[Article] Another One About Mystical Tutor

[frogboy]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19590_Ideas_Unbound_Legacy_Chicken_Little_Should_Chill_Out.html


So Mystical Tutor is banned.

Fair enough.

[Forbiddian]

Easy to lose this one in the sea of earlier articles saying exactly the same thing, but this is the best (no offense to the other articles).


I wish that you actually showed the data on Mystical Tutor decks outperforming other decks. I don't really think we saw that trend. Mystical Tutor decks destroy aggro-based strategies, but it seemed to depend mainly on the metagame whether or not Reanimator and ANT would make the top tables.

I think most people are arguing that Reanimator/ANT weren't systematically much better than other decks, though I liked how your article directed the conversation toward wizard's policy on combo decks and in that light, the decision makes quite a bit more sense.

[rleader]

I liked the point about holding banned cards hostage in order to soften the blow of future bannings.

OTOH, I don't think that Zoo vs. Bigger Zoo is all that interesting as a meta game. Or that Merfolk will drop in numbers because the statistical argument doesn't seem to account for card availability.

I sometimes think that if Mystical Tutor wasn't an uncommon that was reprinted but a Legends card, it'd either have been banned way back when or would still be legal today at $300.

[Reagens]

I find it a very arrogant and condescending article.
One of his theories is based around the premise that regular Legacy players suck and are no match for the awesomeness that is lvl 5 pro and above. Because of that the legacy community never realized just how strong ANT/reanimator is and thus keep winning tournaments with Zoo and other stuff.
If mystical tutor decks outperformed other decks in GP Madrid there is one simple explanation:
A great chunk of the people attending GP Madrid where not prepared for a graveyard based metagame (thus good performance by reanimator). The end.
Another part is that both reanimator and ANT are relatively easy to pick up when you're good at magic but are not very known with the format (because those decks interact very little). But that's probably a matter of discussion for another time.

One last thing.
If anecdotal evidence counts:

I won against one of the Orsini brothers (can't remember which, but both have quite some pro points) in Madrid because he tought it was a good idea to discard Lord of Atlantis (I was playing UWb landstill and has some islands in play). This was the second or third game. This was a well considered decision (I asked him afterwards) but he tought the 1 Lord of Atlantis he still had in his hand was enough. Seems that pros make mistakes after all (although less, but that's why they are pros anyway)

[mujadaddy]

Biggest surprise in article?

http://www.starcitygames.com/images/writers/McCall.jpg

my girlfriend

Also,
I find it a very arrogant and condescending article. Indeed:
even though Legacy was unhealthy, since people weren't playing Reanimator or Tendrils, or were playing them badly,...wot a prick!

[DrJones]

A great chunk of the people attending GP Madrid where not prepared for a graveyard based metagame (thus good performance by reanimator). The end.You did not attend GP Madrid and you are not spanish, I figure. :really:

[yankeedave]

I do love how Frogboy consistantly says controversial things just to get a rise out of the community.

"Attacking is miserable"

"I'm firmly in the camp that if you're not level five or higher, you're probably pretty bad at Magic, but whenever I make the argument that the results of the StarCityGames.com Open don't really reflect the power of certain archetypes because of how "bad" the Open players are, I'm told that I just have anecdotal evidence but no real proof."

The arrogance of this amazes me and I just deleted a long rant regarding this, but I feel like this is just as bad as Todd Anderson's "Legacy is shit" diatribe a few months back. I don't want to read about how you think we all suck Frogboy. Get off your goddamned highhorse.

[majikal]

The arrogance of this amazes me and I just deleted a long rant regarding this, but I feel like this is just as bad as Todd Anderson's "Legacy is shit" diatribe a few months back. I don't want to read about how you think we all suck Frogboy. Get off your goddamned highhorse.
Well honestly, he's not a Level 5 Pro either, so it's not like he's saying he's any better than the rest of us.

[Finn]

So...
1. Your girlfriend can't figure out Dredge or Storm. So they are too difficult to understand for most GP players.
2. You talked to some guys who played against some unprepared opponents at some 5Ks therefor players at 5Ks suck so bad that they are skewing the data.
3. Gerry Thompson and LSV kicked butt with a deck so that means the deck must be really good.
Really? From what I hear, Luis could top8 with the cliche' ham sandwich.

This is not evidence, Max. I don't fault you for having this opinion, but even on the level of anecdote, this is not a significant amount of good data from which to draw any conclusions of any sort. And this is the freaking problem with the ban. The only large streams of data that we have and is well-organized is the stuff Stephen has been tracking. And it points to the opposite of this.

