And here lies another thread, victim of Steve's ego...
No matter how much I may disagree with people, I don't believe I've ever stooped to the kinds of personal attacks you've lobbed my way in the last few weeks.
You can disagree with people without having to resort to insults, name calling, and ad hominem attacks.
I actually think that the data/arguments/ideas presented in my last post is a worthwhile dialogue, not a display of ego or chest-pounding. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
- The problem with the "good players" argument is that it discounts those players' skills at deck selection. Rich didn't pick a deck at random and neither did Brian - they chose to play Gush for a reason. If you are going to suggest that these are the best players in the room (and I agree with you on that), then you also should assume they are skilled when it comes to deck selection.
What you say is true, but my point was that I think these players would have done either better or just as well had they played the better performing deck. You played Gush, but your teammates who played Shop Eldrazi got 1st and 9th. Why didn't you? Empirically, Workshop Eldrazi was the better deck choice, right?
Possibly one reason is that you don't have as much confidence in yourself as a Shop pilot as Montolio or Brian - which suggests the limits of your "skill in deck selection" argument.
I piloted Sylvan Mentor to 6-2 record, was tied for the highest game win percentage in the field at 73.68% and left with a Mana Drain for my efforts. I really think my deck selection was fine for the event, thank you very much. If you actually cared about my reasoning for not playing the Ravager list, I was uncertain what percentage of the field would be Oath and Null Rods, which the deck has some difficulty against, but I really suspect you are trying to "win the argument" and don't really care what my reply was.
No, I actually was interested. But that wasn't the point.
In the weeds of this kind of discussion, it's easy to lose the forest for the trees. You pointed out a paradox in the OP: that Gush had a sub 50% match win %, but seemed to do well for a number of players. You tried to explain the paradox by suggesting that "experience with Gush" was the difference.
While I think that may have been a factor, I suggested that "vintage skill" or format skill may have actually been the more likely explanation, and that these players probably would have done the same or possibly better with a better performing deck, like Eldrazi Shops.
Your response was that selecting Gush was indicative of Vintage skill - but that wasn't responsive to my point, and hence my response.
As for the deck being difficult to play, how difficult is it to rules lawyer your opponent out of multiple Scab-clan Berserker triggers?
While it's sad that you've pivoted a point bout DPS to ad homimen attacks, what you say here isn't even accurate.
My opponent in one of the early rounds missed a beneficial trigger with Scab Clan. And a turn later, they asked about the damage, and I said that I thought that Scab Clan, in paper magic, is a beneficial (quasi-optional) trigger, like Dark Confidant or Chalice of the Void. I called the judge, and they confirmed this.
That was the only trigger they missed, so it was singular "trigger" they missed, not multiple or plural.
And, while it's easy to "smear" someone for taking advantage of an opponent missing a beneficial trigger, I've watched many players, including Rich Shay, intentionally play cards into Chalice of the Void, seeing if their opponent catches it. I don't like that rule that makes beneficial triggers optional - but that's the game we live with, and that's not "rules lawyering"; it would be playing for your opponent.
My opponent was confused at another juncture, where I put a storm spell and storm trigger on the stack, and I was waiting for them to put the SCB trigger on the stack, but they didn't do it.
Since my opponent seemed confused, I was the one who told them to call a judge (which a nearby player echoed), but I wasn't about to sit there and tell them exactly what to do. All they had to say was "scab clan trigger" or represent the trigger explicitly, and I would have scooped. Instead, they didn't say anything or indicate anything like that.
I'm truly sorry my opponent felt like I was trying to "rules lawyer" them, but nothing could be further from the truth.
It's too bad that you viewed that situation through the lens of me "being a douchebag" or a "rules lawyer." If you had actually witnessed what happened and watched objectively, I think it would have been apparently that nothing could be further from the truth. It's no different than making someone attack you for the final point rather than just scooping before a lethal attack.
The irony is that while accusing me of derailing a thread - everything we were talking about until your last post was directly relevant to the topic. Your insulting digressions are derailing the thread, not "my ego."
Seriously, you are the part of the Vintage community I want nothing to do with..
And the amazing thing about life in the free world is that you can choose who you want to associate with. You can ignore me or avoid me all you like.
But you have a habit of getting into conversations with me, replying to each reply, and then get upset with me for continuing a dialogue... If you want to ignore me, then ignore me...
For the record, I have nothing against you personally, beyond your personal attacks, and have been impressed by many things you've brought to Vintage, including being the first to recognize and fully exploit the power of JVP, and other novel deckbuilding ideas (like the match we played at the 2014 Vintage Champs - which was awesome). And I have also been explicitly complimentary and appreciative of the data analysis you've done in the last few months. When I congratulated you on your trophy, I meant it.
I just feel bad that everyone else is made more uncomfortable with your vitriol and this unfortunate digression...