Welcome back, folks. I teased you in the last post, with the promise of a tournament report, but didn't really get into the tournament. I felt like this report needed some context so you all could understand why this tournament felt so different to me. I felt untouchable with this deck, but obviously that was a bit of a stretch. If I had known going in, that I'd finish 5-3-1 I probably wouldn't have attended, but now, I feel like it was worth every grueling round, and I'm a better player for it. I also have more confidence in the deck than ever, if that was even possible, and wish I had another chance to do it again (after changing the negates in the board to Leaks of course).
I carpooled up to the tournament with my friend John. I shipped him about 65 of the 75 cards for the Kibler infect deck, and he had arranged to borrow the remainder at the venue. We arrived, registered, and prepared for battle. {Side Note: SCG are money grubbing jerks, they charge $1 for a plain ballpoint bic pen, really? Most tournaments, the judge staff provides those at deck reg. I lost multiple pens, this was expensive and annoying. Opponents walking off with it after signing the slip, etc. I had assumed it would be run similar to PTQ's and the like, where there was competeing dealer booths. This should have been obvious to me, but I didn't consider it.}
Round 1 (B/r Vampires):
In this first round, I'm paired against a guy who I had recently met at our LGS in San Diego. He was new getting back to the game, but was a long time player before. We tested Game 1's a bit as he was getting familiar with the deck, and I knew the Game 1 was bad, and my only prayer was to win with the Shape Anew package. The first game was as bad as I expected, I didn't draw many answers, and his deck just kept asking questions such as, "Can you deal with 3 Vampire Lacerators, a Seer, and a Highborn?" This time, my answer was, "Guess not." I then proceeded to mutter something about how all 4 copies of Arc Trail in my main board were within the bottom 5 cards of my deck when I go to Sideboard. I bring in the Shape Anew Package, and shuffle up. I keep a sweet opener, including Arc Trail x2, Trinket Mage, Pyromancer Ascension, Halimar Depths, Mountain, Island. On the play, i plop down the Halimar depths, and see another Halimar, a Shape Anew, and a Bolt. I wanted the shape anew to be the card I draw on turn 3, so when I tutor with Trinket Mage I don't lose it, but don't unneccesarily expose it to duress for a turn. I pass, and he shoots an Inquisition at me, and I reveal my hand. He makes no comment of the Trinket Mage in my hand, and takes the Ascension (obv). My next turn is land-go, and his turn 2 is a Seer and a Lascerator. I draw shape anew, cast the trinket mage, fetch an axe and pass. He tapps out for a kicked Gatekeeper... ... ... Uh-oh. He didn't board these out against me? Someone at the LGS informed him of my trix? I sac my trinket mage, and start thinking about what a waste of a drive this trip was, in the meanwhile he's asking me if i'm taking 3... oh yeah, take 3. The next turn I arc Trail two dudes, and cast my axe, leaving a bolt ready. He casts an unkicked Gatekeeper the next turn, and i let out a huge sigh of relief. He's only got 2 left! I untap and shape anew, praying he isn't gripping the 3rd Gatekeeper. Sure enough he's not, and that's the game. I'm cursing myself for not running leak in my board instead of negate, and as I mash my 15 cards into my deck, I'm trying to decide what to do for G3. I go back to the main board configureation, but leave the trinket mages in and the axe for block/beat option, treasure hunts and 1 jaces ingenuity got cut. This configuration netted me a blank Memoricide naming shape anew, and one of the longest Vamp matchup games ever. I quickly activated an ascension, and things were looking good, until..... Vampire Hexmage. This deck is seriously punishing me for not running a way to counter creatures. I hate my life. Luckily I had copied some draw spells, and was juiced up to quickly reactivate. 2 hexmages later, he wins the race.
1-2... (0-1, 1-2)
Round 2 U/B Intezzorable Tide (i just named his deck for him)
I sit down at table number Infinity to start round 2, across from a guy with a huge smile, named Traf.
