Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Vintage Community read more

@rikter said:

Thats amazing! I'm thrilled to hear that the stuff made it back. I'm curious if the thieves were actually Magic players, or if they were just a bunch of junkies who got lucky, etc.

maaaybe they know what magic is, but no way where they vintage players. these collections are basically marked. going in with the binders with names on is extra stupid, but even if they brought only the loose cards in a plastic bag ... I would guess most stores in the bigger area would've identified that after they were told what was roughly stolen. if they had any idea how rare a collection with exactly these cards is, they would've sold it outside of the USA.

when I first read this, I figured the collection was targeted, security cameras turned away etc. didn't sound like some random street robbers got lucky. but if they walk into a store in the area with a bag with a name on ... you can't be that stupid if you knew what you were stealing.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

can't say i've played any real matches, but I've goldfished something like that. I don't think you even want belcher in the deck. if you have 4 paradoxical outcome in there, I felt having 2-3 burning wish to get tendrils or will is just better. It didn't feel all that great though. the problem is that half of the decks in the format are casting spheres or/and null rods. I am sure you can build a deck that's awesome at beating FoW based decks. with four PO and draw 7s you just have too many targets for their few counterspells.

But if you want to beat the 50%+ of the current format that cast spheres, you need to get PO off on turn 1 a reasonable amount of time so you get a bunch of free wins on the play and punish them for not having FoW. In the test draws I took that just doesn't happen often enough. Mostly the first PO is for 3-4 cards and that's just not enough to win off.

I think the card has a great home in an artifact mana heavy mentor deck like Stephen played at EW. But PO is only very well positioned against other blue decks, which puts it in a weak spot in the current format. If things swing to a point where there's a majority of blue decks again, PO will be great. But casting 4 mana spells against a deck with spheres is just bad. You are supposed to win the games where you can reliably cast your 1-2 mana spells. Getting up to four means the game is already won against these lockdown decks.

posted in Official Tournament Results read more

I didn't look at Vintage all that much the last weeks. But looking at these decklists, I assume after the Lodestone Golem restriction, Gush now got banned as the blue cantrip decks took over the format. Maybe we need to get that golem back so the colorless-lockdown decks don't get supressed this much.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@JuzamJim said:

Match 2 game 3, Rich Shay seems to forget that fatesealing with Jace into his ultimate doesn't actually win the game. He still needs to find an aswer for Marit Lage.

he had multiple swords in hand, didn't he? pretty sure rich's line is way better.

@varal no, that is fine afaik. cage just sais 'can't come into play'. containment priest is a replacement effect. there's no reason why that effect doesn't trigger. the interaction with dredge is different. dredge is also a replacement effect but I think the problem here is that the draw never happens so dredge can't replace it.

posted in Vintage Community read more

yeah, Randy is first at the board gaming convention and then in Sydney for the Pro Tour. But it's not just him. Eric and his GF Athena (the producer) are already in Syndey, which meant they leave Tuesday, I guess. I think most other folks that play on the PT are travelling later, but the tough truth is that 2 weeks before the PT, they would rather test for that than play vintage ... 🙂

posted in Vintage Strategy read more


EDIT: When Kai refers to playing at a "reasonable pace," I think he's really talking about a rule of thumb designed to avoid creating evidence that you're playing slowly. In other words, the IPG definition of slow play does not care about your pace of play as such; your pace is relevant as evidence of your intention to play slowly for a tactical advantage. Judges can come over and prod you forward if you are, say, taking 10 minutes to think about a Doomsday pile, but you're not going to get DQed for that because there's no evidence of intentional stalling -- yet.

Judges use the term 'reasonable' pace. for example:

"After you've issued a Tournament Error — Slow Play Warning, you're still not done. You need to remain at the table so that they keep playing at reasonable pace. A Warning is worth nothing if the player doesn't feel "encouraged" to play faster. Staying at a table is a good way to do so."

