Those aren't mechanical/reflex-based in the same sense. I can forget how much I should mulligan without enhanced RNG, that in paper my beginning of combat doesn't happen without intervention, to present my deck to my opponent, and announce triggers, but realistically I'm not going to forget that I can't put ancestral recall in my legacy deck or that I should put 40 cards in my limited deck. Granted remembering what the normal number of lands in a 40 vs. 60 card deck is a slight annoyance, but not something I'm going get burned on. I'll grant you that the match structure could lend itself to different risk analysis though.
Thanks for the episode. As @ChubbyRain alluded to above, it's nice to have a level discussion about this instead of forecasting the sky to fall.
I do have an objection to Stephen's comment at the end that, paraphrasing "it's almost inevitable and surely beneficial to have different mulligan rules for different formats". Having the mechanics of Magic be constant is a principle that should only be violated as a last resort. Avoiding "gotcha" moments where the way one usually plays Magic forces them to make an error should be avoided. Most of us have missed the ability to scry after mull'ing when that rule was first introduced. Me playing BO1 on Arena assuredly messes with my ability to mulligan in paper without "enhanced" Arena RNG. Hell, I play almost exclusively on modo and the mechanics of having to deal with physical cards is already an extreme distraction for me when playing in paper. WOTC benefits from encouraging transitions across platforms and formats being as seamless as possible. While this can and is violated, the reasons for it need to be extremely compelling.
Thanks for taking up the mantle of this!
I noticed for your archetype and tags you have a comment that this "needs an algorithm". When I did this with Matt I indeed used a python script to parse WOTC's webpage and made a determination of tags and archetypes based on the presence of various cards. I can send it to you if you'd like.
Thanks for the yearly review as always.
When counting top8 appearances, it's a bit of work but it would be more fair to scale the number of top8s by the number of months of the year the card was legal to play. Even better would be to scale by the number of tournaments it was legal in, but that seems like too much work.
If you apply this scaling, assassin's trophy was just as prevalent as Teferi.
@smmenen There are a variety of ways to use a related notion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree_learning#Gini_impurity . One way would be to simply compute it for the top 8 archetype numbers.
If you have more data, say the top32 lists from every vintage challenge, you could compute it for the top 32, then top 16, and so forth, and see how much the impurity decreases as you zoom in on the winningest slice of the metagame.
@stuart Other than the single powered colorless list, including the Eldrazi tag and excluding budget does the trick in the "Tag Breakdown" tab. I get a 50.88% winrate.
@spook The tags are not necessarily subsets of a particularly archetype. Almost all of the Survival lists have taxing elements (most notably Thalia), but I don't believe Vasu's BUG list had any.
If you'd like to get to the bottom of where the classification differences in the Eldrazi decks are, let us know (I need a break from staring at decklists).
376 players showed up in Pittsburgh to play in Vintage's most prestigious event of the year. The tournament ended with the matchup most emblematic of the past few months: Paradoxical Outcome versus Ravager Shops. Congratulations to Brian Coval for becoming our new North American Vintage Champion!
- Brian Coval - Esper Paradoxical
- Nam Tran - Ravager Shops
- Kyle Dorgan - Esper Paradoxical
- Rich Shay - Ravager Shops
- Matt Sperling - RUG Pyromancer
- Eliot Burk - UW Landstill
- Marshall Arthur - Bant Survival
- Cosmo Kwok - Grixis Thieves
Although I have my complaints about the current state of vintage, that's quite the diverse top 8 after last year's!
Even though it didn't win the event, the story of the tournament for me was Survival solidifying itself as a real force. There are at least 3 builds (Bant, Bant+R, and BUG) all with their advantages. The winrate here likely overstates its power slightly: a small group of dedicated pilots came with it, and due to the price of the deck I imagine many skimped on hate and practice against such a small expected share of the metagame.
Classification notes: "Other" was mostly monored, but there weren't quite enough to warrant breaking it out as a separate archetype. If you have any objections to how we classified your deck, or spot an error, send us a PM.
@smmenen Perhaps my reply was too terse. Your final point about thorn and (potentially) chalice being unrestricted is what I was getting at. These restrictions were anything but tailored--they nuked archetypes to save workshop from restriction. That's what makes the situation different from restricting Trinisphere instead of shop.
The most broken reasonable-to-achieve hand from modern workshops is shop, inspector, mox, and lock piece. The odds of having 4 mana for this sequence go down significantly if you restrict workshop. I don't have a problem with a fast affinity aggro deck in vintage. The problem is that the workshop buys the deck too much tempo with a lock piece or two to kill the opponent before they can regain control. The fact that it makes bigger ballistas to mow down a board of helpless humans is the other half of the problem.
Thanks for the article Stephen. My two cents:
Based on your criteria I don't see how workshop can be unrestricted. It chokes out any other strategy trying to play creatures and the entire metagame is warped around it. When we're at the point where we're restricting cards that are fine in modern we've really gone too far shielding a sacred cow.