Vintage Challenge - 6/3/2017

Congrats to @ChubbyRain. I really wish I could have perfomed better: After starting 4-0, the wheels fell off. The combination of opponents drawing insane openers and then my mulligans to 5 against Jazza ended my hopes for a Top 8. I ended up sliding all the way to 16th. Frustrating, but it's magic.

No Wire in Shops removes a huge barrier to the format, and that archetype. What a great development.

last edited by vaughnbros

@vaughnbros to which barrier are you referring?

I'm not sure I understand the cut tbh. Wire seems like a good card to have access to. Maybe no longer a 4-of, but 2-3 can be the final lock piece in a lot of games. I understand that Workshops have become more aggressive since Bastilla was printed, but when Bactgudz was playing perhaps the most aggressive Workshop deck in history (Affinity Shops, likely the precursor to today's Workshop decks), Wire was probably the best card in that deck. It was the finisher the deck needed to close out the game. Perhaps Wire is less effective against Outcome which has become a troubling dominant trend in the meta?

@vaughnbros Wires are down to ~10-15 tickets I believe. so if you mean barrier online, then I'd disagree. They're about $5 in paper.

@MSolymossy 6-7 now actually. 2-3 for the hideous FTV. How the mighty have fallen.

@enderfall Ah didnt know the price dropped so much.

I hope Shops players continue neglecting Tangle Wire. It's almost always a Time Walk, often two Time Walks and sometimes three Time Walks.

@Griselbrother I so agree...the vast majority of Shops hate you see these days is sorcery speed (by force, fragmetize) and unless you are staring down an army of Inspectors and a trinisphere no one is setting explosives at 3. No tangle wire seems like it can leave shops pretty naked to a By Force blowout

@p3temangus By Force is really weak against the Precursor Golem though, because you have it individually target just it.

@MSolymossy That is very true.

I wonder how this trend will translate to the Paper Shops players...i guess with NYSE around the corner we will have an answer soon.

It's not exactly BAD against Precursor Golem ... it just turns into a "regular" 1R removal spell, which happens to kill 3 of their permanents. That's still a good deal – Golem is still a liability against By Force, not the other way around.

@Brass-Man I mean sure. I'm just saying that By Force isn't the end all be all - being sorcery speed, you really want to tap out to blow up their thorns/spheres, and then get to your next turn and Win. But Precursor Golem is a FAST clock against that strategy.

For what it's worth I came in 3rd with Tangle Wires still in my deck. I've seen a lot of Wire-less (heh) lists running around, but I feel like PO and Mentor decks can do so much so quickly if you don't have enough lock components. In playing the deck I'm often most concerned about the oppt casting Mentor, Oath, Tinker, and other sorcery speed bombs that practically end the game. It helps that Fragmentize, By Force, and Dack are also sorcery speed. I get the argument for having a faster clock, but a clock without disruption is rarely good enough these days so for now I'm erring on the side of more lock pieces.

fwiw, By Force is a LOT better against Precursor Golem than Ingot Chewer...

If we are talking about things that are good against Precursor Golem, I've been loving my copy of Repeal. It leaves them with the original, but kill 2, draw 2 for 1 mana + spheres feels like value.

last edited by Guest

The best card against Precursor Golem is Yawgmoth's Will 👊

No but I actually lost in the top 8 because By Force wasn't efficient enough against a Precursor, Revoker, Foundry Inspector, and Thorn. I only had 4 mana because of the Revoker on Sol Ring, so in retrospect I should have Mysticaled for Toxic Deluge instead of By Force.

last edited by Guest

@diophan You guys should add a tag called blue-based permission. It will give a more accurate view of the metagame imo. Right now as it stands, there are taxing decks, blue-based permission(win-con doesn't matter, the decks operate under the same principle/concept), dedicated combo and dredge. Blue-based permission builds focus on the principle of either controlling the stack and/or board while dropping a win-con. Some variants focus more on controlling the stack than others(G-Thieves & Matt Murray's Drain/Tendrils build come to mind here). I personally include decks that contain 9+ permission spells that are blue-based into the blue-based permission category. This include any combo variant than runs 9+ permission spells. An example of this would be Murray's drain tendrils deck. It packs a dozen permission spells main deck. Decks that I put into the dedicated combo category contain less than 9. An example of these decks would be outcome decks with a small permission package or ritual-based storm decks. I think when we classify things like this on a broad scale, we get to see the true percentages of pillars in the metagame as well as what is the most dominant. Otherwise we are skewing the perception of data without seeing the big picture.

last edited by Guest


The tag for that is 'FoW'. Any deck that runs enough blue cards to support Force of Will is also playing other blue permission spells. If you look at the spreadsheet, all the decks that you would label as "blue permission" are already tagged as 'FoW'

It's 58% of the metagame and has a win percentage of 50.3%. Obviously any deck that is over half the metagame is going to have an even win rate because of mirror matches.

last edited by Guest

@desolutionist Is there a way we can find out the percentage of the FOW tag takes #1, or top 4 or top 8? Like what percentage of tournament wins(dailies & challenges) is the FOW tag #1 and what percentage is it top 4?

last edited by Guest
  • 32
  • 16617