Putting 'Eight's Enough' Into Action

I wanted to see how well my Eight's Enough theory from the other day worked in practice, so I took an already-reliable build and tweeked it follow the Eight's Enough theory. Here's the decklist:

Eight's Enough Dredge
A Legacy Deck by Neale Talbot

4 Putrid Imp
3 Tireless Tribe
1 Golgari Thug
4 Bloodghast
4 Narcomoeba
3 Stinkweed Imp
3 Ichorid
1 Flame-Kin Zealot
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria

3 Cabal Therapy
4 Careful Study
4 Breakthrough
3 Dread Return

4 Bridge from Below

4 City of Brass
4 Cephalid Coliseum
2 Gemstone Mine
4 Undiscovered Paradise

Sideboard

1 Terastodon
3 Firestorm
4 Chain of Vapor
3 Ancient Grudge
4 Leyline of the Void


Based on the Eight's Enough theory, this deck provides:

* 4 Breakthrough + 4 Careful Study = 8 blue dredge enablers

* 4 Ichorid + 4 Bloodghasts = 7 recurrable creatures

* 4 Bloodghast + 4 Narcomoeba = 8 "free" creatures (Ichorid does have a cost)

* 3 Tireless Tribe + 4 Putrid Imp = 7 discard outlets

* 3 Stinkweed Imp + 4 Golgari Grave-Troll + 1 Golgari Thug + 1 Dakmor Salvage = 9 dredgers

* 4 Careful Study + = 8 draw then discard enablers

* 4 Bridge From Below + 3 Dread Return = 7 graveyard abusers

* 2 Gemstone Mine + 3 Undiscovered Paradise + 4 City of Brass = 9 multicolour enablers

Based on this, you have around an 80% chance of hitting every single path to winning in the first four turns. However, due to the nature of dredge, where the grave is really an extension of your hand, the figure is probably much higher. As a result I have found this build to be extremely consistent.

Builds that use either Bloodghast OR Ichorid are very reliable for a turn 3 or 4 win. This build is consistent for turns 2 or 3. Considering how finely tuned the deck already was, reliably speeding it up a turn is simply staggering. I would consider a turn 4 win with this deck slow and pretty bad luck.

At the same time, the deck has a bunch tonne more interactions than your usual Bloodghast/Ichorid only build, with the order of playing lands, when and what to dredge, sacrifice, and return to the battlefield becoming even more sophisticated. However, with great options comes great opportunity for a good pilot.

If you're planning of playing Dredge at your next Legacy event, I recomment you give this a try.

Labels: deckbuilding, dredge, legacy, theory

Fast Fauna Conscription

Team Oz - mainly Baz - has been knocking around Mythic Conscription builds since it could afford to compile the deck. Baz has had various degrees of success, and the deck has only become better since Fauna Shaman arrived on the scene. Since the win at Italy Nationals and Top 8 at Australian National's of the Maurici-designed Fauna Bant deck, Team Oz has continued to play with the numbers.

Baz is in favour of a Wall Of Omens + Elspeth maindeck in Game 1, largely because he's in a RDW-heavy metagame. As the number of rounds I face are lower, and the chances I'll meet RDW lower still, I have built a list that simply goes for broke in Game 1 with the highest possible chance of a T3/4 Sovereigns. Here's the list.

Fast Fauna Conscription
A Standard Deck by Neale Talbot

// 26 Creatures

2 Birds of Paradise
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Lotus Cobra
4 Fauna Shaman
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Vengevine
3 Sovereigns of Lost Alara (or alternatively 2 and a Something Else - Quasali Pridemage is a favourite)
1 Ranger of Eos

// 3 Instants

3 Path to Exile

// 3 Enchantments

1 Oblivion Ring
2 Eldrazi Conscription

// 3 Planeswalkers

3 Jace, the Mindsculptor

// 25 Lands

3 Celestial Colonnade
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Island
4 Forest
1 Plains
2 Sunpetal Grove
2 Verdant Catacombs
2 Stirring Wildwood
1 Terramorphic Expanse
1 Tectonic Edge
1 Serriji Steppe
2 Seaside Citadel

//Sideboard

2 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
3 Negates
10 creatures dependant upon your metagame

My metagame is:

4 Kor Firewalker (for RDW)
4 Quasali Pridemage (for Pyrmomancer's Ascension and Naya post-board)
1 Sun Titan (for the mirror)
1 Frost Titan (for Polymorph, UW)

The build has an insanely high percentage chance in Game 1. There are just so many creatures your opponent wants to kill immediately, including your mana dorks on T1, your Cobra and Shaman on T2, your Knight on Turn 3, and your Sovereigns on Turn 4. The only decks that can stop the onslaught are RDW with a good hand, or UW with the early Day of Judgment, and even then UW can struggle if you start to lay down Vengevines instead of other creatures.

