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:
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.