as losses means there will be more losses than wins and the overall win percentage will be less as a result). This will also disproportionately affect certain archetypes as Ryan mentioned. There isn't one correct way to do statistical analysis, though. Just whatever you do, I would mention it.
Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.