You can't just start playing super slow and go 'but I always play like that'. You are supposed to play in a way that allows the completion of 3 games.

there's another good article here:

And there's no way in hell you get 10 min to plan a doomsday pile on GP/PT level.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

@Protoaddct pretty much what @diophan said. there are no rules requiring you to play to win. you have to play at a reasonable pace. if your whole deck is just wraths of gods, balance, winter orb, armageddon, stasis, propaganda etc, that's fine. I've definitely seen games in the past where someone could've won but didn't to get more information or because he thought it's better to win the first game after 30 minutes and likely win the match 1-0. if your opponent doesn't concede, I am not aware of any rules that tell you to win the game as soon as possible. You cannot alter your play style to be slower to waste more time though, that's cheating. Sadly very tough for the judges to spot too.

I've played decks in Standard a long time ago that could barely win game 1 but could completely lock the opponent out from doing anything with the only win condition being gaea's blessing. if they won't want to concede, sure, they will eventually get decked and won't be able to finish game 2, that's their problem. I had more stuff in the board to win games faster in case it was 0-1 or 1-1. but building a deck like that is perfectly fine.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

@Protoaddct it's never a problem to tell them to actually win. you aren't required to play hyper fast either. the problem is only if you deliberately slow down after realizing it comes down to clock issues. if you play your turns in a reasonable time frame, your opponent can't complain.

If someone plays a super defensive control deck with vault/key as 'win conditions' with something like a single copy of jace and tinker/colossus to win with, he knows what he's in for. he's not entitled to more then half of the round's clock time and if he can't win in time, he can't win.

The problem with 'clock management' is when you start adjusting your play speed towards the slow end because you realize that either a draw is good for you or there's a scenario where you know your opponent can't win, but you can win in a single attack/turn. Forcing someone to actually play it out and win the game.

all your scenarios are not at all in the grey area. you can always make your opponent play it out. and in the last scenario I definitely let them, if I want the draw. You just have to play at a reasonable pace - and that doesn't mean you have to play ultra fast turns either. Although that also depends on game 1. If I am playing storm combo, game 1 took 25 minutes and I used up a good 15-20 min of that going through a long combo, then that changes things and I will either play super fast or just concede the game. But if both players used a similar amount of the clock, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 'punishing' your opponent for having slow win conditions in this deck. that's his choice.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

you're walking a very thin line here. obviously it's fine to let your opponent show you a victory condition in the vault/key scenario. that's actually correct, I'd hardly ever scoop without that, although I might ask my opponent to just pick up his library and show me what he'll win with. but 'using' the clock as in thinking, using a fetchland, thinking some more in a very bad looking position is just simply cheating.

as an example the explanation of the head judge of GP florence, where Saito was DQed (and subsequently suspended, losing his Hall of Fame induction, this happened after he got voted in but before he was inducted):

"We disqualified this player for Stalling, after it was observed that his play speed seemed to change based on his observation of the clock. It was observed by a high-level judge that twice in the round he appeared to change his play speed based on considerations that were outside the game. Consulting among the senior judges we decided that, on the basis of what we had observed, we had no choice but to disqualify the player."

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Princess_Power said:

Also I don't want to insult people but a rather non-trivial number of games in the VSL have been decided by clear msiplays. For example when Randy played vs efro he lost 0-2. I am pretty sure Randy was favored to win 2-0 with better play. One game he missed hangerback for zero. The other game he didn't leave up mana to replay containment priest in case Efro had chain of vapor. The threat he played was not needed that turn. There is also that Owen game but owen is not actually a VSL member.

Of course only a small number of matches have been decided by clear unambiguous misplays. But there are only 45 regular season VSL games per season. And every regular season there are several clear, match deciding mistakes. I am sure there are many matches were decided by less clear misplays.

that's how magic works, otherwise every game would be decided by the draw. if you had a handcam for a 6-7 round vintage tournament, do you honestly thing you'd go through that without a misplay? 🙂