I have been hearing the phrases "In a vacuum he is great" and "Your thinking in a vacuum" being thrown around like crazy on these forums and I have no clue what they mean. So I guess I am asking what are people talking about in regards to magic when they say that phrase?
Doom Blade is a solid removal spell and so a solid card in a vacuum.
However, what if in your meta no one is playing creatures? Or the only creatures being played have Undying or Persist? Doom Blade has lost a lot of its value in this situation and has become a dead card. Now instead of local meta, think of the Standard environment in general. Some cards might be more or less powerful given the nature of the format.
I'd assume that it means applying ideas without considering other possible variables.
Example:
When it comes to deck building and you are brewing a deck with only the general idea of the meta game, you are leaving out many factors of the deck's possible performance outside of your own ideas. Factors such as: Shuffling, cutting, rogue decks, meta decks, the environment you're playing in, your stress level while playing, your opponent's luck/statistics/skill level, and your ability to pilot the deck in person. When these factors aren't considered, your deck and its potential are locked within a "vacuum" where it isn't exposed to the rest of the variables that could affect its performance.
Another way people may use the phrase is when someone gives a hypothetical situation such as: "Anger of the Gods will come down on turn 3 and wreck the aggro deck's field." The vacuum of that scenario would be that AotG WILL come down on turn 3 and it WILL be played against an aggro deck, it doesn't consider the possibility that the aggro player has an answer, and even if it did, that possibility would be within the vacuum.
In other words, "thinking in a vacuum" probably means the same as "thinking in a hypothetical and extremely controlled environment." Which is the case for many, if not all, ideas that are applied to strategizing, brewing, and theorizing in Magic until you are actually sitting down with another player and playing the game.
Nothing exists in a vacuum (like say the vacuum of space). So if you look at something in a vacuum there's nothing in there that can effect it. In truth cards never get to be played this way but it is a good way to determine if the card is playable in an unknown metagame (which any metagame before a set come out is). The Doom Blade example above is dead on for explaining this.
I've always thought that this phrase was weird. To me, in a vacuum literally means there is nothing else there. So therefore, every card that costs more than 0 mana is terrible. But if we assume infinite mana, then Blightsteel Colossus is clearly the best.
Under most circumstances, Shock is a decent card in Limited - it can kill early threats, it can go to the face for the final points of damage, it's very easy to leave mana open for, and so on. With no other information - ie. in a vaccuum - you could safely say Shock is a viable card in Limited.
However, in the specific environment of M14, Shock is sub-par to the point of being nearly unplayable. The format is glacially slow - there is no aggro deck that puts out threats that have to be eliminated early and thus not a deck that just needs a couple points of reach to close out games, and only two damage is woefully inadequate for dealing with the typical threats and obstacles you'll face. Thus you cannot judge Shock - or any card - in a vaccuum, because the context in which it exists defines how good it is more than the actual qualities of the card itself.
Anyhow, the best I can come up with myself is a game in the top 8 of a PTQ back during Urza block in which we were starting game 3 with time already expired, so the tiebreaker rule was that whoever had more life after 3 turns would win. And I lost to... healing salve.
All you need to know is that vacuumelt is not good in a vacuum.
But...it would be good if the metagame had Token decks that were very strong and there were lands that produced 2U.
Starting to understand what "in a vacuum" means?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I generally think that saying something is "good in a vacuum" (as opposed to just saying "its good") means that its aggressively costed for whatever it does and thus has potential, but it just happens to be weak or not particularly effective against other cards that already see heavy play.
I tend to see it as evaluating things only in a highly generic context. It doesn't mean nothing else exists. So to go with the Doomblade example - it doesn't mean no other card but Doomblade exists, it means it's acting in the most generic context, that is, there's a creature on board, and Doomblade is killing it. You aren't going to be considering the specifics of the creature in question, so you wouldn't be asking questions like "What if it's black?", "What if it can be regenerated?". You also are not considering the specifics of the rest of the board, so there would be no questions like "What if that sets off morbid triggers?". Nor are you considering other similar options - so no "But what if you could play Swords to Plowshares?"
Evaluation "in a vacuum" does have value. When you build a deck, you take into account the average scenario, and thinking in generic terms is usually the best approximation of that. However, this rapidly falls apart when the average is very obviously NOT generic. For instance, if the 5 best creatures in the format happened to be black, Doomblade would clearly be much worse. But I think we can agree that having the 5 best creatures all fall into one color would be highly unusual, hence why we can claim Doomblade 'in a vacuum' is a good card.
The literal meaning is "without specific context", however it would be a mistake to interpret the phrase this way. What people usually mean is "within as generic a context as possible". When people say that a card is "good in a vacuum" they mean that the card is good "in the context of the average power level of MtG cards that see play".
