Posts made by Smmenen

@chubbyrain said in SMIP #70 The End of the Mentor Era:

@smmenen said in SMIP #70 The End of the Mentor Era:

Tribal Eldrazi was the single best budget deck that ever existed in this format. 10% of the players at the NA Vintage Championship last year played it. Wiping that off the map in the interests of a slightly deeper cut makes absolutely no sense when considering paper.

The vast majority of Tribal/Colorless Eldrazi decks at Vintage Champs were Jacodrazi variants that ran Null Rod instead of Thorn. The construction of those decks is unaffected by recent restrictions and their metagame positioning is arguably much improved - Mentor was a very significant impediment to a deck that was trying to attack with large creatures, both as a ground stall and the ability to trade a couple of Monks with Prowess triggers for your opponent's Smasher. Null Rod + Eldrazi seems like it would be strong against a field of PO and Ravager Shops. So how is this Tribal Eldrazi "wiped off the map" by this most recent restriction?

Edit: @JACO, maybe you can chime in here?

As soon as I wrote "wiped off the map," I considered editing it, despite being hyperbolic, at best.

I did not go through and look at every list, but I did note that, as someone else pointed out, the Top 8 Jacodrazi deck ran Thorns. So, it's still assymetrical harm.

I HOPE you may be right that Tribal Eldrazi is not as impacted. But the impact on White Eldrazi is damaging enough. I was heartened to encounter a strong White Eldrazi deck on MTGO recently, so I don't think that the deck is dead either.

But the fact remains is that restricting Sphere instead of Thorn would have left both Eldrazi variants less harmed.

@will said in SMIP #70 The End of the Mentor Era:

I enjoyed listening to this, especially the thought-provoking conversation about whether Thorn or Sphere should have been restricted. Thank you very much for making it.

My take as a Workshop pilot given the way that Shop decks are built currently and for the foreseeable future is that Thorn's restriction hurt Workshops more than Sphere would have. I don't want to say more about this out of fear that I will compromise my competitive advantage, but I agree with Kevin's points from a Shops perspective.

I didn't even understand what the DCI meant when they said that they thought Sphere would have a "deeper impact" until Kevin explained the point that Workshop's asymmetry is better maintained with Sphere than Thorn. But that completely ignores the fact that Workshops have more creatures than most other deck as well.

The restriction of Thorn may not be deeper, but it's certainly broader. I can't understand how the DCI can so blithely ignore splash damage. Hitting White Eldrazi, which was like 2% of the previous metagame, but a larger % of the Gush metagame, is not a small thing.

Tribal Eldrazi was the single best budget deck that ever existed in this format. 10% of the players at the NA Vintage Championship last year played it. Wiping that off the map in the interests of a slightly deeper cut makes absolutely no sense when considering paper.

@winterstar said in SMIP #70 The End of the Mentor Era:

and the vague crystal ball gazing on what the future may hold.

I was getting pretty tired by the end of the recording session for this podcast, so I may have lost the thread a couple of times, but I think we gave pretty specific predictions – in numerical terms – projecting the future metagame. I recall giving some precise percentage range for PO, workshops and other decks, and debating that with Kevin.

@desolutionist said in Vintage Challenge - 9/2/2017:

@13nova

Sprinkle in the Dack/Delve singleton Mentor decks and it's literally exactly the same as the pre-restriction, "nightmare" meta

Shops was 45% of top 8s and is now 25%. It not even close to the same.

@13nova you're trippin. PO had a 41% win percentage and only had 1 in top 8.

The format is miles better than before, based on this event.

Does the Null Rod tag include Stony Silence?

The MTGO challenge results look much healthier.

In this episode of the podcast be forecast the resulting Metagame and I think our predictions look pretty good base on the first challenge results

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-70-the-end-of-the-mentor-era/

Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian discuss the restrictions of Monastery Mentor and Thorn of Amethyst in Vintage.

Play
Podcast (somanyinsaneplays): Download (Duration: 1:24:44 — 90.9MB)

0:01:00: The Announcement
0:05:40: Praise
0:22:30: Criticism
0:38:00: Policy Mechanics
0:53:00: Metagame
1:00:00: Announcements
1:19:45: Listener Feedback: Mirri/Commander
Total Runtime: 1:24:44
SHOW NOTES

– August 28 2017 Banned & Restricted Announcement

Contact us at @ManyInsanePlays on Twitter or e-mail us at SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com.

Both seasons of Daredevil were outstanding. And Luke Cage is the truth. I'm not sure which was better, but they were both superb.

This is DC, but the first season of the Flash was also excellent. Rotten Tomatoes is a good guide to series quality.

I am almost entirely ignorant of the ways of MTGO outside of Vintage play, trading, etc., so I had no idea how freaking awesome the leagues are.