Basically, any hand with a couple of mana dorks and a Knight, Shaman or Sovereign is a good hand. The aim is to build a protected combo, preferably sticking a Knight first and Sovereign second. The only time you play an unprotected Sovereign is when your opponent has tapped out. Otherwise, keep fetching up Knights and throwing away Vengevines until you can keep an untapped Knight around to fetch Serriji Steppe. After that it should be all over.

Admittedly, this build is dead in the water to RDW Game 1, so if that's your meta, be aware.

In Game 2 you have to make a decision; keep the Cobras or lose them. If my opponent can't run sweepers, pingers, or bolts, then they'll stay in. Otherwise, they'll come out. The first cards to go in are always Elspeth. Yes, she slows your deck down, but she's an alternative win condition to bet against the extra removal your opponent brings in to shut down your Eldrazi Conscription events. The rest is entirely metagame dependent, and I wouldn't be afraid to drop a single Shaman and a single Vengevine in order to bring in a four-of with the Cobras coming out as well.

Some things to bear in mind, when playing against an opponent:

If they have a single red mana open, lead with a mana dork early and let it be killed, or a Vengevine you don't mind recurring anyway.

If they have a single white mana open, always go the mana dork or the Ranger of Eos.

If they have two or more blue open, Vengevine is almost always your play, as they may well waste a counter on it.

If they only have green mana open, go for the Sovereigns if possible.

If they have black mana open, Vengevine is a preference, or a mana dork to bait the Blade.

So that's the deck. I'd be interested to hear if you end up playing it, and how you go. Let me know in the comments, or find me on twitter.

Labels: Bant, deckbuilding, Fauna Shaman, mythic

Eight's Enough

I've been working on a theory of late, and I'm trying to get some feedback on it. So here it is.

For a combo deck to be truly reliable it needs either 8 'action' cards, or 4 'action' cards and 4 efficient direct tutors.

It's probably clumsily worded, but here's what I mean, considering the best, most effective combo decks.

In Vintage, ANT (Ad Nauseum Tendrils) functions due to 'action' card Ad Nauseum to draw the required parts of the combo and 'go off'. ANT runs 4 copies of Ad Nauseum and 4 efficient tutors - Vampiric Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Demonic Tutor and Necropotence (effectively another Ad Nauseum).

In both Vintage and Legacy, Dredge is a powerful force for Combo due othe 'action' card 'Bridge From Below'. In this case the Dredge mechanic is an extremely effectively 'tutor' for dumping Bridge From Below into the Graveyard, but due to its non-specific nature can be relatively hit-and-miss (and by 'relative', Dredge is such a powerful mechanic is is clearly more often good than bad).

In Legacy, Thopter-Top functioned due to the interaction between Thopter Foundry and Sword of the Meek. Thanks to Enlightened Tutor, Thopter-Top can effectively use 4 efficient tutors to increase the numbers of both in the deck (often running 3 Foundries and 2 Swords), with Brainstorm backup for searching efficiency.

In Legacy, Charbelcher relied on the action card 'Charbelcher', but as Charbelcher has no cards with a duplicative effect, it often runs four copies of Empty The Warrens and Burning Wish to tutor for alternative win conditions.

Likewise, Dragonstorm was a powerful force but did not have an appreciable tutor for the 'action' card, Dragonstorm. As such, most Dragonstorm decks ran either 4 copies of Empty the Warrens or 4 copies of Pyromancer's Swath as alternate win conditions.

In Extended, Hypergenesis functioned due to 'action' card Hypergenesis to dump a hand of fatties on the battlefield. Hypergenesis runs 4 copies of Hypergenesis and up to 10 cascade cards (Violent Outburst, Demonic Dread, Ardent Plea) that acted like efficient tutors.

So, if 8 is the magic number, what happens when you don't have 8?

In Standard the past few years, combo decks have struggled. This has been due to the lack of the ability to hit the critical '8'.