Example:
Terror is a good card in a vacuum because in general black creatures and artifact creatures make up only a small percentage of the metagame, so the restrictions on it are rarely relevant. It was a bad card in the context of Mirrodin standard, because Affinity was the most popular deck and Terror couldn't kill any of the creatures in it.
They're trying to say that most cards aren't good in a vacuum. A foil Voice of Resurgence, for example, is not very good in a vacuum due to the damage the internal mechanisms can exert on the card. However, a double sleeved NON-foil VOR can surely withstand much more wear and tear in the same environment/inside of vacuum conditions. Other instances of the phrase include the fact that Jace himself, in the current metagame, is "good with vacuums" in that he is a "committed and loving housewife" and an all around "fair and decent woman".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard:
N/A
Modern:
Grishoalbrand / Grixis Death's Shadow / Jeskai Control / UW Control
Vacuum: Imagine a card being played without any other card in play and no spells being played except the one card in question. That's what analysing a card in a vacuum means.
For a great magic player, it is dangerous to look at any card in a vacuum. Players should always look at cards outside of the vacuum since magic is a game of interaction with your opponent/s.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
However, what if in your meta no one is playing creatures? Or the only creatures being played have Undying or Persist? Doom Blade has lost a lot of its value in this situation and has become a dead card. Now instead of local meta, think of the Standard environment in general. Some cards might be more or less powerful given the nature of the format.
Example:
When it comes to deck building and you are brewing a deck with only the general idea of the meta game, you are leaving out many factors of the deck's possible performance outside of your own ideas. Factors such as: Shuffling, cutting, rogue decks, meta decks, the environment you're playing in, your stress level while playing, your opponent's luck/statistics/skill level, and your ability to pilot the deck in person. When these factors aren't considered, your deck and its potential are locked within a "vacuum" where it isn't exposed to the rest of the variables that could affect its performance.
Another way people may use the phrase is when someone gives a hypothetical situation such as: "Anger of the Gods will come down on turn 3 and wreck the aggro deck's field." The vacuum of that scenario would be that AotG WILL come down on turn 3 and it WILL be played against an aggro deck, it doesn't consider the possibility that the aggro player has an answer, and even if it did, that possibility would be within the vacuum.
In other words, "thinking in a vacuum" probably means the same as "thinking in a hypothetical and extremely controlled environment." Which is the case for many, if not all, ideas that are applied to strategizing, brewing, and theorizing in Magic until you are actually sitting down with another player and playing the game.
Mabbz on MTGO | Demgrinds on Twitch & Twitter | Helpdesk
However, in the specific environment of M14, Shock is sub-par to the point of being nearly unplayable. The format is glacially slow - there is no aggro deck that puts out threats that have to be eliminated early and thus not a deck that just needs a couple points of reach to close out games, and only two damage is woefully inadequate for dealing with the typical threats and obstacles you'll face. Thus you cannot judge Shock - or any card - in a vaccuum, because the context in which it exists defines how good it is more than the actual qualities of the card itself.
Erebos B | Ghost Council WB | Grimgrin UB | Jhoira UR
Jor Kadeen RW | Melek UR | Mimeoplasm GUB | Rasputin WU
Savra BG | Sisay GW | Teneb BGW | Thada Adel U | Wort BR
I draft and play EDH. If a Standard player can't understand who a card is for, it's probably for me.
I also write things about good films.
[Clan Flamingo]
But...it would be good if the metagame had Token decks that were very strong and there were lands that produced 2U.
Starting to understand what "in a vacuum" means?
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Evaluation "in a vacuum" does have value. When you build a deck, you take into account the average scenario, and thinking in generic terms is usually the best approximation of that. However, this rapidly falls apart when the average is very obviously NOT generic. For instance, if the 5 best creatures in the format happened to be black, Doomblade would clearly be much worse. But I think we can agree that having the 5 best creatures all fall into one color would be highly unusual, hence why we can claim Doomblade 'in a vacuum' is a good card.
Example:
Terror is a good card in a vacuum because in general black creatures and artifact creatures make up only a small percentage of the metagame, so the restrictions on it are rarely relevant. It was a bad card in the context of Mirrodin standard, because Affinity was the most popular deck and Terror couldn't kill any of the creatures in it.
N/A
Modern:
Grishoalbrand / Grixis Death's Shadow / Jeskai Control / UW Control
For a great magic player, it is dangerous to look at any card in a vacuum. Players should always look at cards outside of the vacuum since magic is a game of interaction with your opponent/s.
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
Old thread. Please feel free to start a new one if you'd like to continue discussion of the topic.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf