Below is what I've been playing since the latest B&R changes with
modest some success ( 3-1 in a daily & 3-2 and 5-0 in the league). Basically cut a third preordain for a second bargain from my standard DPS list (definitely not certain that's correct, as I side out the second bargain a lot).
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Black Lotus
1 Bloodstained Mire
2 Cabal Ritual
1 Chain of Vapor
4 Dark Petition
4 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Gitaxian Probe
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Lion's Eye Diamond
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Mind's Desire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Polluted Delta
1 Sol Ring
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Time Walk
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Underground Sea
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Wheel of Fortune
2 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Defense Grid
2 Ancient Tomb
3 Ravenous Trap
2 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Toxic Deluge
2 Defense Grid
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Sadistic Sacrament
1 Chain of Vapor
I do think this has some advantages over PO Storm. It's faster than the slower PO builds, more stable than the faster PO builds (e.g. Reid Duke's with 4 Mox Opal and 2 Grim Monolith, which seems to have fallen out of favor), and less vulnerable to null rod effects (although they can still hurt depending on what we've drawn). Also, using duress effects for protection over FoW and other countermagic means our protection spells are less costly overall, and we make much better use of defense grid. Of course we lose the ability to be reactive, which makes us more vulnerable to shops.
However, I'll freely admit that the biggest reason I play this on MODO over PO storm is that I own the cards (virtual FoW and mox opal are pricey!), so my perspective is definitely biased. Regardless, I do hope the latest changes allow dark rituals to reclaim a place in the meta.
*edit#1 on 9/9/17: Just realized the aforementioned daily was before the latest b&r change. Sorry for the misrepresentation.
*edit#2 on 9/16/17: Updated to reflect fact that I just went 5-0 in my second MTGO Vintage league with this list. Played Ravager Shops, Delver, Dredge, Oath, and Uwx, if I remember correctly.
@aardshark Andy, as a compliment to the above post, could your tournament announcement instructions be revised to specify that tournament announcements must include exactly one of a small number of specified regional tags. You could clarify that posts may include additional, sub-regional tags so long as they include one of the specified tags.
The regional tags would need to be modified or expanded so that they are truly comprehensive. This could be accomplished by adding additional to your current list regional tags at the continent level: [Africa]; [Africa]; [Australia] [North America-other]; [South America]; and (for completeness) [Antarctica].
This would make it much easier for users and moderators to identify posts that do not include one of the specified tags, and encourage the posters to tag their tournament announcement as appropriate.
Thanks for your consideration.
The majority of tournament announcements do not currently include a "location tag". Without location tags, it is difficult to find events in a particular area, because there are so many posts in the forum. Even those that are tagging events are not doing so in a uniform fashion. In addition to a plethora of sub-regional tags, for example, there are three different tags for online events: "Magic Online," "MTGO," and "MTGO P9."
This is a real problem for me. I recently missed a local event because it was not tagged (the Eudemonia tournament on September 18 was not tagged "West Coast USA"). And I was unaware of CardHoarder's free online tournament series because they were tagged "MTGO" versus "Magic Online".
The old system was better in this regard, because it forced anyone posting an event to select one of a small number of sub-forums.
Is it possible to redesign the "tournament announcement" page so that users must select at one of a small number of regional tags, and make these tags uniform and truly comprehensive (e.g. by continent) so that all posts fit under at least one and users are not free to generate their own? (It is fine to include additional regional markers, so long as one of the specified tags is listed). Or if this cannot be accomplished through tags, could we accomplish this by emulating the old TMD's sub-forum approach?
Short of a technical fix, could moderators and users please help remind tournament organizers to include one of the tags specified in Andy's "How to Post a Tournament Announcement!" instructional post ([http://www.themanadrain.com/topic/155/how-to-post-a-tournament-announcement]).
I am an attorney with the California Energy Commission, a state agency with various responsibilities relating to energy and efficiency policy, including regulating the efficiency of appliances and buildings, permitting power plants, providing grants for RD&D, etc. I'm a jack of all trades around here, but basically I try to make things more defensible and suck less. For several years, I served as a policy advisor for one of our Commissioners.
If Storm is on 4 maindeck Grid and Mentor is on Duress+JVP+Tormod's Crypt+Sphere of Resistance, the Storm player is going to lose most of the time.
If Storm is on 10 discard spells and Mentor is on Remora + Traps + Flusterstorms , the Storm player is going to lose most of the time.
... but if the Mentor player with a deck full of Flusterstorms tries to beat the Storm player with maindeck Grids, he's going to get steamrolled ...
In my experience, the latter is the far most common configuration in the current metagame. Most gush builds have only 4 FOW and possibly a single ancient grudge in the maindeck to deal with grid. Even after sideboard, their artifact removal is only useful for dealing with grid.
I have yet to face a Gush-Mentor deck with sphere of resistance. In theory, gush decks play all sorts of hateful permanents to deal with storm, although some of the scariest cards (spheres, cannonist, teeg, arcain lab) hurt their own game plan almost as much as storm's. So maybe it isn't surprising that currently most Gush decks aren't doing that.
So, if your point is that Gush-Mentor is a super-strong shell that could be easily adopted to beat current storm builds, including those relying on defense grid, I certainly agree.
But to answer the question initially posed, I would feel pretty comfortable bringing to the mentor-infested 8-man a DPS build with 4 maindeck grids, and maybe tinker-colossus in the side as a level-up for random hate, along with a few slots reserved for shop and dredge. Unfortunately, I would probably lose to @Stormanimagus's humans, especially if he swaps containment priests for cannonists...
I am bar certified in California, but am not a labor law expert so I don't have much to offer in terms of analysis at this point. Aside from class certification, two substantive legal hurdles plaintiff will have to clear is (1) that judges are in fact "working", and (2) that WOTC is their employer. The WOTC press release speaks to the latter, and makes a good point that at many (though not all) events judges have no relationship with WOTC, but rather with a local store. But the former may be interesting legal question.
In Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., the Supreme Court wrote:
The definition ‘suffer or permit to work’ [in the Fair Labor Standards Act] was obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another. Otherwise, all students would be employees of the school or college they attended, and as such entitled to receive minimum wages. So also, such a construction would sweep under the Act each person who, without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose or pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit.
330 U.S. 148, 152 (U.S. 1947) (finding that participants in a mandatory training course offered by a railroad for prospective breakmen were not "employees" of the railroad). So clearly there is some wiggle room in the definition of work under the FLSA. Whether judges should be treated as employees may depend on how courts have interpreted the definition of "work" in the FLSA and corresponding California law. Without doing a bunch of research, I can't say much more than that, except that the frame and relative strength of the arguments may get a little clearer once there is briefing on the substantive issues, which could take a while.
The capitalized disclaimer at the bottom of the initial post of @MaximumCDawg is hereby incorporated by reference.