just wanted to say I really enjoy your column and find I always learn new things from it--here, for example, there were quite a few things I was somewhat familiar with (I don't play Vintage, but often play Commander which includes many Vintage card favorites), but you provided a comprehensive and straightforward overview that really gave the big picture. thanks for the great work!
That stinks about not getting to go to the GP now. I do understand not being able to play what you want though. If I had any card available to me I would be playing something different in almost every format.
If I had the choice of any deck I would not pick these two, that's for sure. It was a matter of time and card availability. I was on my own Esper brew for too long to be able to acquire cards for a different deck.
BW Tokens is the better choice, but ultimately it's a fair deck in a format of unfair decks (for the most part). Sadly, the plans that I thought were set in stone ended up falling through, so I won't be able to attend the Grand Prix.
I know this won't be the most helpful but if I was playing a Modern tournament anytime soon, I would not want to bring either of the decks you mentioned. Out of the two BW Tokens does sound like a better choice but I would scour around and find other lists to look off of. Good article though and no matter what you pick I wish you well at the GP.
Hi Paul, I understand that point. I agree with it to an extent, in that the risk averse players will hear of this incident and won't go anywhere near to anything which could possibly link them to bribery. I also note that we don't have a report from the judges on what they determined was actually said by both players. As a result, risk averse players will see there is some smoke arising from this incident, and may wish to avoid what they consider to be playing with fire.
However, I suspect that the takeaway message for most people will be: "Be discreet. Don't mention prize splits, concessions, payments or Paypal closely together, and certainly not in the earshot of a judge (unless of course you wish a judge to hear your carefully crafted words which are designed to ward off any link between the concession and the quid-pro-quo for the concession. In those cases, you might want a judge to be present so that your words can't be misquoted)".
And a secondary message is: "If you do try to be discreet (as Oliver presumably did try to do at first), and if your opponent is genuinely confused by your words, then don't go on to clarify the nuts and bolts of what you are suggesting. In those scenarios, just play the game and hope to get your Pro Point by winning the match!".
In contrast, it would be a very different situation if Oliver Tiu was very careful in his choice of words, and did not tie the concession to a Paypal payment, but nevertheless Wizards disqualified him. In such a scenario, it would have a huge impact to curb the bribery. Oliver Tiu is not the test case people might have been hoping for. People like me will think "Oliver Tiu? Oh he's that guy who clarified in the earshot of the judge how the mechanics of the concession would work. Of course that crosses the line!".
As a result, I doubt that the latest DQ will affect the bribery culture much at all.
The ambiguity exists because it is undesirable for people to WANT to thwart the rule and if they know the magic words (there are none as far as I know) that is a loss for the game as a whole. Imho Bribery should not exist because people should not engage in it. Since they DO they run the risk that occasionally they may cross the invisible line that allows/demands punishment for it.
Hi Pete, as you are an experienced judge, I'd be interested to know what is your opinion about the current official bribery rules as they are written?
It seems to me that, at the practical level, bribery is permitted in substance, but not in form. Which is crazy. Oliver Tiu was disqualified at GP Provenance because he fell foul of the formality required (and because his opponent was inexperienced and clueless when it comes to how top level players can easily get around the prohibition by a mutual, unspoken understanding. Oliver's opponent didn't "get" what Oliver was trying to communicate, which is funny because then Oliver went on to explain to his opponent what he really meant, and in the earshot of a judge!). In contrast several others at the same tournament might have committed bribery but followed the correct form (because they are not clueless and are well aware of how to commit bribery legally) and are hence not penalised. I am not satisfied by the argument that "All bribery is forbidden because that's what's written in the official rules". Sorry, life doesn't work like this, one needs to look at the substance and the reality of what is happening. A rule which is so easy to be thwarted should not be a rule. It's like saying "The official rules ban X", where the vast majority of people playing in high level tournaments know how the rule can be overcome by jumping through a simple hoop, and is therefore a rule which is meaningless at a practical level. It's even worse than that: I don't play in high level paper tournaments, and even I know how to thwart the rule.
(The above is my opinion, but I am more interested in your opinion which is more informed and backed up by more practical experience. Also, when I mention a specific player's name, I acknowledge that I have not heard each player's explanations which they gave to the judges who investigated it, and instead I am basing my opinion on what Oliver himself appears to have clarified to the public after the event).
Depends how you class Scarecrow and Gargoyle. I could also do all-metal Horror, but after that you're looking at partials. (3 artifact zombies, 3 snakes, 2 spirits, 1 homunculus, 1 imp). Didn't go for it in the end, but happy to test it out some time.
RDW is simply too slow. It is not broken and not fast enough for many decks. Few players tried playing RDW online earlier this year. But it's not like you fear fetching or playing Force because of loss of life when playing against the deck. After the first experience I started playing Mental Missteps paying with my life and I was also playing a fair deck not doing anything like Tinker into Colossus t1 or here's draw 40 cards with Outcome and Tendrils.
I stormed through Pillars and Eidolons. A single Mentor managed to win against burn. That's not a good thing for the red player. I wouldn't play that even as a budget deck.
Once I tried playing Sligh myself (it was more of a joke) and it didn't go well for me either. The best I managed was to deal 19 damage. The 20th point of life? Never. I beat Dredge but only because I drew two Cages and Tormod's Crypt.
Is there a Vintage burn deck (aside from Tendrils)? I never see any mention of it unless someone is talking about budgets but it seems like RDW is not a thing anymore when back in the day it was mox monkey mox monkey bolt, fireblast etc.
Always has been in Halloween, I believe. Or at least for the past two years, since it was Vintage then. (Of course we couldn't make it legal back when there was still an in-client Legacy Tribal Wars filter.)
Anyway, I wouldn't mind unbanning it in Regular too. Halloween seems a safe environment to test it out, since major artifact tribes aren't allowed.
The Halloween Special is Legacy this year, not Vintage.
Summary of the rules:
[EDIT: I had forgotten the cards previously not listed because the client would already take care of them automatically]
- Only Spooky creature types are allowed in the deck, even off-tribe, with some exceptions. Check the rules here.
- The card pool used is Legacy
- No card is banned except for the following ones: Arboria, Cleanse, Dread Return, Elephant Grass, Engineered Plague, Extinction, Grindstone, Light of Day, Karma, Kormus Bell, Sensei's Divining Top, Stasis, Umezawa's Jitte, and all Changeling creatures
- Griselbrand can only be played within the Demon tribe
- Make sure to respect the restrictions about Cat (black only), Faerie (black only), Rat (non-Kamigawa/non-humanoid only) and Snake (non-Kamigawa/non-humanoid only). They're not enforced in Gatherling
I'm fixing it. It's a problem due to the fact that last year we used the Vintage Halloween format. The Legacy one (that we're using this year) has been corrupted somehow.
I'm entirely fine with this, although I'll admit Pilot and Aetherborn had a bit more synergy to work with than Monkey. Gremlin should be plenty good enough for at least a win, and my best wishes to those who wish to make mad bank in my stead. :)
I also wanted to say to anyone reading this: I take a lot of time trying to make the article look sleek and perfect. I'm not sure how the formatting got jacked between submitting it and it being published, but I'll try to make more readable in the future.
There was sadly an issue with the hover program with today's updates. I worked on it a bit myself, and usually waiting for the macros usually does it, but after waiting 45 minutes for one article, I made the decision to fix things and publish as they were.
Ack, looks like I forgot to run this throw the hover program before I submitted it (which I usually do). Sorry about that, I'll try to see if there's a way to fix it.
Imho if you lost to politics usually then you succeeded. That's the balancer in multiplayer commander, great decks can die to pressure from politics. The bigger the threat, the more likely for it to happen with an experienced group.
Thank you very much for stopping by and leaving a comment. This kind of feedback helps a lot.
just wanted to say I really enjoy your column and find I always learn new things from it--here, for example, there were quite a few things I was somewhat familiar with (I don't play Vintage, but often play Commander which includes many Vintage card favorites), but you provided a comprehensive and straightforward overview that really gave the big picture. thanks for the great work!
That stinks about not getting to go to the GP now. I do understand not being able to play what you want though. If I had any card available to me I would be playing something different in almost every format.
If I had the choice of any deck I would not pick these two, that's for sure. It was a matter of time and card availability. I was on my own Esper brew for too long to be able to acquire cards for a different deck.
BW Tokens is the better choice, but ultimately it's a fair deck in a format of unfair decks (for the most part). Sadly, the plans that I thought were set in stone ended up falling through, so I won't be able to attend the Grand Prix.
Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it :)
I know this won't be the most helpful but if I was playing a Modern tournament anytime soon, I would not want to bring either of the decks you mentioned. Out of the two BW Tokens does sound like a better choice but I would scour around and find other lists to look off of. Good article though and no matter what you pick I wish you well at the GP.
Hi Paul, I understand that point. I agree with it to an extent, in that the risk averse players will hear of this incident and won't go anywhere near to anything which could possibly link them to bribery. I also note that we don't have a report from the judges on what they determined was actually said by both players. As a result, risk averse players will see there is some smoke arising from this incident, and may wish to avoid what they consider to be playing with fire.
However, I suspect that the takeaway message for most people will be: "Be discreet. Don't mention prize splits, concessions, payments or Paypal closely together, and certainly not in the earshot of a judge (unless of course you wish a judge to hear your carefully crafted words which are designed to ward off any link between the concession and the quid-pro-quo for the concession. In those cases, you might want a judge to be present so that your words can't be misquoted)".
And a secondary message is: "If you do try to be discreet (as Oliver presumably did try to do at first), and if your opponent is genuinely confused by your words, then don't go on to clarify the nuts and bolts of what you are suggesting. In those scenarios, just play the game and hope to get your Pro Point by winning the match!".
In contrast, it would be a very different situation if Oliver Tiu was very careful in his choice of words, and did not tie the concession to a Paypal payment, but nevertheless Wizards disqualified him. In such a scenario, it would have a huge impact to curb the bribery. Oliver Tiu is not the test case people might have been hoping for. People like me will think "Oliver Tiu? Oh he's that guy who clarified in the earshot of the judge how the mechanics of the concession would work. Of course that crosses the line!".
As a result, I doubt that the latest DQ will affect the bribery culture much at all.
The ambiguity exists because it is undesirable for people to WANT to thwart the rule and if they know the magic words (there are none as far as I know) that is a loss for the game as a whole. Imho Bribery should not exist because people should not engage in it. Since they DO they run the risk that occasionally they may cross the invisible line that allows/demands punishment for it.
Hi Pete, as you are an experienced judge, I'd be interested to know what is your opinion about the current official bribery rules as they are written?
It seems to me that, at the practical level, bribery is permitted in substance, but not in form. Which is crazy. Oliver Tiu was disqualified at GP Provenance because he fell foul of the formality required (and because his opponent was inexperienced and clueless when it comes to how top level players can easily get around the prohibition by a mutual, unspoken understanding. Oliver's opponent didn't "get" what Oliver was trying to communicate, which is funny because then Oliver went on to explain to his opponent what he really meant, and in the earshot of a judge!). In contrast several others at the same tournament might have committed bribery but followed the correct form (because they are not clueless and are well aware of how to commit bribery legally) and are hence not penalised. I am not satisfied by the argument that "All bribery is forbidden because that's what's written in the official rules". Sorry, life doesn't work like this, one needs to look at the substance and the reality of what is happening. A rule which is so easy to be thwarted should not be a rule. It's like saying "The official rules ban X", where the vast majority of people playing in high level tournaments know how the rule can be overcome by jumping through a simple hoop, and is therefore a rule which is meaningless at a practical level. It's even worse than that: I don't play in high level paper tournaments, and even I know how to thwart the rule.
