Discussing Gush Mentor (beating it, restriction discussion, anything)

@Smmenen said:

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-13
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-07

None of the 4-0 decks in those dailies are gush decks. They are DPS, Oath, Shops, and Dredge.

In other news, it's going to be unseasonably cold tomorrow where I live. It appears that climate change is no longer an issue.

Can we not post incredibly small sample sizes that coincide with our particular biases, please? Thanks...

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen said:

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-13
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-07

None of the 4-0 decks in those dailies are gush decks. They are DPS, Oath, Shops, and Dredge.

In other news, it's going to be unseasonably cold tomorrow where I live. It appears that climate change is no longer an issue.

Can we not post incredibly small sample sizes that coincide with our particular biases, please? Thanks...

THANK YOU! Finally someone said it. Data-mining is dangerous because sometimes one strikes on exactly what he/she intended to find and nothing else. And by "sometimes" I mean a lot of a lot of the time. And by "a lot of the time" I mean basically any time a person has something they want to post on social media. A lot of smart people seem to have a problem with this. In other news, I'm going to be in a march today to push a move away from fossil fuels and to 100% renewables in California state. . .

We all have our agendas and biases. People need to stop couching them as the facts because they are not the whole story.

"A lie of omission is still a lie"

-Jean Luc Picard-

@Stormanimagus

I'm a big data guy, Storm. It's a part of my educational background and intended profession. A key part of being a scientist though is not letting ideology dictate your methodology. Posting the results of a single event or a week's worth of DE data and then passing them off as justification for one's position strikes me as being intellectually dishonest if intentional or intellectually lazy if unintentional.

Good luck with your march.

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen said:

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-13
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-07

None of the 4-0 decks in those dailies are gush decks. They are DPS, Oath, Shops, and Dredge.

In other news, it's going to be unseasonably cold tomorrow where I live. It appears that climate change is no longer an issue.

The most recent daily events aren't a single weather pattern in the largest context of climate change.

You said that non-blue Gush decks aren't viable. The fact that Oath, Blue Moon and DPS 4-0ed some dailies are incredibly relevant to this discussion.

Mid-thread, I argued that these decks are viable. I've been claiming all along that well metagamed blue decks can compete. These data supports that viewpoint, rather than the ridiculous assertion that non-Gush blue decks are essentially unviable.

Can we not post incredibly small sample sizes that coincide with our particular biases, please? Thanks...

4 events in the last week may be a small sample size, but it's certainly large enough to suggest a possible trend.

And, if you want more, here:

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-14

Last night's daily apparently was large enough to have two 4-0 decklists, which means it was probably as large as most paper events in any sample, and neither 4-0 deck was a Gush deck.

There have only been 23 reported daily event results since the restriction of Lodestone Golem. To point out that the last 5 of the 6 of those had no 4-0 Mentor/Gush deck seems certainly worthwhile to point out. That constitutes a quarter of the results thus far...

Speaking of bias, you have been calling for Gush's restriction since last Fall on the old The ManaDrain.com.

I'm a big data guy, Storm. It's a part of my educational background and intended profession. A key part of being a scientist though is not letting ideology dictate your methodology.

Noble sentiment, but unfortunate that your stated ideological positions starkly contract your stated ideal. You have already concluded, in this thread and elsewhere, that both Gush and Mentor should be restricted.

Hardly the views of a neutral observer, let alone a dispassionate scientist. What a farce.

Posting the results of a single event or a week's worth of DE data and then passing them off as justification for one's position strikes me as being intellectually dishonest if intentional or intellectually lazy if unintentional.

That's because you misread/ overead the post.

In the mania and hype over Gush, in addition to your crusade against it, I think it's valuable to point to data that could support a countervailing narrative. That doesn't mean that I presented this data to prove one position or another. I was simply showing a possible trend line that things may be changing. No where in my post did I make a statement that was anywhere close to drawing a firm or definitive conclusion.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen said:

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen said:

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-13
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-07

None of the 4-0 decks in those dailies are gush decks. They are DPS, Oath, Shops, and Dredge.

In other news, it's going to be unseasonably cold tomorrow where I live. It appears that climate change is no longer an issue.

The most recent daily events aren't a single weather pattern in the largest context of climate change.

The metaphor I was going for was "cherry-picked results that support your position."

You said that non-blue Gush decks aren't viable. The fact that Oath, Blue Moon and DPS 4-0ed some dailies are incredibly relevant to this discussion. Mid-thread, I argued that these decks are viable. I've been claiming all along that well metagamed blue decks can compete. These data supports that viewpoint, rather than the ridiculous assertion that non-Gush blue decks are essentially unviable.

This again...you misread/interpreted my initial post. The meaning of "viable" that I used was along the lines of "having a reasonable chance of succeeding / financially sustainable" from Merriam-Webster. And to further clarify, Magic is a variance-based game. Any deck (within reason) can win a single event. The San Diego Padres swept a doubleheader Thursday against the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field. The San Diego Padres are one of the worst teams in baseball this year. The Chicago Cubs are THE best team in baseball this year. You can't extrapolate from the results of the doubleheader the true viability of each team - the Cubs are 98% favorites to make the postseason according to FiveThirtyEight; the Padres are 26th in the majors with a 6% chance of making the playoffs.

In that sense, single tournament results are NOT relevant to this discussion, not by themselves. Oath, Blue Moon, and DPS can win events but they haven't proven to be reasonable choices over the long term, not according the 23 dailies since the Lodestone restriction. Gush has put up 10/23 4-0 results in that time. All other Blue control decks combined have put up 4 (3 Landstill, 1 Blue Moon). Oath has put up 1. DPS has exactly 1. Shops has 5. Which decks are reasonable choices for competing in a daily? If you look at the data, it's clearly Gush or Shops. Will things change? I hope so. People are metagaming heavily against Mentor with maindeck Sudden Shocks and those are comically bad against Thought-Knot Seer (I've been Skyping with Montolio during Dailies as I've found that more enjoyable than playing lately).

Can we not post incredibly small sample sizes that coincide with our particular biases, please? Thanks...

4 events in the last week may be a small sample size, but it's certainly large enough to suggest a possible trend.

And, if you want more, here: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-14

Last night's daily apparently was large enough to have two 4-0 decklists, which means it was probably as large as most paper events in any sample, and neither 4-0 deck was a Gush deck.

The size of a Daily Event is irrelevant - you play the same number of rounds...

Speaking of bias, you have been calling for Gush's restriction since last Fall on the old The ManaDrain.com.

I'm a big data guy, Storm. It's a part of my educational background and intended profession. A key part of being a scientist though is not letting ideology dictate your methodology.

Noble sentiment, but unfortunate that your stated ideological positions starkly contract your stated ideal. You have already concluded, in this thread and elsewhere, that both Gush and Mentor should be restricted.

Hardly the views of a neutral observer, let alone a dispassionate scientist. What a farce.

When have I claimed to be a neutral observer? Scientists are allowed to have opinions, like any other person - they are NOT allowed to let this influence their work. Again, methodology trumps ideology. Do you have any evidence that @diophan or my work on the Power 9 series metagame are biased towards my position on Gush? Are the MTGO data I've cited during this discussion different from what MTGGoldfish has collected? I have done my best to accurately represent the MTGO metagame; you've literally picked out daily events based on whether or not Gush is a 4-0 deck. You omitted the May 8 Daily Event which was won by Brian Kelly's Bob Mentor list. THAT would be an egregious thing for a scientist to do...

Posting the results of a single event or a week's worth of DE data and then passing them off as justification for one's position strikes me as being intellectually dishonest if intentional or intellectually lazy if unintentional.

That's because you misread/ overead the post.

In the mania and hype over Gush, in addition to your crusade against it, I think it's valuable to point to data that could support a countervailing narrative. That doesn't mean that I presented this data to prove one position or another. I was simply showing a possible trend line that things may be changing. No where in my post did I make a statement that was anywhere close to drawing a firm or definitive conclusion.

So in other words, you posted a very small sample that agreed with your position? No, I don't think I misread your post...

last edited by Guest

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen said:

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen said:

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-13
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-07

None of the 4-0 decks in those dailies are gush decks. They are DPS, Oath, Shops, and Dredge.

In other news, it's going to be unseasonably cold tomorrow where I live. It appears that climate change is no longer an issue.

The most recent daily events aren't a single weather pattern in the largest context of climate change.

The metaphor I was going for was "cherry-picked results that support your position."

Cherry picking is the exact opposite of what I was doing.

Cherry Picking (which, incidentally, I will be doing next weekend in Brentwood, CA) is when you select the best cherries among the bunch, throwing out most. Metaphorically, that would be if I presented results selectively to suggest a trend, and threw out many.

That's not what happened here: I provided all but one of the entire last weeks worth of daily results (not counting that which was posted by WOTC after my post). That's not cherry picking - that's presenting the bunch (sans one).

Of the 23 data points we have for daily results, Cherry picking would be if I picked the 5 or so results that best fit the case you think I'm trying to make (like, April 16, 23, 28, May 1, and May 5). That's not what I did. I focused on the last week to suggest a possible emergent trend.

Far from cherry picking, there was a clear method to the data I presented: time delineated to suggest a possible emergent trend.

The strongest criticism that was launched at the DCI with the restriction of Golem was that the restriction of Golem was premature - that although Golem decks surged in February, the data in March was not nearly as strong, and therefore - had the DCI waited - the case for restriction would have visibly diminished.

My brief post, which you jumped on and attacked, simply presented 4 of the 5 most recent daily results to illustrate a possible trend with the sole editorial note "things appear to be evening out," and the empirical observation that Gush decks as a % of the daily field have dropped.

That's hardly an unreasonable thing to say, and not reasonably interpreted, as you appeared to be doing, that I was drawing some larger conclusion about some larger discussion, as you appeared to be inferring.

You said that non-blue Gush decks aren't viable. The fact that Oath, Blue Moon and DPS 4-0ed some dailies are incredibly relevant to this discussion. Mid-thread, I argued that these decks are viable. I've been claiming all along that well metagamed blue decks can compete. These data supports that viewpoint, rather than the ridiculous assertion that non-Gush blue decks are essentially unviable.

This again...you misread/interpreted my initial post. The meaning of "viable" that I used was along the lines of "having a reasonable chance of succeeding / financially sustainable" from Merriam-Webster.

What you actually said was:

@ChubbyRain said:

There isn't a competitive Blue alternative with Gush still present in the metagame.

That's complete BS.

And to further clarify, Magic is a variance-based game. Any deck (within reason) can win a single event. The San Diego Padres swept a doubleheader Thursday against the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field. The San Diego Padres are one of the worst teams in baseball this year. The Chicago Cubs are THE best team in baseball this year. You can't extrapolate from the results of the doubleheader the true viability of each team - the Cubs are 98% favorites to make the postseason according to FiveThirtyEight; the Padres are 26th in the majors with a 6% chance of making the playoffs.

Sure, the Cubs may be the best team in baseball, and there is always going to be a best performing deck. But that doesn't make non-Cubs uncompetitive.

The Cubs have 27 wins, but the White Sox have 24 ad the Nationals have 23. They are clearly competitive. There are many other competitors as well.

Your claim that non-Gush decks aren't competitive is clearly belied by the facts. It's just wrong.

Early in this thread, I canvassed multiple results put up by all of these strategies.
Not only are Landstill, DPS and Oath putting up strong results, but other blue decks, like BUG and Blue Moon are also performing well.

Looking at at the April data you helped compile for non-Gush blue decks:

Big Blue (Blue Moon, BUG/Jeskai/Esper/Grixis Control, Grixis Tezz)
Number of Players 8
Win Percentage 50%

These decks had a 50% win percentage against the field! That's the very definition of competitive, and that's the exact same win percentage as Gush decks.

And, as I already noted, Montolio won a the March MTGO P9 event with Show and Tell Oath, and then placed in the Top 8/16 of the last MTGO P9 event. Shuhei won the AVC with Kelly Oath, and Oath won the last two Vintage Championships (Tocco winning in a Top 8 with 4 Gush decks no less).

To say that Oath isn't competitive when it's been winning tournaments (plural) is ridiculous.

I already explained why I think Dark Petition is competitive.

These decks aren't the San Diego Padres. They are the Mets and the Red Sox - performing well with a great shot at the playoffs.

In that sense, single tournament results are NOT relevant to this discussion, not by themselves. Oath, Blue Moon, and DPS can win events but they haven't proven to be reasonable choices over the long term, not according the 23 dailies since the Lodestone restriction. Gush has put up 10/23 4-0 results in that time. All other Blue control decks combined have put up 4 (3 Landstill, 1 Blue Moon).

First of all, at no point whatsoever was I presenting a single tournament result - like a single daily event. So the mere suggesting that single tournament results are not relevant is a red herring that has almost nothing to do with any points I 've raised.

In any case, I actually disagree with that position. Single tournament results aren't relevant? What about the Vintage Championship? I'd say that's incredibly relevant to metagame analysis. Of course it's "relevant." The bar to relevance is laughably low.

I think you mean "determinative" or some other synonym. Single tournament results are relevant, they just can't be used to draw any firm conclusion.

Second, although appearances in Top 8s or 4-0 decks is important, it's also important to try to look at performance in other terms.

You are now trying to justify your claim that Oath, Landstill, DPS, and Blue Moon aren't competitive because, for example, Landstill only had 3 4-0 results compared to Gush-Mentors 10.

That's hilariously flawed analysis.

Consider a hypothetical:

Suppose in a 100 player tournament, Deck A puts up 50% of the Top 8, while Deck B only has 2 copies in the Top 8. What if Deck A was 50% of the field, while Deck B was 2% of the field. Which deck performed better?

According to the MTGO April Metagame breakdown, Gush decks were almost 45% of the players in the field, and Landstill decks, according to your data was 1.6% of the field.

We don't know how many Gush-Mentor and Landstill decks were piloted, but it's completely reasonable to suspect that the Landstill performance is more impressive than Mentor's performance in the daily results in our population.

Oath has put up 1. DPS has exactly 1. Shops has 5. Which decks are reasonable choices for competing in a daily?

See the argument I just made: your argument is flawed because we simply don't know how well the total number of players did piloting any of these decks.

I have very little faith that most players can pilot Doomsday, let alone Dark Petition Storm, competently, let alone expertly (which is a totally different matter altogether). As Rich Shay admitted on the VSL commentary, those decks "give him headaches." If a long time Vintage expert has trouble piloting them, then perhaps there are tremendous skill barriers to playing some of these decks, even though, with the proper competencies, they may prove excellent choices.

Being competitive doesn't mean that a deck is the "best choice." But to dismiss so sweepingly non-Gush decks is not only dismissive, but it's untruthful.

If you look at the data, it's clearly Gush or Shops. Will things change? I hope so. People are metagaming heavily against Mentor with maindeck Sudden Shocks and those are comically bad against Thought-Knot Seer (I've been Skyping with Montolio during Dailies as I've found that more enjoyable than playing lately).

Can we not post incredibly small sample sizes that coincide with our particular biases, please? Thanks...

4 events in the last week may be a small sample size, but it's certainly large enough to suggest a possible trend.

And, if you want more, here: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-14

Last night's daily apparently was large enough to have two 4-0 decklists, which means it was probably as large as most paper events in any sample, and neither 4-0 deck was a Gush deck.

The size of a Daily Event is irrelevant - you play the same number of rounds...

Speaking of bias, you have been calling for Gush's restriction since last Fall on the old The ManaDrain.com.

I'm a big data guy, Storm. It's a part of my educational background and intended profession. A key part of being a scientist though is not letting ideology dictate your methodology.

Noble sentiment, but unfortunate that your stated ideological positions starkly contract your stated ideal. You have already concluded, in this thread and elsewhere, that both Gush and Mentor should be restricted.

Hardly the views of a neutral observer, let alone a dispassionate scientist. What a farce.

When have I claimed to be a neutral observer? Scientists are allowed to have opinions, like any other person - they are NOT allowed to let this influence their work.

But you do.

You make empirical claims that simply aren't supported by available data, and you also allow other people to draw inferences that aren't properly supported by data you've collected.

Here are some "cherry-picked" from this thread:

@ChubbyRain said:

I do not believe there is good reason to believe that restricting Mentor is sufficient to curtail the number of Gush decks in the metagame.

There isn't a competitive Blue alternative with Gush still present in the metagame.

Gush [...] has pushed out other Blue draw engines, like [...] JTMS.

These aren't predictions or statements about what should happen. These are descriptive statements about the world as it is, and they aren't true.

Just as importantly, you've presented data without correcting people who are misusing it (see the OP in this thread).

In the mania and hype over Gush, in addition to your crusade against it, I think it's valuable to point to data that could support a countervailing narrative. That doesn't mean that I presented this data to prove one position or another. I was simply showing a possible trend line that things may be changing. No where in my post did I make a statement that was anywhere close to drawing a firm or definitive conclusion.

So in other words, you posted a very small sample that agreed with your position? No, I don't think I misread your post...

No - do you not understand the concept of "trend" or "recency"? Selecting almost all of a set of results from the last week is not selectively choosing data that supports my "assumed" position. That would be if I selected dates that were outside of the range.

Nor is 5 events a "small sample" when 1) it gives us about 30 decklists 2) from a pool of probably about 75 competitors.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

cher路ry-pick
verb
gerund or present participle: cherry-picking

selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.
"the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets"

You selectively chose both the criteria of 4-0 finishes and this past week of events (excluding the one event won by Gush) as those were most beneficial to your position. This is the very definition of cherry-picking. Were you to take into account 3-1 or better finishes, Gush would be about 40% of those results. Were you to pick multiple weeks, the data would not support your position.

last edited by Guest

Yesterday's early Daily was won by MissClique with RUG Thing in the Ice. The late DE had two 4-0's: Desolutionist on Dark Petition Storm and yours truly on Gush Thing in the Ice Storm aka BK Blizzard. While of course this is a small sample size, I suspect that the "possible trend" from this past week was a temporary metagame adjustment to the heavy Mentor field and Gush decks have adapted to Mentor hate by changing win cons to a Sudden Shock proof Blue threat that can be cast off of a basic island (OK, in my case that is exactly why I played the deck that I did). It's almost like Mentor was the Gush deck flavor of the past three weeks and this week's flavor is Thing in the Ice... Well, that can't possibly be correct: let's restrict Mentor and not Gush because there is no evidence that Gush is a problem without Mentor...

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-daily-2016-05-15

@ChubbyRain how good is thing in the ice? is it a metagame card or is it an actual threat that could stay?

@letseeker said:

@ChubbyRain how good is thing in the ice? is it a metagame card or is it an actual threat that could stay?

My opinion has been that the actual win conditions in Gush decks are interchangeable and should be based on what you feel the metagame will be like. Mentor is arguably the most powerful in a vacuum, but people start running Sudden Shocks, Sulfur Elementals, Dread of Nights, etc. Thing in the Ice is a very powerful alternative. Shops becomes very popular...look to Delver/Young Pyromancer. Shops becomes nonexistent...look to Doomsday. People start cutting Dack Faydens and loading up on Supreme Verdicts...Tinker becomes viable. The format is actually very dynamic and open...so long as you are willing to run 3-4 Gush in your Blue decks. That's the one card I feel is metagame proof.

@Stormanimagus said:

"A lie of omission is still a lie"

-Jean Luc Picard-

I don't want to get into the discussion, but anybody who quotes Picard in a discussion to make a point is fucking awesome. Sorry for the off-topic 馃檪

last edited by Hrishi

Justin Kohler wanted me to mention that he 4-0'd the Sunday night daily with Jeskai Mentor. MTGO reported the other Daily but we now have two days worth of data where 3 out of 5 4-0 decks were Gush decks. I believe this now establishes a possible hint of a trending possibility that the previous possible trend is possibly not a trend.

I think the larger point is that regardless of how well Gush performs in an interval, the format is more defined by it than any other card. Gush sets the fundamental turn of the format. You have to win before Gush comes online, or do something meaningful to stop it. Standstill and Blue Moon, the two viable control decks right now, both have real plans for stopping the card Gush. Standstill happens before Gush. Blood Moon only sometimes does, but it's a looming soft lock that forces Gush decks to be ahead on board before it comes down.

When Workshops matched Gush in metagame share, Mishra's Workshop shaped the format as much as Gush. Workshop and Gush are, respectively, the gold standards for mana advantage and card advantage. Since Lodestone's retirement, Gush has dwarfed Workshop, and it's no surprise that the format is faster than it's been in a long while.

last edited by wappla

@ChubbyRain said:

Justin Kohler wanted me to mention that he 4-0'd the Sunday night daily with Jeskai Mentor. MTGO reported the other Daily but we now have two days worth of data where 3 out of 5 4-0 decks were Gush decks. I believe this now establishes a possible hint of a trending possibility that the previous possible trend is possibly not a trend.

Not sure what your point is in this argument Chubby. Nobody is claiming that gush or gush mentor isn't strong and isn't relevant. The argument being presented is that other decks can also be relevant in this meta game. The existence of 4-0 finishes by gush/mentor does not preclude other times when non gush-mentor decks are winning. Also you a) just cherry picked specific data and b) tried to support your point with small sample size.

@Khahan said:

Not sure what your point is in this argument Chubby. Nobody is claiming that gush or gush mentor isn't strong and isn't relevant. The argument being presented is that other decks can also be relevant in this meta game. The existence of 4-0 finishes by gush/mentor does not preclude other times when non gush-mentor decks are winning.

The exact wording was

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

I merely wanted to point out that there has been an alarming increase in the number of 4-0 Gush decks in the latest (say, the last two days (sic.)) MTGO dailies. Things (in the Ice) appear to be breaking out.

Also you a) just cherry picked specific data and b) tried to support your point with small sample size.

Do you not understand the concept of "trend" or "recency?" I felt the sarcasm and parody was very thinly veiled... Worry not, it's all part of my crusade against Gush and effort to Make Vintage Great Again. The book is coming out soon. Make sure you have your $8.99 ready to go.

last edited by Guest

@ChubbyRain said:

@Khahan said:

Not sure what your point is in this argument Chubby. Nobody is claiming that gush or gush mentor isn't strong and isn't relevant. The argument being presented is that other decks can also be relevant in this meta game. The existence of 4-0 finishes by gush/mentor does not preclude other times when non gush-mentor decks are winning.

The exact wording was

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

I merely wanted to point out that there has been an alarming increase in the number of 4-0 Gush decks in the latest (say, the last two days (sic.)) MTGO dailies. Things (in the Ice) appear to be breaking out.

Also you a) just cherry picked specific data and b) tried to support your point with small sample size.

Do you not understand the concept of "trend" or "recency?" I felt the sarcasm and parody was very thinly veiled... Worry not, it's all part of my crusade against Gush and effort to Make Vintage Great Again. The book is coming out soon. Make sure you have your $8.99 ready to go.

It'll have to be after the next Brandon Sanderson novel, sorry. Gotta have priorities!

@ChubbyRain said:

@Khahan said:

Not sure what your point is in this argument Chubby. Nobody is claiming that gush or gush mentor isn't strong and isn't relevant. The argument being presented is that other decks can also be relevant in this meta game. The existence of 4-0 finishes by gush/mentor does not preclude other times when non gush-mentor decks are winning.

The exact wording was

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

Which is completely true. The % of Gush and Mentor decks that have filled the daily results in May is down since April. Here are the figures.

In May thus far, there are a total of 49 reported decks, including 12 reported 4-0 decks.

Of the 12 4-0 decks, they are:

  • 3 Eldrazi or Workshop Aggro
  • 3 Gush Mentor
  • 2 Dredge
  • 1 Oath
  • 1 Blue Moon
  • 1 Dark Petition Storm
  • 1 Landstill

That makes Gush Mentor only 25% of the 4-0 decks.

Of the overall 49 decks, Gush Mentor was only 13 (26%) of the total, and only 15 (30%) if you add in other Gush Aggro decks (Thing Ice and Pyromancer decks).

That's WAY down from April's numbers, in which from 4-14 to 4-21 - the first week of Golem's restriction - Mentor decks were almost 60% of the overall daily results.

In other words, Mentor decks and Gush decks have fallen by half from April.

I merely wanted to point out that there has been an alarming increase in the number of 4-0 Gush decks in the latest (say, the last two days (sic.)) MTGO dailies. Things (in the Ice) appear to be breaking out.

Which is untrue. Ray Robillard 4-0ed the daily yesterday as well with Meditate Belcher, and the reported daily had Montolio 4-0 again with MUD.

Thing From Ice appeared a few weeks ago, btw, and didn't persist since. We've had a year of data on Mentor - Thing From Ice is playable, obviously (as I predicted in my set review), but it's far too premature to say that it's as good as Mentor.

I have spent a good part of my Magic writing career (including 350+ articles and a Gush book) in praise of Gush, but some of the things said here are pure hyperbole. Case in point:

@wappla said:

I think the larger point is that regardless of how well Gush performs in an interval, the format is more defined by it than any other card.

Regardless of how it performs? The notion of disconnecting a card's performance from it's metagame or format influence is a logical impossibility. To prove this, a card that sees absolutely no play cannot, by definition, be format defining.

We have had Gush legal in the Vintage format since 2010, and there have been large chunks of that time where Gush was not a meaningful part of the metagame.

Gush's performance is critical to deciphering whether it is a format defining card.

More importantly, however, the idea that the format is defined more by Gush than any other card is pure bunk. That's just not true.

At the extreme end, any single blue dual land is far more format defining than Gush, and I'd rank any number of counterspells above Gush in that department as well, including Force of Will, in terms of actually shaping the structure of the metagame and the possibilities extant within the format.

Gush sets the fundamental turn of the format. You have to win before Gush comes online, or do something meaningful to stop it. Standstill and Blue Moon, the two viable control decks right now, both have real plans for stopping the card Gush. Standstill happens before Gush. Blood Moon only sometimes does, but it's a looming soft lock that forces Gush decks to be ahead on board before it comes down.

To your list I would also add Oath and Show and Tell.

But while presented or at least framed as an indictment on Gush, this argument is actually a powerful reason against any action against Gush.

Without Fastbond, Gush should not be played before Turn 3 - and even then - playing Gush on Turn 3 is sometimes in adviseable if you have further land drops.

If the argument is that Gush is perhaps too powerful or overly format warping because it defines the fundamental turn of the format, that's weak tea. Gush is one of the slowest draw engines in the format.

For years and years, Mana Drain was considered the fundamental turn setter in the format, and anything that wanted to compete with Mana Drain decks had to resolve spells before UU was online. Dark Ritual, Workshop, and Goblin Welder all satisfies this criteria.

Mana Drain defined Type I and Vintage as a Turn 2 format. Gush is actually a full turn, and often more, slower than Mana Drain. Gush hardly sets any parameters on what's possible in this format in terms of turn speed.

Even if Gush could set the fundamental turn of the format (which it doesn't do, and has never done), it wouldn't prove very effect at towing the line at that turn, because the card advantage it generates is not overwhelming.

What makes Gush powerful is not it's speed - that's it's weakness - it's greatest strength is it's capacity to build a deck with tremendous virtual card advantage that manifests over the course of the game, followed by it's capacity to generate immediate mana free card advantage and therefore stack advantage in counterspell battles.

When Workshops matched Gush in metagame share, Mishra's Workshop shaped the format as much as Gush. Workshop and Gush are, respectively, the gold standards for mana advantage and card advantage. Since Lodestone's retirement, Gush has dwarfed Workshop, and it's no surprise that the format is faster than it's been in a long while.

I'm an admirer of your writing, wappla, but this is just astonishingly untrue because it's so obviously false. Although Mentor decks have the capacity to win games fairly quickly, Gush decks, as a general class, are among the slowest in any Vintage format.

Dredge, Shops, Time Vault decks, Storm, and Oath decks are all, as a rule, faster than Gush decks. Gush decks are actually notoriously slow.

Even the fastest non-combo Gush decks, like the Pyromancer decks from 2014 or the most aggressive Mentor decks today, are much slower than the Key/Vault decks from, say 2009.

And, they certainly aren't faster than the Gush decks from the mid-2000s, since those decks had 4 Scrolls and 4 Brainstorms to consistently and quickly combo out with Fastbond. Gush decks today aren't even trying o combo out that way - they are trying, at best, to generate a ton of tokens and rush kill with Mentor.

These decks aren't remotely as fast on the kill as the Aggro Mud decks that were dominating the format just a few months ago. To say that Vintage is faster than it's been in a long time is laughably false - we just need to watch the brutally fast Golem decks from a few months back to see that.

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen

cher路ry-pick
verb
gerund or present participle: cherry-picking

selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.
"the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets"

You selectively chose both the criteria of 4-0 finishes and this past week of events (excluding the one event won by Gush) as those were most beneficial to your position.

No I didn't. The 3-1 results were just about the same. I wasn't selectively culling out 4-0 decklists. I was presenting decklists over a defined time period.

It's hilarious that you use the dictionary definition of cherry picking, when, not only did I define it in my previous post in this thread, but you also presented it as a metaphor.

Metaphors, by definition, are figurative, and not literal. A metaphor's utility depends upon the extent to which it maps to the thing that you are trying to illuminate. Metaphor is not only a powerful literary device, but a powerful way that can shape our understanding of the world (and played no small role in the Scientific Revolution, as I've written about in my academic writing), but you don't use a dictionary to define a metaphor. That doesn't make any sense.

In this case, as I said, the metaphor is picking the best cherries from the bunch. Instead, I presented the bunch with the only selection criteria being the most recent results. That's the opposite of Cherry Picking. I was presenting the bunch (4 of the 5 most recent) as illuminating a potential emergent trend.

This is the very definition of cherry-picking. Were you to take into account 3-1 or better finishes, Gush would be about 40% of those results. Were you to pick multiple weeks, the data would not support your position.

Untrue. My position was very simple: that Gush-Mentor decks had fallen from April, and this was provably true.

@ChubbyRain said:
Thing in the Ice is a very powerful alternative. Shops becomes very popular...look to Delver/Young Pyromancer. Shops becomes nonexistent...look to Doomsday. People start cutting Dack Faydens and loading up on Supreme Verdicts...Tinker becomes viable. The format is actually very dynamic and open...so long as you are willing to run 3-4 Gush in your Blue decks. That's the one card I feel is metagame proof.

Then why are you on record, in this thread, saying that Mentor should also be restricted, and "is a problem? "

If Mentor is a problem, and needs restriction, as you argue, then it logically follows that it would diminish the power of Gush decks in the metagame, and undercut the strength of the argument for restricting Gush.

@Hrishi said:

@Stormanimagus said:

"A lie of omission is still a lie"

-Jean Luc Picard-

I don't want to get into the discussion, but anybody who quotes Picard in a discussion to make a point is fucking awesome. Sorry for the off-topic 馃檪

It's sad that such an awesome quote was used on behalf of a post with such flimsy logic.

While rhetorically well composed and superficially plausible, if you analyze the structure and logic of Stormanimagus' post carefully, it cuts against the use of any datamining whatsoever. Read his post again:

Data-mining is dangerous because sometimes one strikes on exactly what he/she intended to find and nothing else. And by "sometimes" I mean a lot of a lot of the time. And by "a lot of the time" I mean basically any time a person has something they want to post on social media. A lot of smart people seem to have a problem with this.

Horrible logic. That paragraph is such a wonderful example of bad logic, that it's worth of use in an introductory logic class as a pedagogical aid.
I was actually shocked that, the "aspiring data scientist" tacitly endorsed it by not calling him out.

Well, that can't possibly be correct: let's restrict Mentor and not Gush because there is no evidence that Gush is a problem without Mentor...

Straw man alert. You are on the record as saying that Mentor should be restricted, and yes, we actually do not have any solid data, that with Dig and Cruise restricted, that Gush is a problem without Mentor. On the contrary, we have plenty of data showing that Gush is not a problem without Mentor, as it wasn't a problem prior to Mentor and Cruise/Dig being printed.

That doesn't mean that it won't prove to be a problem even if Mentor were restricted - but we don't actually have any conclusive evidence of this, while we have plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen said:

@ChubbyRain said:

The exact wording was

I don't know if people have noticed, but latest (say, last weeks) worth of MTGO daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least

Which is actually true. The % of Gush and Mentor decks that have filled the daily results in May is down since April. Here are the figures.

In May thus far, there are a total of 53 reported decks, including 13 reported 4-0 decks.

Of the 13 4-0 decks, they are:

  • 4 Eldrazi or Workshop Aggro
  • 3 Gush Mentor
  • 2 Dredge
  • 1 Oath
  • 1 Blue Moon
  • 1 Dark Petition Storm
  • 1 Landstill

That makes Gush Mentor only 23% of the 4-0 decks.

Of the overall 53 decks, Gush Mentor was only 14 (26%) of the total, and only 16 (30%) if you add in other Gush Aggro decks (Thing Ice and Pyromancer decks).

That's WAY down from April's numbers, in which from 4-14 to 4-21 - the first week of Golem's restriction - Mentor decks were almost 60% of the overall daily results.

In other words, Mentor decks and Gush decks have fallen by half from April.

Of the overall decks,

I merely wanted to point out that there has been an alarming increase in the number of 4-0 Gush decks in the latest (say, the last two days (sic.)) MTGO dailies. Things (in the Ice) appear to be breaking out.

Which is untrue. Ray Robillard 4-0ed the daily yesterday as well with Meditate Belcher, and the reported daily had Montolio 4-0 again with MUD.

Ah, my only loss in that event...he was running incredibly hot. So amend that to 3 out of 6 4-0 decks on the weekend or 50%, an "alarming" increase from 23% or whatever. For the rest, it's not like anyone thought the first week after restriction would be representative of the eventual metagame and you are using 4-0 results which due to being much fewer in number are more prone to variation. But then again, if you were actually not being intellectually dishonest and looked at the larger sample size of 3-1 and 4-0 decks, it would show 22 of those 53 decks featured Gush (41.5%). But that wouldn't fit your narrative.

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen

cher路ry-pick
verb
gerund or present participle: cherry-picking

selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.
"the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets"

You selectively chose both the criteria of 4-0 finishes and this past week of events (excluding the one event won by Gush) as those were most beneficial to your position.

No I didn't. The 3-1 results were just about the same. I wasn't selectively culling out 4-0 decklists. I was presenting decklists over a defined time period.

Except they aren't...see above.

It's hilarious that you use the dictionary definition of cherry picking, when, not only did I define it in my previous post in this thread, but you also presented it as a metaphor.

Metaphors, by definition, are figurative, and not literal. A metaphor's utility depends upon the extent to which it maps to the thing that you are trying to illuminate. Metaphor is not only a powerful literary device, but a powerful way that can shape our understanding of the world (and played no small role in the Scientific Revolution, as I've written about in my academic writing), but you don't use a dictionary to define a metaphor. That doesn't make any sense.

In this case, as I said, the metaphor is picking the best cherries from the bunch. Instead, I presented the bunch with the only selection criteria being the most recent results. That's the opposite of Cherry Picking. I was presenting the bunch (4 of the 5 most recent) as illuminating a potential emergent trend.

The metaphor I made previously was to climate change denial. Allow me to expand on it... Climate change deniers like to discuss a supposed "hiatus" in global warming. They created this hiatus by comparing subsequent years to 1998, which was an el nino year, the sixth warmest year overall, and the warmest year on record until 2005 (and supposedly the end of the hiatus). This was based on satellite estimates of atmospheric temperature (and not ocean temperatures). The deniers chose the metrics most favorable to their position, which is considered to be cherry-picking in scientific circles and by the definition I quoted (your stupid metaphor and argument on semantics notwithstanding). You have done the same thing as these climate change denialists, hence the comparison.

This is the very definition of cherry-picking. Were you to take into account 3-1 or better finishes, Gush would be about 40% of those results. Were you to pick multiple weeks, the data would not support your position.

Untrue. My position was very simple: that Gush-Mentor decks had fallen from April, and this was provably true.

Alright. They have dramatically fallen from 60% of MTGO results the first week of unrestriction to 40% of MTGO results based on May results. Good for you. You're insatiable need to be right has been met this time.

@ChubbyRain said:
Thing in the Ice is a very powerful alternative. Shops becomes very popular...look to Delver/Young Pyromancer. Shops becomes nonexistent...look to Doomsday. People start cutting Dack Faydens and loading up on Supreme Verdicts...Tinker becomes viable. The format is actually very dynamic and open...so long as you are willing to run 3-4 Gush in your Blue decks. That's the one card I feel is metagame proof.

Then why are you on record, in this thread, saying that Mentor should also be restricted, and "is a problem? "

If Mentor is a problem, and needs restriction, as you argue, then it logically follows that it would diminish the power of Gush decks in the metagame, and undercut the strength of the argument for restricting Gush.

Restriction decisions are based on diversity and interactivity according to Wizards of the Coast. Monastery Mentor hurts diversity by pushing out many creature based strategies and necessities narrow answers such as maindeck Sudden Shock. Gush hurts diversity through its efficiency as a draw engine, which is only effectively combated by noninteractive strategies like Shops that Wizards has clearly deemed undesirable as large percentages of the metagame. It does not logically follow that restricting Monastery Mentor would lead to a diversification of Blue strategies which is why I feel Gush should also be restricted. And if I had to choose between one of the two, I would rather Gush be restricted than Mentor for the reason you quoted above.

@ChubbyRain said:

Which is untrue. Ray Robillard 4-0ed the daily yesterday as well with Meditate Belcher, and the reported daily had Montolio 4-0 again with MUD.

Ah, my only loss in that event...he was running incredibly hot.

So, you knew that he went 4-0, and you knew what he played, and you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? Wow.

you are using 4-0 results which due to being much fewer in number are more prone to variation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prone" to variation beyond the simple fact that there are less of them (that comment doesn't even make sense), but

  1. I am NOT only using 4-0 results, I presented the overall daily reported data. Even in my original post on this topic I said "daily results show a dramatic decline in # of Gush decks in the 4-0 and 3-1 results from a month ago. Things appear to be evening out, at least."

Did you completely overlook the part where I said "AND 3-1"???

Not only that, but I also posted the links, so that people could see all of the results. Only after that, did I specifically cite the 4-0 lists. But the scope of my post clearly entailed all of the data in those links.

And 2) I do prefer 4-0 results, because going 4-0 in the swiss is equivalent to a top 8 decklist in a 6 round swiss event. It's a stronger result, as a performance metric. 4-0 and 3-1 results are not equal. 4-0 is a more reliable data point as a performance measure.

But then again, if you were actually not being intellectually dishonest and looked at the larger sample size of 3-1 and 4-0 decks, it would show 22 of those 53 decks featured Gush (41.5%). But that wouldn't fit your narrative.

First of all, there were only 49 decks in May (53 reported in May - the May 1 reports were the April 30 data).

Of those 49 decklists, there are:

  • 13 Gush Mentor
  • 1 Pyromancer Grow
  • 1 Thing in Ice Aggro-Control

Using the methodology YOU used in the April MTGO: http://themanadrain.com/topic/250/mtgo-april-2016-power-9-challenge

That's 15 Gush decks or 30.6% of the metagame.

The other decks include:
11 Workshop/Eldrazi
9 Combo (Doomsday & DPS - using YOUR methodology)
4 Dredge
4 Landstill
2 5C Humans
2 Oath
1 Belcher
1 BUG Aggro Control

It's amazing to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, when I in fact presented the data you accused me of not presenting, and then your math doesn't actually work, using your own classification schema.

@ChubbyRain said:

@Smmenen

cher路ry-pick
verb
gerund or present participle: cherry-picking

selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.
"the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets"

You selectively chose both the criteria of 4-0 finishes and this past week of events (excluding the one event won by Gush) as those were most beneficial to your position.

No I didn't. The 3-1 results were just about the same. I wasn't selectively culling out 4-0 decklists. I was presenting decklists over a defined time period.

