I just checked the Facebook page and apparently there's a date for tomorrow for "Monthly Vintage" for 12:00.
I also see they have a War of the Spark event for tomorrow, but I don't think that would get in the way, since I've played Vintage there while they had another, much bigger event going on .
Usually when I've gone, @tsoatt and a few others are there even when there's no post here.
I'll reach out and see what's going on. Either way, I'm sure if a few of us show up we could make something happen.
Thanks, I'm gonna miss playing/chatting with you, too! It's always a pleasure. Hopefully I can make it out to Gaming Etc. now and again when I'm in the area.
Norwalk is a great suggestion--that's only about 10 minutes longer than my current drive to Acton.
Thanks, I'd love to make it out there to play some games and talk Workshops with one of the pre-eminent disciples of Mishra (I use your lists and posts all the time for Stax inspiration). I may be able to make it to the NYSE for the first time this year. I've been dying to go for ages.
Speaking of, I've been wondering if this could breathe some life into Blue Moon as an archetype.
Losing Chalice was a big blow to that deck, as its plan hinged a lot on Chalice on 0 to stop on-color Moxen and Chalice on 1 to thwart the Xerox engine. Karn can help with both: it's better than Chalice at 0 for stopping Moxen/Lotus, and lets you more reliably cast it at 1 if you decide to keep Chalice in the board.
Force of Will, Pyroblasts, and a one-sided Null Rod seems strong in the current meta.
I've been trying this in a Stax shell, and it's been great.
It can immediately threaten victory in a way that Stax has lacked since the loss of Lodestone Golem and Chalice of the Void.
Playing Karn and fetching Voltaic Key or Time Vault requires an immediate answer. I played one league with this as the plan, and won at least one game with Vault-Key in all five matches. The overall finish was mediocre at 3-2, but both losses were Game-3 nail-biters.
It's obviously impossible to make anything meaningful out of five competitive matches. But more important to me right now is the feel of the deck and figuring out how reliably Karn can be cast in a traditional Stax shell. Coupled with a bunch of practice room games, Karn hasn't been too challenging to cast. Some combination of City of Traitors, Urborgs, and just a couple of artifact accelerators seems to do the trick.
What excites me the most about Karn is how many different ways you can approach building a Stax deck with it. As a lock-piece that can potentially fetch up to 15 cards in the sideboard, I imagine that there is no one optimal style of Stax build that uses it. It's been years since Stax had this much latitude in design choices.
I'll start my post be saying that my opinion on the London Mulligan is not firm. It's a complex topic and relevant data are limited. Three weeks really isn't enough to gather sufficient data to make statistical comparisons (at least with the limited data that our benevolent overlords permit us to see). So we're left with weaker forms of evidence (trends, intuition, etc.)
In any case, my initial reaction to the new rule is net negative.
There are certainly positive aspects of the new rule. As others have articulated here, the new rule may increase the breadth and complexity of decisions in the early game and in deck building. In theory, this should reward skill/experience and make the decision process itself more mentally stimulating and enjoyable.
However, several factors make me especially concerned about adopting the new rule.
First, I don't think we have (or will have) the data necessary to have an idea of how the new rule will affect the metagame and play experience. I recognize that taking risks can be an important part of improving the format/game, but I feel like the magnitude of this proposed change needs a commensurate amount of data to inform it, which I don't think we'll get.
Second, I worry that the new rule incentives strategies that are broken, fast, proactive, and all-in. This could make Vintage more like its caricature, the "turn-1 format." It may also make the luck of the die roll more important.
Again, hard to know for sure. The format doesn't appear to have undergone a cataclysmic shift in this direction. But I really wouldn't expect it to happen that fast, either. There's bound to be inertia in the decisions people make--people like what they play, have emotional attachments to certain cards/decks, and don't necessarily have the time/motivation to find out how to capitalize on the new changes.
Of course, such an issue could be mitigated through restrictions. But we all know how long addressing format issues through restrictions can take. I'm worried about Vintage undergoing such a large upheaval and how long it will take things to settle.
Finally, I worry that the new rule could complicate our long history of knowledge and theories regarding deck building and in-play decisions. Honestly, I have not thought this one through as deeply, but I don't think I've seen that discussed elsewhere (but I haven't read much on the new rule, either, so I could absolutely be wrong here).
Again, my post is intentionally full of "coulds," "mays," and "appears." I really feel like I don't have a firm grasp on this. Looking forward to reading more discourse on the subject.