@boggyb Tinker is effectively 4 of though in big blue decks. You have tinker, DT for tinker, vamp for tinker, and mystical for tinker. 4 cards in your deck will get you tinker within a turn if you want it. And even if you don't have tutors to directly find the restricted card, you have variance reduction through the velocity you draw cards from your blue deck. You have recall that gets you 3 cards closer to tinker, cruise that gets you 3 cards closer to tinker or dig through time gets you 7 looks at finding tinker(or any tutors). Sure these are restricted, but they are restricted because they reduce variance. Blue in general has a lot less variance than other colors(or artifacts). Workshops relies on multiples to make up for the lack of variance reduction blue decks have.
Now that golem is restricted, by turn 8 shops has had 7-8 draw steps(since it doesn't play a ton of ways to draw extra cards), so its seen roughly 25% of of the deck and therefore has a 25% chance of drawing golem by turn 8 or so. What do you think the odds of drawing tinker by turn 8 is in a big blue deck? I'm guessing it's a lot larger than 25%. This restriction hurts shops more than a typical blue restriction hurts blue decks.
@Soly I agree that blue decks require a dedication of resources to fight on the stack in order to win in the mirror. But I think that in a healthy format when every blue deck does that, there should be some sort of repercussion for that. Which is that shops should dominate when people are designing their decks to fight blue decks. I think its a good thing that you can't really build a deck that fights workshops and the blue decks. I think that is healthy.
I don't play standard, but this feels to me like everyone has been playing U/B control and their decks reflect that. Lots of draw spells, and tons of countermagic. Battling in the mirror is interactive and requires fierce battles on the stack. Now some people come along and start crushing these blue decks with mono red and mono red starts to dominate. Is this a problem with the format? No, its just that the meta game needs to shift.. If you still want to play U/B control maybe play less counters and more efficient removal, maybe its best to play a different deck. But instead we see the U/B control players saying “hey we need those counters or else can’t win the mirror, plus mono red matches are unfun and not skill intensive at all, we should ban mountains.” That’s what the argument to restrict shops/golem looks like to me.
@JuzamJim You're actually wrong on both counts.
All the last sentence says is if you don't cast the revealed card, put it into your hand. So you can put any card you reveal off of this into your hand. Even if you play a mox and reveal a gush you can't cast the gush for free, but you put it into your hand. It only cares about the CMC of the card if you're trying to cast it.
It says you can cast it without paying its mana cost, this is similar to miracles or cascade were the ability lets you cast it right at that moment even if normal timing would prevent it. So just like in legacy where you can cast a sorcery terminus in your opponents combat step, or when you cascade into tarmogoyf and can cast it even though there is a shardless agent on the stack, you can cast a monastery mentor at end of your opponents turn if you reveal this after you cast a dig through time.
@ChubbyRain You're right, which is why I was saying that people who were just calling him sloppy are missing the point. When we allow people to be sloppy we allow cheaters to act sloppy. We need to be more vigilant and less forgiving of sloppy play if we want to dis-incentivize cheaters from sloppy cheats like playing multiple lands a turn and not properly paying for sphere effects. A lot of vintage champs players don't play competitive magic too often perhaps there should be a sheet of what you should be calling a judge for as a GRV passed out at the start of the event or explained at the start of the event. Whether or not he actually cheated, he should not have been champ strictly from the additive effects of sloppy play after sloppy play.
I think Shops will still be fine post golem restriction. As long as people keep running 4 mental misstep and 1-2 flusterstorm along with only playing 14 land and not playing any main deck artifact hate, I think the environment is great for shops. My concern with this restriction is the precedence it sets. What if shops continues to do well? Do we keep restricting shops cards until it is ok to run all the blue hate you want main without consequence? Or will WOTC ever see above level 0 and see that it is gush that is driving the meta to be favorable for shops.
I'm also concerned with the speed that they made such a decision. This is not modern/standard where there are tons of large events week after week. Given that the meta just got shaken up with some recent restrictions/unrestrictions we had what, 2 P9 challenges as the sources of big tournament data? Is that really enough evidence to say that a deck is dominating?
Are shops decks pretty similar to play against? sure they all use workshops to advance a permanent based strategy and use sphere effects as speed bumps to slow down their opponent or lock them out. But when we go this generic, it's not that different from saying that all blue decks are the same because they use blue draw spells to dig through their deck to get card advantage and reduce variance in their deck, all while using blue counterspells to protect their strategy and stop the opponent's plans. As a blue player I can counter everything my opponent does and then cast dig through time and it doesn't really matter what my win con is. I could win with a mentor after that, oath, vault/key or a ham sandwich. So saying doomsday and mentor are different decks, but shops are all the same is a complete misunderstanding of the underlying strategy in blue decks.
@ChubbyRain How many decks started with 4 force of will, 4 mental misstep, 1-2 flusterstorm, 1 recall, 1 walk, 1 cruise, 1 dig, 1 brainstorm, 1 ponder, 4 preordain? That's 19-20 of the non-mana sources in a deck, roughly half of the non-mana sources in a deck. So to say there isn't an underlying generic "blue" common game play is just wrong. Sure, this leads to a diverse amount of threats, but a deck that goes cantrip, cantrip, force, into oath had the same start as a deck that went cantrip, cantrip, force, into mentor.
And I guess to clarify, by counter everything and opponent does, I meant counter everything relevant they do, if you turn 1 tinker, then you don't have to counter much but yea landstill needs to play the long game, so they are more capable of countering multiple threats.
The strategic goals of landstill vs doomsday vs oath are different, but the underlying strategy of cantrips and tutors for counsistancy and counterspells for protection is the same. Just like the strategic goals of Ravagers vs Tiny Robots vs smokestack are different, but the underlying strategy of resistors as speed bumps and making permanents matter is the same.
@Katzby right, there is no accidental cheating, but there is sloppy play. Whether or not Joe actually cheated, he had real advantages in the competition from sloppy play. Shouldn't judges be more aggressive in issuing GRVs and game losses then to try and reduce sloppy play from being in contention of MTG events? I would absolutely love to play 2 lands a turn, but I don't because I don't cheat, I pay active attention to the game state, and I am aware that I don't have exploration in play in vintage. But that gives me a disadvantage in a MTG event when sloppy players get away with things like that. I think most of the time this works itself out that sloppy players often also make poor play decisions and lose accordingly, but situations like this weekend seem to show a problem with the system when a sloppy player makes a deep run. Sloppy play should be dealt with more aggressively I think. It's not as bad as cheating, but is still really bad for the integrity of the game given the competitive advantage it gives certain players, especially given that probably most GRVs aren't ever noticed by the opponent.
@Katzby I'm fine with the MIPG document. I agree that people sometimes make stupid mistakes and shouldn't be instantly DQed for them, so I agree in the 3 GRVs lead to a game loss. But I do think that even sloppy play without the intention to cheat can lead to hurting the integrity of the event. To me that means that judges should be doing more to proactively identify GRVs and issue warnings. How much of that is logistically possible, I'm not sure(it would be nice to have judges watch the in-contention matches the last 2 or so rounds). But you should have at least identified someone who gets 2 GRVs in one game at X-1 as a potential threat to the integrity of the event and had him watched by a judge for rounds 8 and 9. By the time you were watching him in the top 8 the warnings had reset and it was already too late. You may not believe he cheated, but as we can see by the existence of this thread, the integrity of the event was hurt by his sloppy play regardless.
@Vnayin But cantripping doesn't typically affect the opponent. Not in the same way as Sphere, Sphere, Tangle Wire.
I don't see how having an effect on the opponent is relevant at all when discussing generic strategies of the game. Strategies that advance your plan are just as relevant as strategies that aim to slow the opponent's plan. Using cantrips to promote velocity through your deck is a strategy and one that is specific to blue. And still it does have a secondary effect on the opponent buy digging you closer to the cards that matter. If you need an ingot chewer and its the 3rd card down in your deck, then it definitely affects the opponent when you preordain and put 2 dead cards on the bottom and draw into the card you need.