Even if he is wrong. Even if Stephen is dead wrong, and you are correct, there is still no real evidence to back your side up. There are only opinions. Since when is wizards in the habit of banning cards based on opinion? What happened to banning a card because it is dominating and ruining a format?

[morgan_coke]

I love how Max spends the first part of the article talking about how he's such a big believer in empirical data and going where the results take you, but then, when all the data from all the tournaments comes in (Zoo dominant, Reanimator and ANT, not so much) and points to his assumptions being faulty (attacking is not miserable, Zoo is good, ANT is not the best deck), he just decides to throw it out and make up an explanation (everyone is too bad at magic for the decks that are actually good to do well).

Nate Silver frowns upon your analyses results bias.

[Sharpened]

Stephen did good work in the article referenced at the beginning of this article to show that at GP Madrid, both Reanimator and ANT outperformed the field. You probably should have quoted his conclusions a little more to reinforce this point. The other problem is I didn't see anything that means the format needs to act based on one major tournament.

The playskill argument is a really tough sell. I'm sure there were plenty of Zoo, CCountertop and other deck players who punted away pleenty of matches. I think the article probably suffers for discussion of this, becuase it draws so much negative opinion from readers, when your focus should be on the decision to weaken combo.

[voltron00x]

There are so many things to love here, like the randomly chosen people who were polled and included to provide results that happen to match Max's hypothesis and are his friends / colleagues, or the fact that Zoo won 65% of its matches in Seattle as compared to under 50% for Reanimator and barely over 50% for ANT, or the fact that the "bad" Legacy players who aren't pros still obviously know what a "sideboard" is since there were 18 Faerie Macabres and 4 Leylines in that top 8.

[Satan McNipples]

I didn't like any of this article. It seems like the author simply wanted to insult Legacy players, and attempt to make himself feel better in doing so. His conclusions were of the worst, and most unfounded kind. And the arrogant tone left any possible opinion agreeable to the reader, even without any factual backing, with a bad taste. Pehaps a little time spent either finding evidence for, or personally proving these as yet, totally implausable theories might allow the reader to more easily ignore the blatant insecurities of the writer coming through in this venting.

[coraz86]

Most of the article was solid, but I disagree with the contention that combo should not be part of the metagame. Standard now is really boring because it's basically a lot of parrying until your big dude can run over or past their big dude; you don't have decks like the Replenish of Urza/Mercadia (or Cluster Bomb from the same era), Wildfire/Bridge in Seventh Edition, or all the wonky Gifts Ungiven decks while Kamigawa was legal. One of the great things about Magic is the room for creativity; Wizards should be encouraging people to do whatever they can with their cards, not trying to funnel them into any particular method of play. I like to play Pox, and I don't have space here to recount every name I've been called when resolving a Pox or a Hymn; I shouldn't have to worry that discard is going to get the axe because some people don't like to play against it. If you don't appreciate resistance, try humping your pillow.

I agree that Mystical was a bomb, but people should not be discouraged from experimenting and playing crazy decks just because some people don't enjoy playing against them. It's irresponsible at best to say that "combo should not be a pillar of the meta."

[GiantGrowth]

Wow most of you people need to stop getting your panties in a twist and learn the meaning of hyperbole. Also to not take the article personally, I'm sure the article wasn't a direct attack on your play skill, the fact that you come to the source at all means that you are miles ahead of most people that attend large tournaments. (correct me if I'm wrong and you just wanted to piss a bunch of people off Frogboy)

[frogboy]

Asdf. Yes. Most people are bad at Magic. This does not make them bad people. It is a simple statement of fact. I don't understand why people are so invested in their DCI rating or how they perceive their skill level at a game. You'll note that I'm not level five.

Handwaving aside the Madrid data in favor of tournaments a tenth the size for a tenth the prizes is pretty questionable.

Matt: One of the reasons they hit Mystical was because Show and Tell blanks all of those cards.

[Aggro_zombies]

Asdf. Yes. Most people are bad at Magic. This does not make them bad people. It is a simple statement of fact. I don't understand why people are so invested in their DCI rating or how they perceive their skill level at a game. You'll note that I'm not level five.
Well, Max dear, people's reaction to this might have something to do with the fact that most people don't like to be casually insulted, no matter how justified the insults may be. Things that sound merely self-depreciating to you can come off as pretty condescending to other people.

Also, paging you to the Team Infoninja forums, we have a cleanup on aisle eight.

[morgan_coke]

You may argue that the data form the other tournaments was less significant because of lower payouts, which, if you were constructing a model would cause you to assign that data a lower weight. However, because Reanimator and ANT were relatively unknown/underplayed/not specifically boarded against prior to Madrid, you should also discount the performance of those two decks at Madrid because they were not on the receiving end of significant hate, and many playing against those decks were unfamiliar with them and the associated decision trees.

Arguing that the aggregate play data from large tournaments is more accurate than the aggregate play data from smaller tournaments is a highly faulty position. Every aggregate non-cut down match is of equal value from a data perspective, whether that match was played in round 1 of an 1800 player event or round 3 of a 40 player event. These matches, like coinflips, are independent events and the number of other matches played that day, like the number of other coinflips, have no bearing on their aggregate data value. Top 8 appearances do have a value added relationship to the size of the tournaments they appeared in, but again, if you're taking your analysis to the level of modifying the value of T8 appearances by the size of the tournament, then you must also modify the results of GP: Madrid downward due to ANT and Reanimator having their popular "coming out" parties at that tournament.

If you want to cite some random numbers and anecdotal evidence and say that justifies your opinion that's fine, but don't pretend like you conducted anything like a rigorous data analysis when it is patently obvious that you did not.

Nate Silver and Bill James frown upon you.

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Really, from reading the article, the insult/truth was pretty mild. People just have to be honest with themselves. Here maybe this will help. Hi, my name is LordEvilTeaCup and I suck. See, was that so hard?

[Aggro_zombies]

Really, from reading the article, the insult/truth was pretty mild. People just have to be honest with themselves. Here maybe this will help. Hi, my name is LordEvilTeaCup and I suck. See, was that so hard?
Pointing out that people suck at Magic does nothing to change the fact that the American metagame is being driven by these very same people. Making up a fantasy metagame where Dredge, ANT, and Reanimator are the best decks while ignoring the reality seems pretty questionable.

Also, it's a well-known fact that the European and American metagames differ. Indeed, even regional metagames within Europe differ. Using GP Madrid to draw conclusions about the American metagame seems much worse than using the SCG 5ks to draw conclusions about the American metagame. Are people using the American metagame to make questionable generalizations about the entire format? Yes. Does that make their conclusions any less valid on a more local level? Of course not.

EDIT: The bigger issue is that the "Magic players suck" argument was both pretty tangential to what most of the article was about, and pretty unnecessary. It feels like it was made mostly for shock value, which is why a lot of people are reacting negatively to it.

[DarthVicious]

Banning Mystical didn't just damage Storm and Reanimator. I've seen lots of non-combo decks running Mystical. End of your turn, Mystical for Natural Order/Force of Will/Intuition/Swords/Path/Stifle/Wrath/yada yada yada. I seriously doubt they banned Mystical JUST to weaken combo decks. Most likely they banned it because of silver bullet sideboards, no longer can you run fifteen one-ofs and effectively have five of them. Weakening combo decks was a side bonus. Possibly an intentional side bonus, but a side bonus. They want combo decks to exist, but they don't want them dominating the field. This move with the banned list was a smart one.

On a side note, I've been testing Lim-dul's Vault. Absolutely nasty with Brainstorm.

[Bryant Cook]

I approve. I was name dropped.

[Rico Suave]

Two things, take what you want from this:

1) It's never a bad idea to refrain from insulting people, especially your own audience

2) The above comment aside...

This article was enjoyable to read. I just wish there could be more emphasis added to this line in particular:

"(Some will likely argue that Wizards could have waited for the results of Grand Prix: Columbus to make any decisions, but Wizards can't really afford to have what may well be the largest North American GP of all time to be dominated by a bunch of combo decks that make the combat phase essentially obsolete.) "

Why was this in parenthesis?! This is the biggest driving point behind your article, in my opinion. A lot of people won't buy that Reanimator and ANT were too good, but they will buy the notion that Wizards can't afford the risk of combo doing well in another massive GP.

Oh, and a third comment because I feel like it, but it's mostly rhetorical anyway:

3) If you are calling yourself bad, why should we read what you have to say? :D

[SMR0079]

Two things, take what you want from this:

1) It's never a bad idea to refrain from insulting people, especially your own audience

2) The above comment aside...

This article was enjoyable to read. I just wish there could be more emphasis added to this line in particular:

"(Some will likely argue that Wizards could have waited for the results of Grand Prix: Columbus to make any decisions, but Wizards can't really afford to have what may well be the largest North American GP of all time to be dominated by a bunch of combo decks that make the combat phase essentially obsolete.) "

Why was this in parenthesis?! This is the biggest driving point behind your article, in my opinion. A lot of people won't buy that Reanimator and ANT were too good, but they will buy the notion that Wizards can't afford the risk of combo doing well in another massive GP.

Oh, and a third comment because I feel like it, but it's mostly rhetorical anyway:

3) If you are calling yourself bad, why should we read what you have to say? :D

First off, I really enjoyed the article and after reading both your and Tom's article, I have been persuaded. I find it hilarious how easily the forum junkies get offended by a little hyperbole, just waiting for something to pounce on. I have found many magic players to be "tone deaf" then again they don't know you in person.

I also completely agree with Rico - that was a huge point that was treated like an aside ,when it was really what a lot of your data and reasoning led up to.

I also find it interesting that no one is discussing your predictions and analysis going forward, which I found very constructive.

Keep writing!

[Aggro_zombies]

First off, I really enjoyed the article and after reading both your and Tom's article, I have been persuaded. I find it hilarious how easily the forum junkies get offended by a little hyperbole, just waiting for something to pounce on. I have found many magic players to be "tone deaf" then again they don't know you in person.

I also completely agree with Rico - that was a huge point that was treated like an aside ,when it was really what a lot of your data and reasoning led up to.

I also find it interesting that no one is discussing your predictions and analysis going forward, which I found very constructive.

Keep writing!
Max and I have come to similar conclusions, although we didn't collaborate on them:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18047-Psuedo-Article-Your-Gauntlet-for-Columbus

[GtF]

The point about the likely resurgence of survival strategies completely swung me around on the banning of mystical tutor. Now I'm all for it, as that card and the strategies it spawns are awesome and weren't doing well before this. Maybe now they will.

Now that I've got a sense for Max's style, (casually condescending and inflammatory) I can totally appreciate his articles and I definitely look forward to them.

[SMR0079]

Max and I have come to similar conclusions, although we didn't collaborate on them:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18047-Psuedo-Article-Your-Gauntlet-for-Columbus

Nicely done sir! That was a well thought out metagame analysis.


However, I will say this - Ignore combo at your own peril. With Zoo as the deck to beat and the popular conception that combo is dead makes for the perfect storm ;) I will go on the record and say that I predict a "new" legacy combo deck will emerge at Columbus..and it's gonna be BIG!

P.S.

We read articles by horrible players like Max, Stephen and Matt because a) they are still far less horrible then you or I, and b) they offer insight, analysis, and entertainment that is even less horrible.

[DarthVicious]

"Neither Reanimator nor Ad Nauseam Tendrils is anywhere near as onerous as Flash, but both are strong spell-based combination decks that have Mystical Tutor standing behind them. We interpreted this as a pattern. We also revised our belief that Mystical Tutor was a second-tier tutor. We now think it's tier one, and we think that any time a new spell-based combination deck arrives, Mystical Tutor would have been excited to be part of it. "

Most of their explanation on the banning has to do with combo. However it does sound like they've had some kind of vendetta against Mystical for some time.

[DrJones]

"Neither Reanimator nor Ad Nauseam Tendrils is anywhere near as onerous as Flash, but both are strong spell-based combination decks that have Mystical Tutor standing behind them. We interpreted this as a pattern. We also revised our belief that Mystical Tutor was a second-tier tutor. We now think it's tier one, and we think that any time a new spell-based combination deck arrives, Mystical Tutor would have been excited to be part of it. "

Most of their explanation on the banning has to do with combo. However it does sound like they've had some kind of vendetta against Mystical for some time.They just replaced Mystical in those decks with Vampiric tutor and discovered that Vampiric Tutor wasn't as good.

[yankeedave]

They just replaced Mystical in those decks with Vampiric tutor and discovered that Vampiric Tutor wasn't as good.

Are you on crack? You gotta be smoking something! :)

[Hanni]

They just replaced Mystical in those decks with Vampiric tutor and discovered that Vampiric Tutor wasn't as good.


Are you on crack? You gotta be smoking something! :)

Maybe not in Reanimator, but Mystical Tutor is better than Vampiric Tutor in ANT. There's nothing you need to tutor for that isn't an instant or sorcery in that deck, and the 2 life loss is relevant with Ad Nauseam.

[beastman]

Maybe not in Reanimator, but Mystical Tutor is better than Vampiric Tutor in ANT. There's nothing you need to tutor for that isn't an instant or sorcery in that deck, and the 2 life loss is relevant with Ad Nauseam.

Umm... LED seems like it could be kinda awesome to fetch, also, a second mana source is sometimes needed.

[DarthVicious]

I'd take any of those one mana black tutors over Mystical. Vampiric/Imperial ... with Tops? Damn right. Consult the top twenty of my library to draw the next twenty with Nauseam? Sure, if everything resolves I still win. You only need 1 life to win. You don't need a hand or cards in your library even.