Game 1 left me thinking I was playing a fairly typical Tezz deck, that just had some bad draws. I didn't really see much other than Artifact Ramp, Inkmoth Nexus and Tezzeret before I threw a triple-Burst Lightning-kicked at him for 12 damage to finish the game. In game 2, I brought in Negates, and got ready to battle. This time his artifact ramp actually ramped him into a turn 3 Tezz and turn 4 Inexorable Tide?! Woah. I mean, this card isn't even playable in Draft, right? Wow. I sorta start taking a nap, because I cockily assume this guy can't win (i should know better). he's also mentioned it's his first tournament, and he's playing quite slow. Before I know it, I'm out of spells in my hand, and I'm being poked by an Inkmoth and and every 0 drop artifact he casts is proliferating me farther. I look up at the clock while shuffling for Game 3, and I must have really napped because there is not much time left. I mull to 6 and keep a reasonable hand of counters, already thinking I'm hoping to not lose. He plays a jace and fateseals me. I take my turn, play some cantrips as time is called. On turn 1 he fateseals me (7) and pokes me with inkmoth (2 poison) and casts his Inexorable Tide. Extra Turn 2 I I play another draw spell (into lands) and pass. Extra turn 3 he casts a preordain, and proliferates my poison(3) and his jace(8), He then casts another preordain! (4,9) Then a trinket mage (5,10) then the chalice he fetched from said trinket mage (6,11) THEN he plays a mox opal (7,12) and legend bombs himself. Then he attacks me to 8 poison with the nexus, and then after combat ULTIMATES HIS JACE. This mistake cost him the match. I put the two lands in my hand in the empty space where my library once was. I go to turn 4, draw a mountain, and say go. He draws, shows me the land he drew, attacks me to 9, and we draw. If he just brainstormed his jace instead of going ultimate, he likely finds a spell to get the final poison via proliferate. I was definitely not happy about this draw, but wow, i did nearly lose. I'm signing the match slip and seriously considering marking an X in the drop slot next to my name. I decide to hang in there, as I did wake up early to drive up here for the day.
1-1-1 (0-1-1 matches, 2-3-1 games)
Round 3: U/W Caw Blade
This round wasn't too exciting. My opponent sat down, with his score pad facing me, and it was quite obvious he had just drawn against RDW or Goblins, and he was playing Caw. My opponent was very new to the game. He kept his lands spread out all over the play area, was reading each card as he drew it (The ones that took a while to process were likely Gideon or Jace). After a very long and drawn out game that has me with 2 active ascensions, but not enough burn to really win the game, I'm just bouncing and countering, and drawing cards, but the game is never anyone's but mine. At some point I bounced a SoFaF, a Gideon and a Jace and drew 3 cards from Into the Roil. he took his time to read my spell, I looked down after he said ok, so I could draw my cards, and we continued our dance. A few turns later, he rebuilt his board, but with different permanents, like hawks and stoneforges. I'm confused why he hasn't recast his jace or gideon. At his endstep i bounce his 3 creatures, and draw 3, and I notice him sweep them into the graveyard. I said, "Those just go back to your hand, man!" He looks down, and sees the previous cards I bounced sitting in his graveyard, and looks to pick those up to his hand too. At this point, he had squadron hawked, and would have had too many cards in hand etc etc, so I called a judge, full knowing I'd get a warning for this for not maintaing the game state correctly. The Judge made the play from a few turns ago stand (with the gideon jace and sword in the graveyard) and warned us both. I ended up winning the game shortly after, with about 7 cards left in my deck (I did draw 9 off a Jace's Ingenuity this game). There was 3 minutes left on the clock, and we didn't get anywhere close to finishing game 2. I was tempted to hurry him up, but i could tell he was really uncomfortable, and I wasn't trying to rush someone when I'm sitting at 0-1-1 myself.
1-0-1 (1-1-1 match, 3-3-2 games)
Round 4 Boros:
This is the easiest of the aggro matchups. 100% of the dudes die to Arc Trail, and they have little-to-no disruption. I win the game handily with 7 cards in hand to his none. Next game I board into Shape Anew, curve out, and resolve Shape anew on turn 5. GG.
2-0 (2-1-1 match, 5-3-2 games)
Round 5 U/B Infect:
I dodged some inquisitions, killed manlands, and killed him with burn in the usual fashion. Negates were great out of the board, but would have been just as good/better as mana leaks (*mutter*).
One notable thing came up here. He duresses me G2, and places the card out in front of me. I spell pierce and announce the trigger to put a counter on my ascension, and put my spell pierce right next to his duress. He says okay to the trigger then tanks. Then He places the duress in his graveyard. I bin my pierce, and its back to his priority, or so i think. He fiddles with mana, and then says, "I'll pay 2 for pierce." I can't be sure how much time had passed, but WAYYYY to much for me to think this was kosher. I called a judge, who simply encouraged him to play more clearly, even though my opponent agreed 100% with my description of the events. I then simply negate his duress, protecting my burn spells. In either case, I win this game, but thought for sure I'd get that judge call. His intention seemed pretty clear when he binned his duress.
2-0 (3-1-1 match, 7-3-2 games)
Round 6 Valakut:
After a deckcheck, I find I'm up game 1, as my opponent had misregistered. Cool, i guess. He runs me over pretty quickly on the play with a Cobra build of Valakut. Turn 4 Primeval, I simply can't outrace.
I bring in shape anew from the board for the final game, and bounce his khalani heart expiditions a couple times, and kill a few cobras. I natrually draw my axe to match up with my shape anew, and win the game.
2-1 (4-1-1 match, 8-4-2 games) {obviously not counting his game loss as a win...}
It's at this point I realize, wow, I'm actually in this tournament still. I look around as all my San Diego friends are starting to drop, and how I can't believe i'm trying to back door my way into this thing. I know my breakers will be bad, so I need to stay on my game.
Round 7 Caw Blade w/ Black:
Giving hand disruption to Caw blade is exactly what they need to beat me. Lame. I guess heavy mulligans also help. *shrug* this game sucked. I mulled to 5 game one, and he had 2 inquisitions in the first 2 turns which led to a pretty quick scoop, on my part, maybe too premature. In the 2nd game, i decide to try out the blightsteel package, along with the negates, to see if I can dodge memoricide, and add more counter backup. My first 7 is 6 lands+Blightsteel, and gets shipped for a moderate 6. My 6 were Mountain, Island, Trinket mage, Shape anew, Negate and Preordain. I lead off with a preordain, which nets me a land, and he opens on inquisition. He sees my hand and his eyes widen. He takes the mage. On turn 5 he has a memoricide with a spell pierce to back it up and takes my shape anews out of the equation. I scoop, and go get a sandwich, while i consider my chances to make the money at x-2-1. I really didn't want to keep a hand with shape anew in it, for that exact reason. I wanted to be able to draw it and play it the same turn, but the mulligan prevented that.
0-2 (4-2-1 match, 8-6-2 games)
Round 8 U/B Infect:
This opponent made me chuckle several times. He had been complaining about how he had one of his losses to a Trap version of Pyromancer (I'm pretty sure I know which guy he's talking about) and how it was his worst matchup. i lead with a preordain, and he says, "Oh, Caw-Blade, yippee." when i drop a Turn 2 Ascension, followed by turn 3 double preordain, he groans. I proceed to two-for-one my way through all of his permanents and spells, untill he runs out of cards to my full grip.
Game 2 was not much different, I drew all 4 into the roils which bounced skitherix 4 turns in a row, at which point he said, "I just want to go home." and picks up his cards and signs the slip. The game was by no means over, but I think he had simply had enough Magic for the day. It was clear he wasn't playing very sharp.
2-0 (5-2-1 match, 10-6-2 games).
Now I check the standings prior to the final round. Of all the 16 pointers, I'm near the bottom of breakers, and know even with a win I may not make the top 32 as I had hoped. Turns out my first round acquantaince from San Diego dropped at Round 2 when he was 1-1 to go to the pornstar convention next door... *shrug* guess I can't really blame him.
Round 9 U/W Caw-Blade:
Finally! Caw-Blade! Every one is talking about how much Caw there was in the room, but I didn't see as much of it as I expected. I guess that's what happens when you lose Round 1. Game 1 goes strictly to plan, which involves bouncing swords, and drawing cards, and being poked for 1 by squadron hawks until i hit a critical mass of burn with an active ascension. I bring in negates and combusts, but don't see the combusts game 2, and get beat down by a lone collonade with no ascension or double burn to kill it. I had an ascension on the table, but came down a bit too late, by the time i activated it, I didn't get a chance to play a draw spell before I died. A single combust, or burst lightning probably wins that game. Game 3, i mash in my full 15, but leave my configuration the same as game 2. I mulligan to 6, and have 4 red cards in hand with 2 blue lands. turn two finds me a mountain, and we both land-go to turn 5. by now i have a spell pierce, but the rest of my hand is burn/removal. He plops a Baneslayer T5, which I combust Eot. He plopts a Baneslayer T6, which I combust Eot, he pauses here, with a blue mana up, and looks like he wants to pierce it, before he realizes its futile. T7, he casts Sun Titan. I look at my grip....fucking Negate. FML. If this was leak, i win the game, period. After Sun Titan, pierce was the only card in his hand. I'd have had enough to pay for pierce, if i did have a leak, and I had cards in my hand to activate the ascension. He then proceeds to tec edge 2 of my halimar depths (2 of my 4 non-basics... *mutter*) and then I'm choked off, and his spell pierce becomes live. I get hit for 10 twice, and die.
He then says, that he only has 2 Baneslayers and 1 Titan, and he just happened to draw all 3. Must. Be. Nice.
1-2 (5-3-1 match, 11-8-2 games)
I finished around 70 something, which is really disappointing. But the matches I won, were not even close, and the matches I lost were very very close, the U/W/b match being the exception, but I was forced to mulligan pretty heavily both games. I know this deck is for real, and if i was a better pilot, there's no question this deck could have swept the tournament, and no doubt even my sorry ass could have finished x-1-1 if i had leaks over negates. *facepalm*
Some people have been asking about my deck, and I love that! makes me happy to know that others are willing to try and fight the metagame from this angle, and I strongly reccomend this deck. I never reccomend constructed decks, because I play so much limited, but I've done the testing this time, and put in the work, and I can honestly stand behind this one.
Feel free to comment or make suggestions on the build!
Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Star City Games Los Angeles Standard Open **NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO BRAG ABOUT** (Part 1 - Preface)
So, I'm writing a constructed tournament report. I really never thought such a day would come. I'm sure there's a bit of TL;DR, but that's fine. I'm putting this down for me, and I hope to share it with anyone interested. I really feel like I need to process the whole development, both of this deck, and my experience with constructed in general. This is part 1, the Preface, so to speak.
Anyone who knows even the smallest bit about me and Magic, knows I play about 90% limited. I dabble with standard when I think there's a combo deck that will be fun to play, or the occasional rogue deck I brew up. The first 'real' standard deck I played was Grixis control, (post Lorwyn rotation). Standard bored me, and I kept it built until it rotated, in case the need for a deck arose. Then was the printing of Zendikar. This moved me to Standard for a couple reasons. 1) I had finally owned a full "standard" collection (started drafting in Conflux). 2) I hated the limited format. (2-drop, beat you, go) 3) Pyromancer Ascension came into existence.
Short introspective on my short Standard career (feel free to skip):
My friend built a 4-color Pyromancer deck, and I'd watch him play it between rounds of my drafts. He explained to me how it worked briefly, but I didn't really follow it (and wasn't that interested at the time). Then, I saw it played. I walked up, and I had assumed the game had ended. He was grabbing 4 cards off the top of his library, taking one out, then did that 2 more times. I figured he had scooped, and was sideboarding the next match, or maybe just looking at the top of his library in frustration. In actuality, he had cast a Worldly Counsel copied twice. I was immediately hooked to watch how this game played out. Later that game, he took the rest of the turns, and won via Banefire (other weeks, it would be different kill cards to dodge haters that ran Thought Hemmorage). He helped me learn how to play the deck, and I did. For a long time. When ROE came out, i played Brilliant Ultimatum for a little while, but went back to Pyromancer when I saw Mike Flores first version of the Archive Trap version. Since then I'd abandoned the deck, as I really liked ROE & M11 Limited, but Scars has been a bit underwhelming for me. When Flores "revisited" his Archive Trap version, I dusted mine off, and wow, he only changed a few cards. So I ran it. It did poorly, but I played poorly, and I started tweaking with it over the last 2 months. My goal was to fine tune the deck for the Star City Games open...
The Deck:
Most of you have probably heard me talking about my deck for quite some time. I've posted various iterations of the deck, and I've never played the same 75 in any given tournament. It started with the stock Flores Archive Trap version, and after getting hammered by aggro decks, I came up with a Shape Anew->Blightsteel Colossus plan that seemed cute, and I wanted to try it. It turned out to be amazing. Then I realized the power of the transformational sideboard, and decided to put the Traps into the board also, so I could begin the game as Counter/Burn, and side into traps for control, and Shape Anew for aggro. This was successful, but left me very narrow sideboarding options as the trap package took 7 cards and the Shape Anew package took 8. Ultimately, I cut the traps from the board, in favor of a package that was good against Caw-Blade, but also had other applications. Initially, it was 3 Combust, 4 Spreading Seas, but at the Final FNM before the SCG, I didn't side them in once. I also, was losing with Mana Leak in my hand, and having repeated issues beating a Gideon or a Collonade (Combust helps this alot***). I decided I'd up the spell pierce count to 4, and cut Mana Leak all together. I was debating putting the Leaks in the board over the Seas, but at about 1am me and my friend who first introduced me to Pyromancer Ascension settled on Negate instead. I'm pretty sure this decision cost me 2 of my 3 losses.
Here is the deck I registered:
4 Pyromancer Ascension
4 Preordain
4 See Beyond
4 Arc Trail
3 Treasure Hunt
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Burst Lightning
4 Spell Pierce
4 Into the Roil
2 Jace's Ingenuity
4 Halimar Depths
4 Scalding Tarn
8 Island
7 Mountains
Sideboard:
3 Shape Anew
3 Trinket Mage
1 Darksteel Axe
1 Blightsteel Colossus
3 Combust
4 Negate
One of the card choices of interest are Jace's Ingenuity, over Foresee. I read an old article about Fact or Fiction recently, by Mike Flores, about how casting it at the end of the opponents turn, would simply win the game. When my friend and I were brewing, he joked about Mana Short, and my mind exploded. Casting an end-step Jace's Ingenuity simply wins the game. If your Ascension(s) is online, then you should just untap and win. Even if its not, you're perfectly positioned to win within 2-3 turns. If your opponent counters it, then you get to untap and have an uninhibited turn-a la Mana Short. If they don't you're fully reloaded, which is just as amazing. The other reason I like the card over Foresee, is because burn spells don't cantrip. Against aggro sometimes you just run out of cards, I do normally board this out against aggro, in favor of the Shape Anew, however.
Shape Anew package is another interesting feature, the deck has. It provides a lot of resilience for Aggro decks. If they are fast enough, the matchup is rough, the Trinket Mage supplies a blocker (and tutor) and their sideboard for my deck is already narrow, and I love blanking people's Memoricide (vamps).
The superstar of the deck is Into the Roil, it does what you need it to do against every deck. It took me a while to be willing to simply cast it unkicked, as I always wanted value out of it, but once I was able to figure out when I need to be kicking it, versus simply bouncing a permanent that NEEDED to be dealt with, I realized this card has to be x4 in this deck.
That's the deck, I'm going to post more about my tournament experience in a separate post, to try and break this up a bit. In short, if Caw-Blade continues to be the "best deck", I'm 100% confident that my deck runs all over it, and has favorable matchups against most of the top decks. Decks with black potentially pose a threat if they are able to board into both 4xDuress and 4xInquisition. Memoricide isn't too bad, since it costs 4, and you can usually find a counterspell by then. Aggro decks are tough, Game 1, while with the right draw of removal, are certainly winnable. Game 2 is almost an auto-win, barring an awful set of mulligans, which leaves game 3 up to how you decide to board for the final match. Sometimes going back to the maindeck is the right call. I make this decision on a matchup by matchup basis.
If you want to find out more about the matches I played at SCGLA, and my experience, stay tuned for the next part tomorrow. :)
Thanks for reading!
Part 2 is up here, with a break down of each match.
***FYI: If you Combust a Gideon while it's a creature, not only is damage marked on it (because it's a creature), but it also loses Loyalty counters (because its still a planeswalker). What this normally means is:
Opponent, casts gideon, and +2's to 8. Their next turn they activate to creature, you respond with bolt it to 5. They usually pause here, but almost always allow it, knowing they can still attack. After they attack, you can Combust the Gideon, it loses its remaining Loyalty, and when SBA are checked, it goes to Graveyard.***
Anyone who knows even the smallest bit about me and Magic, knows I play about 90% limited. I dabble with standard when I think there's a combo deck that will be fun to play, or the occasional rogue deck I brew up. The first 'real' standard deck I played was Grixis control, (post Lorwyn rotation). Standard bored me, and I kept it built until it rotated, in case the need for a deck arose. Then was the printing of Zendikar. This moved me to Standard for a couple reasons. 1) I had finally owned a full "standard" collection (started drafting in Conflux). 2) I hated the limited format. (2-drop, beat you, go) 3) Pyromancer Ascension came into existence.
Short introspective on my short Standard career (feel free to skip):
My friend built a 4-color Pyromancer deck, and I'd watch him play it between rounds of my drafts. He explained to me how it worked briefly, but I didn't really follow it (and wasn't that interested at the time). Then, I saw it played. I walked up, and I had assumed the game had ended. He was grabbing 4 cards off the top of his library, taking one out, then did that 2 more times. I figured he had scooped, and was sideboarding the next match, or maybe just looking at the top of his library in frustration. In actuality, he had cast a Worldly Counsel copied twice. I was immediately hooked to watch how this game played out. Later that game, he took the rest of the turns, and won via Banefire (other weeks, it would be different kill cards to dodge haters that ran Thought Hemmorage). He helped me learn how to play the deck, and I did. For a long time. When ROE came out, i played Brilliant Ultimatum for a little while, but went back to Pyromancer when I saw Mike Flores first version of the Archive Trap version. Since then I'd abandoned the deck, as I really liked ROE & M11 Limited, but Scars has been a bit underwhelming for me. When Flores "revisited" his Archive Trap version, I dusted mine off, and wow, he only changed a few cards. So I ran it. It did poorly, but I played poorly, and I started tweaking with it over the last 2 months. My goal was to fine tune the deck for the Star City Games open...
The Deck:
Most of you have probably heard me talking about my deck for quite some time. I've posted various iterations of the deck, and I've never played the same 75 in any given tournament. It started with the stock Flores Archive Trap version, and after getting hammered by aggro decks, I came up with a Shape Anew->Blightsteel Colossus plan that seemed cute, and I wanted to try it. It turned out to be amazing. Then I realized the power of the transformational sideboard, and decided to put the Traps into the board also, so I could begin the game as Counter/Burn, and side into traps for control, and Shape Anew for aggro. This was successful, but left me very narrow sideboarding options as the trap package took 7 cards and the Shape Anew package took 8. Ultimately, I cut the traps from the board, in favor of a package that was good against Caw-Blade, but also had other applications. Initially, it was 3 Combust, 4 Spreading Seas, but at the Final FNM before the SCG, I didn't side them in once. I also, was losing with Mana Leak in my hand, and having repeated issues beating a Gideon or a Collonade (Combust helps this alot***). I decided I'd up the spell pierce count to 4, and cut Mana Leak all together. I was debating putting the Leaks in the board over the Seas, but at about 1am me and my friend who first introduced me to Pyromancer Ascension settled on Negate instead. I'm pretty sure this decision cost me 2 of my 3 losses.
Here is the deck I registered:
4 Pyromancer Ascension
4 Preordain
4 See Beyond
4 Arc Trail
3 Treasure Hunt
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Burst Lightning
4 Spell Pierce
4 Into the Roil
2 Jace's Ingenuity
4 Halimar Depths
4 Scalding Tarn
8 Island
7 Mountains
Sideboard:
3 Shape Anew
3 Trinket Mage
1 Darksteel Axe
1 Blightsteel Colossus
3 Combust
4 Negate
One of the card choices of interest are Jace's Ingenuity, over Foresee. I read an old article about Fact or Fiction recently, by Mike Flores, about how casting it at the end of the opponents turn, would simply win the game. When my friend and I were brewing, he joked about Mana Short, and my mind exploded. Casting an end-step Jace's Ingenuity simply wins the game. If your Ascension(s) is online, then you should just untap and win. Even if its not, you're perfectly positioned to win within 2-3 turns. If your opponent counters it, then you get to untap and have an uninhibited turn-a la Mana Short. If they don't you're fully reloaded, which is just as amazing. The other reason I like the card over Foresee, is because burn spells don't cantrip. Against aggro sometimes you just run out of cards, I do normally board this out against aggro, in favor of the Shape Anew, however.
Shape Anew package is another interesting feature, the deck has. It provides a lot of resilience for Aggro decks. If they are fast enough, the matchup is rough, the Trinket Mage supplies a blocker (and tutor) and their sideboard for my deck is already narrow, and I love blanking people's Memoricide (vamps).
The superstar of the deck is Into the Roil, it does what you need it to do against every deck. It took me a while to be willing to simply cast it unkicked, as I always wanted value out of it, but once I was able to figure out when I need to be kicking it, versus simply bouncing a permanent that NEEDED to be dealt with, I realized this card has to be x4 in this deck.
That's the deck, I'm going to post more about my tournament experience in a separate post, to try and break this up a bit. In short, if Caw-Blade continues to be the "best deck", I'm 100% confident that my deck runs all over it, and has favorable matchups against most of the top decks. Decks with black potentially pose a threat if they are able to board into both 4xDuress and 4xInquisition. Memoricide isn't too bad, since it costs 4, and you can usually find a counterspell by then. Aggro decks are tough, Game 1, while with the right draw of removal, are certainly winnable. Game 2 is almost an auto-win, barring an awful set of mulligans, which leaves game 3 up to how you decide to board for the final match. Sometimes going back to the maindeck is the right call. I make this decision on a matchup by matchup basis.
If you want to find out more about the matches I played at SCGLA, and my experience, stay tuned for the next part tomorrow. :)
Thanks for reading!
Part 2 is up here, with a break down of each match.
***FYI: If you Combust a Gideon while it's a creature, not only is damage marked on it (because it's a creature), but it also loses Loyalty counters (because its still a planeswalker). What this normally means is:
Opponent, casts gideon, and +2's to 8. Their next turn they activate to creature, you respond with bolt it to 5. They usually pause here, but almost always allow it, knowing they can still attack. After they attack, you can Combust the Gideon, it loses its remaining Loyalty, and when SBA are checked, it goes to Graveyard.***
Friday, March 25, 2011
#FF Blog Entry
This was a somewhat quiet week on twitter for me. Doing a lot of testing for #scgLA this weekend, and also battling a lot of Ascension. A friend and I play for $0.25/point, doubles on a skunk (games won by more than 20). It's led to some late nights, and a lot of gaming. Good times.
Anyway, on to the new tradition of #FollowFriday...
@modogodot and @marshallLRcast (and their sponsor @card_kingdom) are always on my list, check their Limited Resources podcast over at mtgcast.com
Last week they were kind enough to plug my blog, and I really appreciate that.
@fatecreatr is playing in a PTQ this weekend, and I know he's been putting in some work, so here's to "Getting There" He's also provides amazing content over at QuietSpeculation.com on the Insider section. (Shameless plug: My latest is up at QS Insider here)
Lately I've stopped plugging the pros and most recognized writers for #ff. The reason for this, is most of you follow them already, or are aware of their existence, and choose to not follow them. The ones who engage with players (not just other pros) are the ones I'd like to give a quick shoutout to: @thepchapin @semisober @fivewithflores
I'm giving a shoutout to @mr_friday He engages all sorts of people on everything, and has great insights.