I didn't even understand or know how they worked until I started reading the instructions yesterday, and then didn't even fully understand until I entered into it.

WOW

I think it's better than the Vintage Challenges, which I'll probably never play in again because of the leagues. The advantages are enormous:

1. you don't have to wait for a round to end and other players to finish matches. Once you've finished a match, you just jump into the next round at your convenience.

2. you can play entirely on your own schedule as opposed to a pre-set time (so you don't have to waste an entire Saturday playing in the Challenge)

3. you can spread the event over any discrete bits of time. E.g.An hour Thursday, two hours Friday, and an hour Sunday.

4. And the prizes are decent, and can turn useless play points into treasure chests which are easily sold for Tickets, which can also be sold for cash.

This Vintage League is just amazing. I played in two events last night, and never had to wait more than 4 minutes for an opponent, despite playing late pacific time.

.

Except, as we've said a hundred times, that's not possible. Mana Drain and Power Sink are extremely difficult to restore because Interrupts no longer exist. Not to mention the lack of Mana Burn means that Mana Drain is much stronger than it was originally designed - and ruled - to be.

Applying any given approach consistently is not feasible.

Some errata is valid: it's an attempt to make cards work under modern rules, as best they can. Some was not: attempts to neuter cards to weaken them. The latter is power level errata. The former may have functional changes, but it's not what is meant by " power level errata."

@13nova said in August 28, 2017 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

@maximumcdawg Anyone who thinks probe was good for the format I am convinced couldn't beat a 10 year old with a draft deck in a vintage tournament, because they crutch way too hard on perfect knowledge.

The issue isn't whether "Probe was good for the format." The issue is whether it needed to be restricted.

There are many cards that may not be "good for the format" but are unrestricted.

The restriction of Gitaxian Probe was utterly unnecessary. That's why only 12% of Vintage players surveyed felt it should be restricted.

@brass-man said in August 28, 2017 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/august-28-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-08-28

Thorn of Amethyst is restricted
Monastery Mentor is restricted
Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted

Almost exactly what I recommended on these boards and in the podcast.

Well done, DCI

@chronatog said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

@smmenen said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

The absurdity of the position that "Workshop shouldn't be restricted on principle" is easily refuted by any number of possible counter-factuals

To provide a different angle. Why does the restricted list exist?

The restricted list exists to promote competitive balance/strategic diversity in the Vintage format by curbing dominant or otherwise oppressive decks. The DCI has stated this idea or variants of it many times.

@macdeath said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

@smmenen
What do you think about hitting Mentor, Thorn and Ballista all at the same time?

I already answered that:

@smmenen said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

At the same time, I also prefer a smaller restricted list to a longer/larger one, so those principles apply within that larger limit. Minimizing the restricted list is a prime directive for me. Nonetheless, I might be persuaded to restrict two cards to save one, if the case could be made strong enough (like restricting Mentor and/or Preordain to save Gush). But at this point, it's pretty clear that Workshop has caused alot of cards to be restricted, and will need to cause more. At some point, the balance of the number of cards needed to save "one card" outweighs the value of that card. 4 or 5 restrictions to save 1 is not an acceptable ratio IMO. I'm willing to allow one more restriction before a deeper cut is needed.

So, if you apply the alternative options you mentioned through the matrix of the principles I just announced, it should spit out Sphere as the most logical restriction, I believe. I don't think restricting any of the other cards you mentioned, alone, will be enough to "solve" the problem, or you'd have to restrict multiple of them to save one card. And that contravenes my prime directive. Restricting Thorn violates the narrow tailoring principle about hitting other decks/collateral damage/overbreadth. Thorn is important to Eldrazi and White Eldrazi and even some Hatebears decks.

And, I already explained why I'd never hit Thorn before Sphere. That's a terrible idea.

Also, restricting Mentor will help Shops. So that's also a terrible restriction, if your sole goal is to weaken Shops.

@macdeath said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:

@smmenen I am curious to hear you articulate why you think sphere is the right card to hit in shops instead of thorn, Walking ballista or another artifact creature like Ravager, Revoker or Foundry Inspector. I know you mentionned Eldrazi as a reason to deter restricting thorn, but I don't think that it is necessary valid since DPS was left out of the Probe decision and Doomsday/gush storm out of the gush decision.

Just because the DCI has left bad precedent isn't justification to repeat the error. The DCI has wrongly over-restricted many times in the past. The restriction of LED made the restriction of Burning Wish unnecessary, yet it was restricted anyway. Similarly, the wave restriction of 1999 restricted probably a dozen cards more than necessary, like Mind Over Matter, Grim Monolith, Dream Halls, etc.