I think ravager shops before the restriction of golem proved that shops as a tempo strategy is likely the best strategy in the current meta, that's why I still like the aggressive shops lists. The combination of a lock piece or two plus an aggressive cheap threat that can threaten to end the game quickly is what I want to be doing. And sure, we lost the best card for the deck in golem, but I think the strategy is still best.
This is my starting point for ravager shops which has been performing decently well for me in testing so far.
4 arcbound ravager
3 porcelain legionnarie
1 sword of fire and ice
4 tangle wire
8 Solomon crypt
I like legionnaire over walker because it is a decent sized threat for just 2 mana, sure walker can grow, but I want to be a bit more aggressive, so a 2 mana 1/1 is not what I want, nor do I want to spend a few turns ticking it up do a decent enough body.
Bant Hatebears might have a chance at fighting gush/mentor decks.
3 Gaddock Teeg
4 Meddling Mage
3 Qasali Pridemage
4 noble hierarch
1 ancestral recall
2 spell pierce
4 mental misstep
3 swords to plowshares
1 time walk
2 stony silence
2 sylvan library
3 on-color moxen
1 strip mine
2 aegis of the gods
3 containment priest
3 nature’s claim
2 ravenous trap
1 engineered explosives
Is what I'm thinking of testing. Gaddock Teeg shuts off gush/dig/cruise/JTMS/Force basically most of the payoff cards for playing gush strategies. With these decks basically centered around winning with mentor, meddling mage on mentor is a good way to slow/stop the mentors from even showing up. Even with thalia, I like some countermagic in the form of misstep, pierce and fluster to protect these creatures. I like that this deck also looks to be setup nicely against storm as well.
Of course if you want to play gush, but have an edge against mentor you could play something like this....
4 young pyro
3 sulfur elemental
1 ancestral recall
1 time walk
4 force of will
1 mox ruby
1 mox sapphire
1 stony silence
2 dack fayden
1 library of alexandria
3 containment priest
1 sulfur elemental
1 ravenous trap
sulfur elemental is probably the best answer to mentor, but is pretty narrow. But when the meta is 40% mentor, these narrow answers start to look a lot better.
I wasn't saying evenly distributed = random. What I'm saying is that perfectly evenly distributed or perfectly sorted or a completely random start state with enough random shuffling applied will all result in a random deck. He could have moved that STP anywhere in the deck or left it alone and with random shuffling applied would end up with a random deck in any case. It doesn't matter what the starting state of the deck is as long as randomness is applied. Now this could lead to a discussion as to what it takes to sufficiently randomize a deck, but I don't think moving 1 card around in the deck really changes the math.
Are you against pile shuffling? All that really does is potentially declump. It does nothing for the randomization of the deck, yet people are allowed to do it because sufficient randomization has to be applied after the pile shuffle anyway and thus end up with a randomized deck.
To all the people saying that he was just playing sloppy, sloppy play is no excuse. This is a competitive REL event, if you're playing sloppy you don't deserve to win. Everyone needs to be doing their part in a competitive event and calling judges whenever their opponent makes mistakes like these and judges should be doing their part in giving out warnings/upgrading them to losses after 3. Joe should have been given a game loss just based on what was on camera round 7. And if he was playing half as sloppy in the rest of the rounds, he should have been eventually given multiple game losses throughout the day so that he would never be in contention for top 8. It's kind of annoying that the penalties reset for the 2nd day given that day 2 was just top 8. Reseting penalties makes a bit more sense in a longer day 2 like a GP, but I think for just a day 2 top 8 it just allows for more sloppy play in top 8.
@Katzby The game doesn't look competitive when a player is making that many mistakes is on camera and in contention or in the finals. Playing multiple lands a turn, not playing for resistors, and not discarding down to 7 are not harmless, dumb stuff, but competitive advantages whether or not they are intended. I think its fine to be more player-friendly at regular REL, but at Comp REL people should be aware that they are being held to high standards and accept the consequences. Especially in the modern day with MTG streams. If this game wants to be treated like other e-sports then we need to demand the high standards from the competitors or streamed tournaments will look like a joke.