(The above is my opinion, but I am more interested in your opinion which is more informed and backed up by more practical experience. Also, when I mention a specific player's name, I acknowledge that I have not heard each player's explanations which they gave to the judges who investigated it, and instead I am basing my opinion on what Oliver himself appears to have clarified to the public after the event).
Depends how you class Scarecrow and Gargoyle. I could also do all-metal Horror, but after that you're looking at partials. (3 artifact zombies, 3 snakes, 2 spirits, 1 homunculus, 1 imp). Didn't go for it in the end, but happy to test it out some time.
As long as wotc dont handle collusion well enough bribery in mtg play doesnt always feel like something bad.
RDW is simply too slow. It is not broken and not fast enough for many decks. Few players tried playing RDW online earlier this year. But it's not like you fear fetching or playing Force because of loss of life when playing against the deck. After the first experience I started playing Mental Missteps paying with my life and I was also playing a fair deck not doing anything like Tinker into Colossus t1 or here's draw 40 cards with Outcome and Tendrils.
I stormed through Pillars and Eidolons. A single Mentor managed to win against burn. That's not a good thing for the red player. I wouldn't play that even as a budget deck.
Once I tried playing Sligh myself (it was more of a joke) and it didn't go well for me either. The best I managed was to deal 19 damage. The 20th point of life? Never. I beat Dredge but only because I drew two Cages and Tormod's Crypt.
Is there a Vintage burn deck (aside from Tendrils)? I never see any mention of it unless someone is talking about budgets but it seems like RDW is not a thing anymore when back in the day it was mox monkey mox monkey bolt, fireblast etc.
Always has been in Halloween, I believe. Or at least for the past two years, since it was Vintage then. (Of course we couldn't make it legal back when there was still an in-client Legacy Tribal Wars filter.)
Anyway, I wouldn't mind unbanning it in Regular too. Halloween seems a safe environment to test it out, since major artifact tribes aren't allowed.
So, to be absolutely clear, The Abyss is legal?
The Halloween Special is Legacy this year, not Vintage.
Summary of the rules:
[EDIT: I had forgotten the cards previously not listed because the client would already take care of them automatically]
- Only Spooky creature types are allowed in the deck, even off-tribe, with some exceptions. Check the rules here.
- The card pool used is Legacy
- No card is banned except for the following ones: Arboria, Cleanse, Dread Return, Elephant Grass, Engineered Plague, Extinction, Grindstone, Light of Day, Karma, Kormus Bell, Sensei's Divining Top, Stasis, Umezawa's Jitte, and all Changeling creatures
- Griselbrand can only be played within the Demon tribe
- Make sure to respect the restrictions about Cat (black only), Faerie (black only), Rat (non-Kamigawa/non-humanoid only) and Snake (non-Kamigawa/non-humanoid only). They're not enforced in Gatherling
Fixed. I don't know if it was supposed to be called that way, though. :)
I'm fixing it. It's a problem due to the fact that last year we used the Vintage Halloween format. The Legacy one (that we're using this year) has been corrupted somehow.
I'm entirely fine with this, although I'll admit Pilot and Aetherborn had a bit more synergy to work with than Monkey. Gremlin should be plenty good enough for at least a win, and my best wishes to those who wish to make mad bank in my stead. :)
I'm trying to register but it says my maindeck cards are illegal by rarity
I also wanted to say to anyone reading this: I take a lot of time trying to make the article look sleek and perfect. I'm not sure how the formatting got jacked between submitting it and it being published, but I'll try to make more readable in the future.
There was sadly an issue with the hover program with today's updates. I worked on it a bit myself, and usually waiting for the macros usually does it, but after waiting 45 minutes for one article, I made the decision to fix things and publish as they were.
Is that just for your article or all articles from today? I noticed my article didn't have hovers either.
Ack, looks like I forgot to run this throw the hover program before I submitted it (which I usually do). Sorry about that, I'll try to see if there's a way to fix it.
Yeah and I love that about the format. :)
Imho if you lost to politics usually then you succeeded. That's the balancer in multiplayer commander, great decks can die to pressure from politics. The bigger the threat, the more likely for it to happen with an experienced group.