Time Sieve relies on the interaction between Time Sieve and Open The Vaults. While good, the deck never made the big time due to the lack of 4 cards that offered the same effect, or tutored efficiently (Tezzeret, at 5 mana, is far from efficient and does not fetch Open The Vaults).

Likewise, Pyromancer's Ascension is capable of effecting infinite turns on Turn 5. But having only 4 action cards in Pyromancer's Ascension and not direct, efficient tutors (Preordain and Ponder being great deck cycle, but not direct tutoring), the deck really struggles should it even be disrupted once.

Polymorph, however, is one to watch. There are now 8 cards with Polymorph effects legal in Standard, and as such the deck now has a viable level of consistency.

So, why is the number 8 so important?

With 4 'action' cards in a deck, they make up just 6.65% of the total decklist. The chances to draw one of these action cards on the first few turns of the game (without mulligans) are as follows:

T1: 39%
T2: 44%
T3: 48%
T4: 52%

This means by Turn 4 you will only have a 50/50 chance, every game, of finding the single most important card in your deck.

However these statistics change dramatically with 8 'action' cards (or efficient tutors). Firstly, the cards make up 13.4% of the deck, and your chances of finding one of these cards has improved as follows (again, without mulligans)

T1: 65%
T2: 70%
T3: 75%
T4: 79%

This means that instead of missing your key card by Turn 4 half the time, you only wiff 1 in every 5 games (statistically speaking). In terms of variance this is what takes a 'good' combo deck and turns it into a 'great' combo deck.

These statstics are why I would currently stear clear (in standard) of building decks around Pyromancer's Ascension and Fauna Shaman. While the deck-cycling cards in Ascension are powerful due to their mass (Preordain, Ponder, See Beyond and Treasure Hunt), the lack of direct tutor means that the searching is inherently unreliable. Likewise, Fauna Shaman may pair well with Survival Of The Fittest in Legacy and Vintage (as Patrick Chapin has explored), but in Standard should only be used at the moment to improve decks that are already powerful without the card, or are used as a 4-of tutor for another combo piece (eg. Sovereigns of Lost Alara).

Anyhow, I'm interested in hearing people's feedback, so be sure to speak up in the comments or find me buzz me @wrongwaygoback on twitter.

Labels: analysis, deckbuilding, theory

Everything's Terrible

I've been pondering the meme that "there are very few good Magic players" espoused by various high-level or high-profile (the two aren't mutually inclusive) players writing for various MtG websites.

Personally, I don't agree with this view. I think, for want of a better word, crap.

The problem comes with an objective view of what 'good' means, and how you measure it.

One way of defining a 'good' player is to look at metrics. For MtG players, we actually have two great measures to work off, rating and pro-points.

Let's take a look at the first measure: rating.

If we look at 'constructed' rating, the top ten players (of 200847 rankings - sorry Christopher Eucken, of Berlin, you are officially the worst constructed rated player in the world) are (currently) as follows:

1. Gaudenis Vidugiris (2192)
2. Ben Hayes (2164)
3. Brian Kibler (2159)
4. Pascal Legros (2136)
4. Daniel Rodi (2136)
6. Jesse Inman (2133)
7. Katsuhiro Mori (2132)
8. Eugenio Nesi (2131)
9. Vagner Casatti (2118)
10. Adrian Saredo (2117)

Perhaps we should look at 'limited' rating. The top ten players (of 214929 rankings - Christopher Eucken, are you trying to be the officially worst player in Magic?) are (currently) as follows:

1. Aeo Paquette (2213)
2. Eli Kassis (2153)
3. Joseph Crosby (2131)
4. Florian Koch (2127)
5. Hoi Chick (2125)
6. Zohar Bhagat (2122)
7. Scott McCord (2117)
8. Koutarou Ootsuka (2111)
9. Paulo Vitor da Rosa (2103)
10. Ben Stark (2097)

Firstly, let's note that this is a completely different group of people than in the constructed list. Secondly, is it remotely possible to say that one group have a better set of skills than the other? They have both clearly tuned their skills for the format that the love. They have a grasps of different fundamental skills of the game; both construct decks, but one group plans, practices and tunes, the other group does so on the fly and uses flexibility and knowledge of the limited format to win. Would you argue that Vagner Casatti is a better player than PV because his constructed rating is higher than PV's limited rating?

I hope not, because here is the (current) Total ratings:

1. Paulo Vitor da Rosa (2280)
2. Katsuhiro Mori (2205)
3. Guillaume Matignon (2202)
4. Gaudenis Vidugiris (2199)
5. Jonathan L. Melamed (2196)
6. David Ochoa (2189)
7. Andreas Müller (2187)
8. Andrea Giarola (2183)
9. Ben Hayes (2165)
9. Aeo J. Paquette (2165)

Here, PV clearly outstrips everyone else (by 75 points!). Even though he wasn't on the top of the Constructed list, PV is clearly a truly amazing player, and beyond 'good' by any standards.

So here we have over 20 players all at the top of the game of Magic, demonstrating excellence by any standards, in different ways, with different skillsets.

The problem is that the idea of measuring how many good players there are suffers from the 'sand mountain' problem. The analogy works like this:

Place a grain of sand on the ground. Then another. Then another. The question is, at what point does your pile of sand become a mountain?

This is the same problem for measuring the 'quantity' of good players. Where is the 'cut-off' line in rating? 2000 points? 1980? 1993? How do we start to measure when a player is good objectively when you find Luis Scott-Vargas at equal 153rd on 2009 constructed points, Gabriel Nassif at equal 156th on 2043 Total points, or Sam Black at eaqual 144th on 1994 limited points? Does that mean the other 200-300 collective names with better ratings are also good players? Or merely lucky? What about when you consider that LSV and Sam Black have more Pro-Player points this season than several of the names on those lists (PV on 36 this year is staggering, a full 5 points ahead of Saito and Görtzen).

Once you consider it this way, it appears that there could be several hundred - if not a thousand - high level players in the world. This is by no means a 'few'; and does not even begin to account for number on MtG:Online.

Perhaps a different approach to 'good' is required.

One might argue the philosophical view that 'good' player is one who understands the fundamentals of the game of magic and is well versed in game theory.

The problem is that every area of this must be quantified, and it is impossible to do so. It might also be meaningless; we can well consider the player who has a high Limited rating but has never even begun to consider game theory. Likewise, we can consider someone who is steeped in the theory and fundamentals of the game, but has a low rating because they cannot play often.

And then we get into arguments about what 'understanding' really means. If I were to have a different philosophy to Magic Game Theory than Zvi, would make me a priori a worse player than him, or merely someone with a different view? What if two players, with different beliefs in game theory post equal results? Is one better than the other?

Who knows? Nobody. It is impossible to subjectively judge the quality of another player, and the metrics we have are so broad it is impossible to draw a cut-off line for 'good' and 'not-good'. But you can be assured there are far more good players than the pros are willing to acknowledge.

So why make the claim?

There are a few reasons why an article writer may make the claim that there are few or no good Magic players:

* Honest belief: The writer honestly believe that there are few people who play Magic at some ‘ideal’ level of play, that there is some ‘pure form’ of MtG play that is always correct that can be achieved, but few (if any) have achieved it thus far. In this sense their expectations of ‘good’ may be your expectation of ‘brilliant’.

* Exaggeration for effect: The writer beliefs a statement like this will draw readers, as it is controversial and 'in-your-face'. They don't truly believe the statement at all, and would readily acknowledge there are hundreds of ‘good’ players, but few ‘brilliant’ players, and not everyone is terrible at Magic.

* To create doubt in the reader: One of the best way to make sure there is a market your advice is to convince others that they need it. How do you make people want your advice? Tell them they are no-good without it. Yes this is cynical, but remember that the people who write the articles you read have incentive to build readership (and subsequent page-views that pay the bills), and casting self-doubt in the reader and create need is one way to do this.

So, the next time you read or hear a prominent author or player complain how few ‘good’ players there are, or exclaim that everyone is ‘terrible’ at Magic, push back. Ask them why they make that claim. Ask how they justify the claim. Ask where they draw the line at ‘good’. And ask yourself what benefit they get by making the claim.

Labels: analysis

Shorter AJ Sacher

Shorter AJ Sacher*: I'm great. You suck. Listen to me tell you how much you suck.

Longer AJ Sacher

Warning: this article may insult and offend you.

Incorrect: the Author, AJ Sacher, may insult and offend you. The article is merely the medium by which AJ will accomplish this.

I am not a boothless, toothless vendor on the streets selling peace of mind in a bottle. I am a competitive strategy columnist who wants to help you be the best competitive Magic player you can be.

Great, I can look forward to an article full of insight into better play techniques, MtG game theory, and deckbuilding processes, right?