I have a feeling he's somehow connected to the 'cool crowd' of pros, but i haven't figured out how (or really tried). In either case, he's certainly worth following.
Big ups to Nina @cardboardwitch Really funny and snarky. and she *dodges* like a champ.
@hobbesq avid edh'er but gives good insights on any magic format, has a deep knowledge of cards (and statistics and sports)
I have to include @wrongwaygoback He always has the wittiest MTG related commentary. He's got a bajillion followers, but if you aren't following him. Do it.
QS Crew that i interact with daily: @dtlerch (spike editor) @joshjmtg (Spike author "justice league) @chosler88 (Finance guru) @cavemankellen (spike author)
@metaknightmare talks alot about life as a student, which i enjoy, as i miss the "good ol days" but he also talks lots about cubing, constructed, and video games.
@two_eyes started dabbling in the MTGO draft scene, and its been interesting to see what comes easily to him and what he struggles with. but he also comments on all the "hot issues" on any given day.
@vrazix Doesn't poke his head out too often, but when he does its usually an astute comment about what ever topic is on the table.
If you're not on this list, engage me! If you follow me, and I don't follow you, tell me why i should, and I will! (just ask @grant_champion, who is a great person to follow for pauper info)
Thanks for reading, happy weekend!
Anyway, on to the new tradition of #FollowFriday...
@modogodot and @marshallLRcast (and their sponsor @card_kingdom) are always on my list, check their Limited Resources podcast over at mtgcast.com
Last week they were kind enough to plug my blog, and I really appreciate that.
@fatecreatr is playing in a PTQ this weekend, and I know he's been putting in some work, so here's to "Getting There" He's also provides amazing content over at QuietSpeculation.com on the Insider section. (Shameless plug: My latest is up at QS Insider here)
Lately I've stopped plugging the pros and most recognized writers for #ff. The reason for this, is most of you follow them already, or are aware of their existence, and choose to not follow them. The ones who engage with players (not just other pros) are the ones I'd like to give a quick shoutout to: @thepchapin @semisober @fivewithflores
I'm giving a shoutout to @mr_friday He engages all sorts of people on everything, and has great insights.
I have a feeling he's somehow connected to the 'cool crowd' of pros, but i haven't figured out how (or really tried). In either case, he's certainly worth following.
Big ups to Nina @cardboardwitch Really funny and snarky. and she *dodges* like a champ.
@hobbesq avid edh'er but gives good insights on any magic format, has a deep knowledge of cards (and statistics and sports)
I have to include @wrongwaygoback He always has the wittiest MTG related commentary. He's got a bajillion followers, but if you aren't following him. Do it.
QS Crew that i interact with daily: @dtlerch (spike editor) @joshjmtg (Spike author "justice league) @chosler88 (Finance guru) @cavemankellen (spike author)
@metaknightmare talks alot about life as a student, which i enjoy, as i miss the "good ol days" but he also talks lots about cubing, constructed, and video games.
@two_eyes started dabbling in the MTGO draft scene, and its been interesting to see what comes easily to him and what he struggles with. but he also comments on all the "hot issues" on any given day.
@vrazix Doesn't poke his head out too often, but when he does its usually an astute comment about what ever topic is on the table.
If you're not on this list, engage me! If you follow me, and I don't follow you, tell me why i should, and I will! (just ask @grant_champion, who is a great person to follow for pauper info)
Thanks for reading, happy weekend!
Friday, March 18, 2011
#FollowFriday Blog
This really was a great week in the world of twitter... most of you are probably still reeling (see: close to unfollowing me) after the debacle that was the "Strictly Better" debate. A fairly productive debate developed on yesterdays blog post, so feel free to chime in there, if you haven't had the chance. Special thanks to all those who did, @hobbesq, @setzerg, Michael, and AL.
On that note, an additional #ff goes out to a bunch others involved in my personal favorite twitter activity of the week:
@marshallLRcast - takes me down a peg just frequently enough where I don't hate him.
@modogodot - brings civility to any debate.
[obligatory note: these two are also your hosts over at Limited Resources Podcast at MTGcast.com]
@zbeg - for starting the whole debate
And a bunch others, you all know who was in on it, there was endless hours of fun, but a very special thanks to @mtgaaron who's insight is especially useful, for obvious reasons.
Other #FF's
@ITOmarHernandez- An all around awesome guy, really friendly, likes to game Legacy and EDH, and recently had the chance to attend his first Pro Tour at Paris.
@quietspec - Kelly Reid has recently returned from his hiatus- aka sweet vacation which was interrupted by an earthquake, you can check his story about his trip here as well as some great insight only a store owner could give (QS-In$ider).
@cardboardwitch - recently cracked 1900 in rating, #AchievementUnlocked! Always has good stuff to say.