Except they aren't...see above.

Uh, except I did. See above.

It's hilarious that you use the dictionary definition of cherry picking, when, not only did I define it in my previous post in this thread, but you also presented it as a metaphor.

Metaphors, by definition, are figurative, and not literal. A metaphor's utility depends upon the extent to which it maps to the thing that you are trying to illuminate. Metaphor is not only a powerful literary device, but a powerful way that can shape our understanding of the world (and played no small role in the Scientific Revolution, as I've written about in my academic writing), but you don't use a dictionary to define a metaphor. That doesn't make any sense.

In this case, as I said, the metaphor is picking the best cherries from the bunch. Instead, I presented the bunch with the only selection criteria being the most recent results. That's the opposite of Cherry Picking. I was presenting the bunch (4 of the 5 most recent) as illuminating a potential emergent trend.

The metaphor I made previously was to climate change denial.

Yeah - I thought it was hilarious that when I responded with simple response "The most recent daily events aren't a single weather pattern in the largest context of climate change."you quickly abandoned your initial metaphor by saying "The metaphor I was going for was "cherry-picked results that support your position."

You could have just used that one in the first place.

Allow me to expand on it... Climate change deniers like to discuss a supposed "hiatus" in global warming. They created this hiatus by comparing subsequent years to 1998, which was an el nino year, the sixth warmest year overall, and the warmest year on record until 2005 (and supposedly the end of the hiatus). This was based on satellite estimates of atmospheric temperature (and not ocean temperatures). The deniers chose the metrics most favorable to their position, which is considered to be cherry-picking in scientific circles and by the definition I quoted (your stupid metaphor and argument on semantics notwithstanding). You have done the same thing as these climate change denialists, hence the comparison.

I am very familiar with some of the more prominent forms of climate denialism.

But this goes back to a earlier point: you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't present a systematic data set and then make a bold, scientific claim.

In a very brief 4 sentence post, I simply presented 4 of 5 consecutive data points suggesting that the data that showed a new trend. You jumped on me as if I was a climate denier - signalling how much my post really bothered you. That was because you grossly misread the scope of the claim I was making. I simply said that Gush Mentor had fallen dramatically in the 3-1 and 4-0 results since April, provided 4 links, and speculated that things appeared to be evening out a bit, but made no firm conclusion. You flipped out.

Amazing how, all this time later, you finally acknowledge that what I said was true...

This is the very definition of cherry-picking. Were you to take into account 3-1 or better finishes, Gush would be about 40% of those results. Were you to pick multiple weeks, the data would not support your position.

Untrue. My position was very simple: that Gush-Mentor decks had fallen from April, and this was provably true.

Alright. They have dramatically fallen from 60% of MTGO results the first week of unrestriction to 40% of MTGO results based on May results. Good for you. You're insatiable need to be right has been met this time.

No, you still get the facts wrong. Using your classification methodology, they were about almost 60% of MTGO results the first week of the unrestriction, and fell to ~30% in May.

In any case, if what I said 3 days ago was true, then why did it take a half dozen more posts before you finally admitted it, and why did you jump on it in the first place? Maybe you should look before you leap. Everything I said in that post has been proven empirically factual, now by your own admission. Remarkable.

@ChubbyRain said:
Thing in the Ice is a very powerful alternative. Shops becomes very popular...look to Delver/Young Pyromancer. Shops becomes nonexistent...look to Doomsday. People start cutting Dack Faydens and loading up on Supreme Verdicts...Tinker becomes viable. The format is actually very dynamic and open...so long as you are willing to run 3-4 Gush in your Blue decks. That's the one card I feel is metagame proof.

Then why are you on record, in this thread, saying that Mentor should also be restricted, and "is a problem? "

If Mentor is a problem, and needs restriction, as you argue, then it logically follows that it would diminish the power of Gush decks in the metagame, and undercut the strength of the argument for restricting Gush.

Restriction decisions are based on diversity and interactivity according to Wizards of the Coast. Monastery Mentor hurts diversity by pushing out many creature based strategies and necessities narrow answers such as maindeck Sudden Shock. Gush hurts diversity through its efficiency as a draw engine, which is only effectively combated by noninteractive strategies like Shops that Wizards has clearly deemed undesirable as large percentages of the metagame. It does not logically follow that restricting Monastery Mentor would lead to a diversification of Blue strategies which is why I feel Gush should also be restricted. And if I had to choose between one of the two, I would rather Gush be restricted than Mentor for the reason you quoted above.

That's fine, but arguing that Mentor needs to be restricting is, of course, completely inconsistent with the argument that Mentor is the "flavor of the week," which you've said twice in this thread. Your positions are incoherent when juxtaposed.

In any case, since you believe Mentor needs to be restricted, it's reasonable to argue in response that Mentor should be restricted first in order to preserve the engine, just as they restricted Golem in order to preserve Workshop.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen I never said Gush was faster than those other decks. I said the format is faster because Gush is so dominant right now. All those decks that are faster than Gush are faster than it because they have to accomplish their goals before the Gush pilot's card advantage, virtual and real, runs away with the game. Gush sets the fundamental turn not because it's the fastest deck in the format but because it's the most efficient unrestricted source of card advantage. A faster deck's best window is before that source of card advantage can be brought to bear against it. The decks slower than Gush (Standstill, Blue Moon, Workshops) all do something that makes Gush an inefficient or uncastable spell.

A dominant Workshops deck slows the format down because it encourages higher land counts and more removal spells. Workshop also is really good against many of the decks trying to win faster than Gush, and by tamping them down the format gets slower.

I'm not arguing for or against the card's restriction, and I'm not sure why you assumed I was. I think it's a useless exercise to worry about B&R policy, not least because this past restriction has shown us WOTC has no interest in understanding the format before they regulate it.

last edited by wappla
  • 174
    Posts
  • 148439
    Views