MTGO April 2016 Power 9 Challenge

I agree.

It's interesting that you mention the homogenization of blue. To quote myself from what I would consider to be a somewhat relevant topic: http://themanadrain.com/topic/198/mtgo-power-9-combined-jfm-archetype-vs-archetype-data/20

@socialite said:

In addition I would assume it would be fair to make inferences as to the true effect of homogenization of the primary blue engine. For example, the addage that "big blue" by nature grants a superior foundation for the Workshop match up seems to not play out in actuality.

We've been told pretty adamantly that deck construction and meta relevance of card selection were primary facilitators of Workshops rise to dominance. I'd like to see this fallacy (if you want to coin it that) go away. It's disingenuous to conclude that a large percentage of the player base is unable to address Workshops after having many years of trial and error. I'd like to propose that the homogenization of blue based control has less to do with Gush being dominant and more to do with the the nature of the Gush - Workshop match up, in that Gush is and has been the best option to address Workshops within the context of the general meta.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I find it interesting that the argument of Workshops > Gush : Gush > Big Blue : Big Blue > Workshops is pretty much disproven by the data we've had up until this point. That Gush has had less to do with the shape of this current format than say recent printings such as Mental Misstep, Graffdigger's Cage, and Flusterstorm.

While prevelant there seems to be more diversity among Gush as an archetype as opposed to Workshops prior to restriction(s).

Ultimately my argument is that homogenization is something that needs to be looked at more deeply, it's less about the prelevance of X card and more about nunanced factors that contribute to its selection over other options and that homogenization isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It's been a long day and I'm having difficulty articulating my points so be patient with me.

last edited by Guest

I totally agree that the dynamic many people seemed to believe in, "Gush > Big Blue > Workshops > Gush" was at best, oversimplified, and at worst, totally wrong.

Around the Onslaught era, people first adopted Sphere based Shops strategies specifically as a counter to Gush. When Gush was unrestricted the first time, that coincided with a quick uptick in Shops decks being played to beat them. Both of those statements are true, but incredibly misleading. I've met a lot of players who have heard that Shops was built to beat Gush, and use that argument to make metagame calls. What these players don't realize is that Shops was built to beat Gush ... but it didn't beat Gush. It was a BAD metagame deck, in the same way that a deck with 40 counters and no clock is "metagamed to beat DPS", but is terrible against DPS. Gush decks totally dismantled Shops decks the first two times it was unrestricted.

Of course the difference is less dramatic now. This time around Shops decks are better, and Gush decks have less raw power - but I still think it's an important historical context - many shops players I know are far more afraid of Delver than Tezzeret.

I don't think Gush itself is in any way a bad choice in a Shops metagame ... though I do think there were specific examples of players running builds of Gush decks that were very inadequate against the deck ... but isn't that true for every metagame, in every matchup?

I thought Gush was a fine choice in shops metagame because it could transform so well between a blue deck that won counter wars with FoW X4 MM X4 Fluster X2 MisD X2 that could then sideboard into Mountain plus 7 Red Artifact Destruction cards. The shops deck post Lodestone could still beat that deck in general until Treasure Cruise/DTT gave them a drawing answer to sphere effects, once those cards got restricted then Shops started to dominate to the point that the DCI felt Lodestone had to go. Now as we things evolve we'll see about the future of Gush. I think its hard to talk about Gush decks over the last two years or so because they have mainly been Treasure Cruise or Dig Through Time Decks, and those tempo shells I think beat Big Blue without much stress especially the aggro Treasure Cruise decks. in some of those deck in particular Gush was run as a two of to round out TC and DTT engines. Hopefully the shops players will find a redesign that gives them some real space in this meta, if not maybe gush has to go. We'll see, but with Vintage I don't take anything seriously until six months post restriction as we tend to move slowly and don't have a huge player base.

Howdy everyone. I've only recently started picking up Vintage (last six months) but have been loving it online, playing in two-mans and a few dailies. I managed to sneak into 8th playing Academy with my list here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30493-Welder-Academy. I look forward to building towards it in paper and playing in all the events with you guys.

@socialite I don't, at all, disagree with the statements you're making, but I want to point out that in this event Big Blue had a 5-0 record against Shops and Gush was 2-6 against Shops. Just something to think about.

Edit: was looking at the wrong cell; Big Blue only has a 1-0 record against Shops, which obviously doesn't tell anything. Though Gush still got crushed by Shops.

last edited by DeaTh-ShiNoBi

@Bayclown Awesome first showing! I'm looking forward to seeing you in the Dailes and the next P9Challenge! 😄

@DeaTh-ShiNoBi I don't think most of the gush decks were well constructed against Eldrazi shops. We'll see what happens next month.

@Brass-Man Were you unable to play in the event, Andy?

@diophan I agree.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of making conclusions out of small sample sizes. The fact that Gush was 2-6 against Shops is irrelevant, in my view, because there was only 8 matches. I was just pointing it out for interest, really. Oh and thank you for getting this data, by the way. Your tireless work is appreciated (along with @ChubbyRain)

last edited by DeaTh-ShiNoBi

@DeaTh-ShiNoBi Yeah, I had non-magic commitments, was awesome to see Rich take it down, though!

@Brass-Man It sure was. A well deserved victory.

@DeaTh-ShiNoBi Sadly, there is little meaning to be derived from this event right now other than "Yeah, there were a lot of Gush decks". Going forward though, I feel this is valuable as a baseline of the format immediately after Lodestone's restriction and we can combine the results with future tournaments to get a larger sample size and hopefully infer something from that.

@The-Atog-Lord : Congrats!
Are you happy with that 4th mentor? I saw you were basically playing 74 cards + 1 floating slots that appeard to be either 4thMentor/Gigdeon BFZ/Thing inthe ice.
Any other cards you would replace?

Is there any chance you would be willing to break down the different gush decks, mentor, delver, etc... please

@letseeker Click on the googledoc link. The win percentage of each subarchetype is there.

This makes me curious to see what would happen if Chalice of the Void were unrestricted.

@diophan I really enjoyed our first game in round 1. Hopefully we'll meet in future matches and have similar games.

@nedleeds I have tried to remain both optimistic and civil about the recent changes. But even though I am a blue player at heart and love gush, I just can't stand the inbred meta as of late. I still hope things even out, but I'm unsure if they will.
Thanks for speaking your mind and saying the same things I'm thinking.

last edited by Islandswamp

Everything goes in cycles, I'm not losing much sleep. I argued on my podcast that the restriction might be fine but I had wished they had given it until the next B&R. I think MTGO suffers a bit more from groupthink / netdeck because you are a right click away from playing whatever won yesterday. Paper vintage means maybe trading in or out or assembling something new, sometimes with a steep monetary cost for folks that don't own everything. The thing I'm realizing more and more is that the 2 formats MTGO Vintage and Paper Vintage aren't the same and that paper vintage has to bear some of the burdens of MTGOs flaws. Which sucks honestly.

@nedleeds On the flip side, many Paper Vintage metagames are glacially slow to change - when you only play competitive Vintage monthly, it takes you longer time to spot trends. I also think the competition is lower in local Paper tournaments than on Magic Online, so the random 61-card Palinchron Humanstorm lists can top 8 an event.

  • 51
    Posts
  • 47179
    Views