This article is full of hard truths and probably some unnecessary jabs.

Guess not. Well, the last part that sentence is correct.

It may also be one of the most important articles you have ever read, although it pains me to say something so conceited and presumptuous.

Wrong on both fronts. This article isn't important by any sense of the word, and there are doubts to the levels of pain AJ suffered in an article he so obviously relishes.

Anyway, you have been thoroughly warned. Enjoy.

Um, no.

This is an article that has been in the making for quite a while.

From the quality of it, I'm guessing at least half-an-hour.

Ever since my earliest theory and strategy articles were being put up, I have had friends and fans describe my work using the cliché of “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will never go hungry.”

Teach a man to fish, and you give him mercury poisoning. True story.

For a while, I thought I was just getting lucky.

More of the dirty talk, please.

I didn't know much about Magic writing and was merely putting down what I knew. It wasn't until I first wrote that I hated deck-review articles that I realized why that saying kept being applied to my articles. It is because I talk about the game instead of the pieces.

Just like how I love to talk about Poker without discussing the cards, or chess but not the Rooks. That's right, I said it: Rooks.

I had no real desire to finish this article anytime in the near future, but a forum poster applied the parable to my work again in my first article here on Starcitygames.com. He cited a Zvi interview done by Bill Stark.

Ah, the old parable of the Zvi and the Stark. I remember it well. The Zvi is walking down the road, when he comes across Bill Stark lying in a ditch. The Zvi asks him what is wrong, and Bill states he has accidentally dropped a mint-condition Black Lotus by the side of the road, but cannot find where it as gone. The Zvi looks around and spots the Black Lotus under a bramble bush, where it has been carried by the wind. The Zvi prompty round-house kicks Bill Stark in the head, knocking Bill unconsious, then steals the Black Lotus, because the Zvi is not an idiot, you know. Goddamn, I learnt a lot from that story.

I watched it, and the on-topic parts were specific to what this article was about. Zvi is a Magic idol of mine, and the things he was arguing were practically the exact notes I had typed up for this piece. If I were weak-minded enough to believe in things like fate, this would be an example of it that I would use.

The notes being, "Round-house kick" and "Steal Black Lotus".

Ready?

Do I get a choice?

You are not good at Magic.

Damn. You know, I was starting to believe I was, but I guess I was wrong. I'm pretty fucking terrible at this game. Though, I imagine Mike Flores or Pat Chapin or Conley Woods reading this article and quietly giving AJ the finger.

Who exactly is he talking to with this statement? The entire readership of SCG? All terrible players, to the last man and woman. The entire MtG playing community? A bunch of fuckwads, each and every one. Except later AJ states that this does not apply to those who are Level 4 and above. Level 3 players can suck AJ's balls.

Stop looking for decklists and sideboarding guides. They will not help you become better at Magic.

Really? Damn. That's like, half of SCG's content every week. Better cancel my subscription.

The problem is, the public doesn't think that these things apply to them.

Oh the public, they're the problem. With their stupid FNM games and draft decks and casual formats. See, once you become a SCG writer, you're no longer a member of the public, you're a fucking pro. The great, unwashed masses no longer factor into your lifestyle.

Everybody wants the latest tech from Japan or California or Germany. They want the PT decklists and the want them complete with sideboarding instructions and basic maneuvers. As Zvi eloquently puts it, “They just want the fish, and they want it under twenty minutes, and they want it served on a bun. There's no fine-dining here.” It's so true, and so sad.

Those fucking heathens, expecting to know the latest decklists and how to navigate them. It's a fucking calamity

Are you trying to win a PTQ? The odds that a mere decklist would help you do that are infinitesimal at best, and let's say you hit your fraction of a percentage: then what? You fly to the Pro Tour, taking days off of work/school/watching TV in your underwear, and spend hundreds of dollars on hotel and food and cards.

Well he's nailed me to the wall there, except I don't watch TV, I watch porn, and I don't wear anything at all.

You are not going to win the Pro Tour.

I'm good enough to pick up a random deck and pilot my way to win a PTQ, which means I'm not good enough to win the Pro Tour. It's so logical!

There are too many rounds to variance everyone out again, and the players are too good to hand games back to you when you punt. Where will that leave you? With a PTQ Top 8 pin, a booster box, you got to travel a bit, and you're down more time and money than you would have been if you hadn't won the PTQ. You also got 2 or 3 pro points. Good for you.

Thanks. I didn't even have to try hard at all; I just downloaded a deck and played it and won. I must be a fucking fantastic player.

If you are okay with that, then that is okay with me. If you hit at the PTQ, then you have achieved your minor goals, despite the slimmest of margins.

Imagine if I had practiced!

If you're anything like me, which I think is far more realistic in the competitive gaming community, you would be crushed to find that you aren't what you thought you were (or you would just chalk it up to variance and start grinding again).

I don't think AJ will find I'm anything like him at all.

If you don't think this applies to you, you better be at least level 4, if not more like level 6, or a casual player.

Because every player beneath level 4 is, by definition, 'not good' at Magic. Everyone else on the Pro-Tour, you're terrible. Everyone who gets one chance a year to attend a PTQ and only makes Top 8 - you're terrible as well. The player who has a family and rarely gets to compete at all, you're the worst. You may as well slice your neck open with a foil Eager Cadet.

If you consider yourself competitive and aren't putting up real results, you need a reality check.

Like all those Level 3 fuckers. Wastrels, the lot of them.

A lot of people think that “winning attitude” articles and “study harder” articles will help them, too. They won't. There are hundreds of them out there, and each one is as worthless as the last all the way back to the first ones. One of each is all you need. Once you've had your fill, you've either learned the lessons or you haven't. There are different takes and different writing styles, so maybe one speaks to you more than another. Maybe one version of these articles is relatable to you while others are not. All of that aside, you either pick up the necessary lessons or you don't.

Poor Chapin, Flores, Zvi, PV, Hill, Sullivan, Thompson, Ruel(s), you useless fucks, spending all that time writing meaningless drivel. Meaningless drivel people either learn valuable lessons from, or they don't.

My father has a friend that deals with homeless people asking him for change in a refreshingly peculiar way. He doesn't ignore them or lie to them, nor does he give them the money that he has earned for nothing in return. He simply states, “I don't give my money away.” He doesn't give his money away. Brilliant.

I'm sure the person who's been starving on the street for the past three days and just had the shit beat out of him by some drunken preppie pricks was just dying to hear that piece of wisdom.

Well, you know what? I don't give my fish away. (Yes, you are the bum in this scenario.)

And to think, I hadn't even asked AJ for something. In fact, considering I have a subscription to SCG, aren't I the one paying AJ?

People are going to laugh this article off and think I'm talking about someone else. Other people will become defensive and choose to be offended. Others still will have a small realization but won't act on it (or will for a while before returning to form because people don't change). I hope that you are part of the teeny-tiny minority that realizes how badly you truly need to learn to fish.

I'm actually quite good at fishing. Not fly fishing, I haven't tried that, but the more general hook, line and sinker fishing. I've even done some off-shore fishing, and caught my fill. Stuffed one fish with herbs and lemon, packed in a bitch-load of sea salt and baked it in the oven. Fantastic.

Some people just say they aren't deck builders and leave it up to such specialists, but as Zvi said, you are building a deck every time you sideboard (or draft or play a sealed tournament). If you don't understand how a deck works, how are you going to know how to reconfigure it against a rogue deck with a blue envelope on the line under 2 minutes?

So the presumption is, if you didn't build the deck yourself, card by card, you can't possible (a) understand how it works, or (b) sideboard correctly?

Am I allowed to call all sorts of bullshit on that statement? I suspect that AJ didn't get what Zvi was trying to say at all.

The way that decks come to be is important, no matter how counter-intuitive that seems. The process of building a deck is vital because it shows why certain cards were added/shaved, what interactions and matchups specific things are for, and the way the deck handles in dynamic situations.

And yet AJ suggests readers not ask for decklists and instructions on how cards interact.

In life, we don't learn lessons by studying nonstop. We figure something out, discuss life strategies, discover a pattern, then we ponder them. We consider them and think about them and time passes. We mature and the lesson assimilates itself into our being through that very passage of time.

This statement is three-shades of rubbish. Most people study their entire life, whether they realise it or not. And more often as not, we don't learn by what we 'figure out' (though, y'know, studying and stuff), we learn by what we fail to accomplish. As for the maturing bit, I'm pretty sure that step skips some people completely.

Deck building is no different, and anyone who tells you that decks don't have inherent knowledge that is comprised within it through its development and maturation is either lying to you or ignorant. You need to be privy to that knowledge if you want to truly access a deck instead of just using it. It is the difference between playing a deck and piloting it.

This presumes a fantasy world where reverse-engineering simply does not exists, and people are just too stupid to understand the interactions that a deck build by people much smarter than you may contain.

I'm getting off track. More on deckbuilding in a moment, but first, back to you not being good at Magic.

Wrong again; AJ wasn't getting off track at all.

Being offended at me calling you bad is obviously the typical reaction. But guess what? Greatness isn't typical. There are maybe 20 people in the entire world that aren't completely horrible at this game we all love.

Man, I'd love to see that list. I'd love to see what the people at WotC think of that list. I'd love to see what the combined authors of SCG, Channel Fireball, Mananation, Black-Border and TCG Player think of that list. I'd love what the combined pro-tour player membership think of that list. Really, I would. It's a pity that such a figure is full of shit

I suspect that if the people who beg for decklists spent half of that time working on their technical game, they would see their likelihood of making the Pro Tour multiply. People don't want to work on their technical game. They just want a fish, and they want it on a bun.

Wrapped in a newspaper. That's what makes all the difference.

Pick orders are the Limited version of decklists, by the way. If you draft often and examine what is happening at all times, following basic strategy and learning from people around you, then you are miles better off than if you memorized the pick orders.

What if the people around you are terrible, because you don't know any of the 20 'good' players?

You will know the pick orders from your inherent knowledge and ability for Magic, and will have the flexibility and know-how to understand when to go against the “typical” pick, as well as the ability to adapt to extra factors like table settings and unusual packs. You will also be far better off for the next limited format, and the one after that. Also, you will be learning more and more as you draft or play again and again. If you were to rely on pick orders, your knowledge would remain fairly stagnant and would require a reboot every time another set comes out.

Pick orders are terrible, people. That's why SCG spends reams of digital paper discussing them with each set.

Imagine two people in a special, 2 person PTQ. They are to play some large number of matches heads up, playing multiple decks against multiple decks so that there are multiple matchups being played throughout the tournament. One person has taken the time to work on his technical play and has developed his lists himself, but he's no mastermind and his lists end up identical to what would be considered the stock versions of those decks. The other player has been using his time to pick up decks he got from pros for the past 7 PTQ seasons, reads sideboarding guides and tournament results instead of testing, and gets offended when StarCityGames.com writers call him bad at Magic. The latter player has Saito's list, Conley's list, Ben Rubin's list, Chapin's list, Juza's list, Gerry's list, and Paulo's list. The former player just has those stock builds of the major archetypes.

Who, in your heart of hearts, do you think will win that PTQ?

Luis Scott-Vargas? The man is a beast.

Now, which person are you?

Not-Luis Scott-Vargas?

The fact is, the latest decklist from the Pro Tour isn't worthless. It is obviously better than what you and your idiot friends would have made.

Hey, my idiot friends independently built Boss-Naya a week before it won a PTQ. But it was all just a coincidence, of course.

That is because you are not experienced and dedicated deckbuilders. Those things come with a lot of time and a lot of practice.

It's the netdecking. It's like an addiction.

The two key things that people don't realize about just blindly playing a pro's list: 1. That introduction about how the deck was made that you skipped over to get to the decklist is more important than the decklist and the sideboarding guide and the tips and tricks combined. You have a chance to witness the writer go fishing, and maybe pick up a thing or two about how it is done. They can teach you how they built the deck so that, one day, you can build one as well. Instead, you fast-forward time to where he caught the fish and is handing it to you in under twenty minutes on a bun.

It's like AJ has never even been fishing. No matter how hard you try, you can't catch a fish with Magic cards. Just doesn't work. They get soggy and fish just bash their way through them. Also, where is this wonderful fishing hole that allows you to catch a fish, cook it, and serve it all in twenty minutes?

2. While it is true that a good decklist with well thought out sideboard plans is beneficial to one's PTQ (or GP or PT or FNM) success, it is less of the make-or-break factor than people seem to think it is. It is more of a 25 yard head-start in a marathon. The race is decided before you lace up your sneakers. The winner? The guy with the fun - wait for it - DAMENTALS.

Fundamental? I thought it was worthless unless I'd hand-carved the deck in a Turkish Monastery from the 2000-year-old wood under an oath of celibacy.

People are ashamed to go over their technical game cuz, like, they are, like, so totally beyond that.

The polling data is irrefutable.

Guess what professional athletes practice more than anything else? Fielding ground balls, shooting free-throws, perfecting their footwork, or whatever the fundamentals are for the sport you like. Vince Lombardi, the greatest coach of all time, … yadayadayada … They would win and win and win, and every season began the same way. He understood the importance of a true dedication to the fundamentals. Do you?

I look forward to the next AJ Sacher article that begins, "This is a Magic Card. It's paper, dontcha know."





* We are aware of all internet traditions.

Labels: SCG, snark

Short Thoughts

* The best removal in Standard - Oblivion Ring, Maelstrom Pulse, Terminate and Path To Exile will rotate, leaving behind Journey to Nowhere, Doom Blade, Condemn and Lightning Bolt. How much better can creatures get in the circumstance?

* Standard is missing the 4th turn combo deck. Hopefully Scars will bring one back, because Aggro vs Control is getting awfully boring.

* Scars of Mirrodin and Trinket Mage go together like hot sex and flavoured lube. Then suddenly Brittle Effigy looks so much better.

* Judging from Steel Overseer and Triskellion, Scars may well abuse counters again. What works well with counters? Ajani Goldmane. Blade of the Bloodchief (Trinket Mage Fetchable!). Everflowing Chalice. Certain Allies. Mortician Beetle. Oran-Rief, The Vastwood. Strength of the Tajuru. Must bear them in mind in the future.

* I should really learn Block constructed templates. Once Shards rotates we're going to have the smallest card pool in a looooooong time.

* Is it possible to have intimate relationships with a Magic card, because Mana Leak is looking pretty fucking attractive right now. Flavoured lube, possibly?

The Implication Of Emblems

@mtgaaron: I did not mean for this emblem discussion to turn antagonistic! It is a weird rule with implications beyond existing cards.

In case you haven't heard - and if you read this blog, likelihood is you have, MtG fanboy - WotC have implemented an new type of game object, the 'Emblem'. An Emblem sits in the Command Zone and is:

...a pseudo-enchantment with a static ability that works for the rest of the game. So ... an immutable enchantment. One that can't be destroyed, or stolen.

The only card we have right now that creates an Emblem is the ret-conned Elspeth, Knight Errant:

[+1]: Put a 1/1 white Soldier creature token onto the battlefield.
[+1]: Target creature gets +3/+3 and gains flying until end of turn.
[-8]: You get an emblem with "Artifacts, creatures, enchantments, and lands you control are indestructible."

But, reading between the lines of Aaron's post, more Emblems are on the way. However, Aaron implied that Stigma Lasher...

...doesn't need the emblem wording because there's no confusion about which things it affects as the game goes on.

So we can assume that Emblems only affect the status of permanents on the battlefield, not other external rules changes (eg. a player can/cannot win the game, gain life, etc).

What might this include? He's a few ideas:

• Creatures you control gain [keyword]


• Creatures you control get [+x/+x]


• Creatures your opponents control get [-x/-x]>


• Creatures [with/without flying] your opponents control cannot [attack/block]


• [Permanent type] you control cannot be the target of spells or abilities


• [Permanent types] [you/opponents] control cannot be sacrificed

Here are some other options that may or may not be possible under the current Emblem system:

• Whenever you sacrifice a [permanent type], draw a card


• [Permanent type] you control cannot be countered


• If a [permanent type] you control would be put in the graveyard, put it in your hand instead


• If a [permanent type] would have counters put on it, put double the amount of counters on instead


• Whenever a [permanent type] comes into play under your control, draw a card


• [Spell type] you control cost [x coloured mana] less to cast


• Activated abilities of [permanent type] you control cost [x] less


• At the beginning of your upkeep, do [X]


• At the beginning of your upkeep, set your life total to [x]

UPDATE: These types of actions, however, create event triggers. As WotC appear to want Emblems to be nothing more than Command Zone 'reminder text', I doubt that any Emblems will have event triggers anything in the near future.

Other design space that may be opened up by emblems in the future by expanding them beyond permanents to other game rules include:

• You cannot be the target of spells or abilities


• Players cannot gain life


• Damage cannot be prevented


• Opponents may only play spells during their main phase


• You may play spells at instant speed

Clearly, making the command zone a space where new activities take space is an exciting game design move, one that mirrors opening up the Removed-From-Game zone and turning it into "Exile". While I'm hoping for more Pull From Eternity type effects to be printed, now there's a bunch of effects we can start to discuss that may be appropriate for the Command Zone as well.

Labels: analysis, design, emblem, rules