Restrictions should be narrowly tailored to solve the problem, and reach no further. Narrow tailoring is an important concept that opposes overbreadth and sweeping more broadly than necessary. It also means, all things equal, in general, 1) I favor restrictions that hit the "problem" deck and leave other strategies unaffected when there is a legitimate choice of options, and 2) restrictions that have minimal impact compared to those that have a larger impact, while still "solving" the problem. Since (2) is paradoxical or hard to understand, I'll give a mathematical hypothetical that clearly illustrates this principle.

Suppose there is a dominant deck in the metagame. Let's call it DECK X. Suppose DECK X is 40% of Top 8s. Now, further suppose that the acceptable level of dominance is 30% for this deck. Finally, suppose we have two valid options: CARD A or CARD B used by DECK X.

Suppose we project that restricting CARD A will bring DECK X to 25%( +/- 5%) of Top 8s. And restricting CARD B will bring DECK X to 4%(+/-2%) of Top 8s. All things equal, I would prefer restricting Card A. As between those two options it has the least impact, while yet "solving" the problem.

At the same time, I also prefer a smaller restricted list to a longer/larger one, so those principles apply within that larger limit. Minimizing the restricted list is a prime directive for me. Nonetheless, I might be persuaded to restrict two cards to save one, if the case could be made strong enough (like restricting Mentor and/or Preordain to save Gush). But at this point, it's pretty clear that Workshop has caused alot of cards to be restricted, and will need to cause more. At some point, the balance of the number of cards needed to save "one card" outweighs the value of that card. 4 or 5 restrictions to save 1 is not an acceptable ratio IMO. I'm willing to allow one more restriction before a deeper cut is needed.

So, if you apply the alternative options you mentioned through the matrix of the principles I just announced, it should spit out Sphere as the most logical restriction, I believe. I don't think restricting any of the other cards you mentioned, alone, will be enough to "solve" the problem, or you'd have to restrict multiple of them to save one card. And that contravenes my prime directive. Restricting Thorn violates the narrow tailoring principle about hitting other decks/collateral damage/overbreadth. Thorn is important to Eldrazi and White Eldrazi and even some Hatebears decks.

I have previously stated my views that Sphere should be restricted before Workshop. But if restricting Sphere does little to curb Workshop's dominance in the metagame, then Workshop itself must be seriously considered for restriction.

I, too, would hate to see Workshop restricted, and I'm frustrated that poor policymaking has shaped the metagame we live in, but restricted list policy must be guided by data, not bromides.

The absurdity of the position that "Workshop shouldn't be restricted on principle" is easily refuted by any number of possible counter-factuals. If Workshops were 100% of Top 8s, that would be an obviously unteneable position no matter how eloquently presented. But it's also untenable if Shops were 80%, 60%, 50% or even 40% of Top 8s. Neither Gush nor even Treasure Cruise were at that level. Right now, Workshops are an unhealthy % of the Vintage metagame. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that Workshops have benefited from a steady stream of synergistic printings to lift them, helping compensate for the restrictions of Golem and Chalice.

I'm hopeful that more narrowly tailored restrictions can bring Shops down to an acceptable level, but I'm also realistic. While I hold hope that such restrictions can bring Shops down a peg, I think it's more likely than not that Workshop will ultimately have to be restricted. Another way of putting it: now is not the time to invest in Workshops.

That would kill Eldrazi & Thalia decks unnecessarily.

Thorn is a terrible target.

@islandswamp said in Vintage Challenge - 8/12/17:

@smmenen Well, people can definitely play what they want more often on MTGO than anywhere else (besides 100% proxy and cockatrice, but for sanctioned, competitive play it's MTGO).

The other thing is that card availability on MTGO is instantaneous. Let's say I play one of my terrible brews and get frustrated with the results. Then I see how Thiim's awesome MUDrazi deck has been crushing people. So I add my entire deck to my trade binder, get a few hundred tickets, and buy Thiim's deck card for card. That process is as quick as five minutes (if you want to scout the best deal it could take longer).

This makes the case for paying attention to MTGO results as a barometer of the health of Vintage stronger, not weaker. Less stickiness in deck selection implies a "truer" representation of metagame composition and health of the format. The fact that Shops are so expensive on paper suggests that their actual metagame representation is artificially suppressed, especially in paper environments, relative to non-Shops strategies. That MTGO has greater substitutability generally makes it all the more remarkable that Shops are dominating.

Wow: Shops were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th. Still nearly 40% of the field but now consistently dominating the top 8 field at well over 50%.

This is the most dominant Shops has ever been. It wasn't this strong in the Trinisphere or Lodestone eras.

Obviously, Shops performance is driven by printings, but I'm beginning to wonder if paper just suppresses Shops largely because of the availability of Workshop.