@dtlerch- Has recently returned from radio silence while he was moving, and had no internet. Stay tuned as he grinds poker online, and provides sick content at quietspeculation.com in the spike section.
@samstod- This guy is a master, he had another great article at Star City Games, this week. he's also cohost with @kstube at the "In Contention" podcast at MTGcast.com
That's it for now, I"m sure there were others, but after yesterday, i've got some catching up to do at work...
Have a great weekend, everyone!
On that note, an additional #ff goes out to a bunch others involved in my personal favorite twitter activity of the week:
@marshallLRcast - takes me down a peg just frequently enough where I don't hate him.
@modogodot - brings civility to any debate.
[obligatory note: these two are also your hosts over at Limited Resources Podcast at MTGcast.com]
@zbeg - for starting the whole debate
And a bunch others, you all know who was in on it, there was endless hours of fun, but a very special thanks to @mtgaaron who's insight is especially useful, for obvious reasons.
Other #FF's
@ITOmarHernandez- An all around awesome guy, really friendly, likes to game Legacy and EDH, and recently had the chance to attend his first Pro Tour at Paris.
@quietspec - Kelly Reid has recently returned from his hiatus- aka sweet vacation which was interrupted by an earthquake, you can check his story about his trip here as well as some great insight only a store owner could give (QS-In$ider).
@cardboardwitch - recently cracked 1900 in rating, #AchievementUnlocked! Always has good stuff to say.
@dtlerch- Has recently returned from radio silence while he was moving, and had no internet. Stay tuned as he grinds poker online, and provides sick content at quietspeculation.com in the spike section.
@samstod- This guy is a master, he had another great article at Star City Games, this week. he's also cohost with @kstube at the "In Contention" podcast at MTGcast.com
That's it for now, I"m sure there were others, but after yesterday, i've got some catching up to do at work...
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Strictly Better/Worse, Hyperbole, and Magic: My Stoic Rebuttal
So, last night, @zbeg was firing off corner case after corner case about how no card is strictly better than another. This carried on to this morning, as people caught up to the conversation. Many people had varying points, but ultimately, the confusion arises from two main things.
1) People are not defining "Strictly Better/Worse" correctly. (@modogodot provided a definition he claims WotC R&D uses, and later I'll get into why I disagree. Even if THEY use it, doesn't mean they are correct in what it actually means. EDIT: Since then @mtgaaron did infact use a similar definition to @modogodot, which @modogodot confirmed he agrees with)
2)Magic Players love hyperbole. This doesn't have much to do with this conversation, but is typically how these sorts of things come up. One person uses the phrase in hyperbole, gets shot down, and then mass hysteria ensues.
Onward, Ho!
Game theory, from an academic standpoint, is one of my strengths. This debate, really is, an academic one. It's a debate over how to define the term, not how it impacts game development/design, or actual game play or strategy. Many people are saying, but it's only useful if we define it like this...! We don't define academic terms for their usefulness. "Strictly Better" was not defined for the purposes of MTG, and if it just so happens that you don't find any value in using that term, as its defined, then we probably just shouldn't. If @modogodot (and others) choose to create a different definition, to describe only Magic The Gathering, that's their perogative, but it's never going to be the globally accepted definition of what the term means, and will always continue to create confusion when used.
I (and others including @marshallLRcast) suggested sticking to the term "better". Which is much safer, and easier to debate with out academic minutia. But, here we are, and since I'm particular about my academics, I'm going to set the record straight.
Strictly Better, is a common replacement, for "Strictly Dominant Strategy".
In game theory, the general premise of study is that both players select a strategy before the game begins, then the game happens, and both players execute said strategy, and then there is a result, where each player receives a payoff/outcome from the result of the game. A common example you may already be familiar with is The Prisoner's Dilemma. While that example is not a zero-sum game, like MTG, a much simpler example is Rock-Paper-Scissors is indeed a zero-sum game. Before the game begins, each player mentally selects what they will choose, and after 1-2-3-Shoot, they display their strategy using hand symbols. In this case there is only 3 outcomes: Win(+1), Lose(-1), and Draw(0). There is no Strictly Dominant Strategy in this game, as there is no single choice (or mixture of choices) that is always better than any other. (There is an optimal mixed strategy, that provides the best EXPECTED outcome, but is not strictly best, i'd be happy to write more about mixed strategies if people are interested.)
I digress. Here, we're trying to define "strictly better" as it applies to one MtG card, over another. What the term means in this context is: Card A is better than Card B to be included in a deck, because to combat every given STRATEGY (or card choice etc) the opponent may select, Card A provides an equal or better outcome, never worse.
My example will be: Stoic Rebuttal is strictly better than Cancel.
How much better? Not much really, in most decks not at all, but that's now what we're getting at here.
Common (incorrect) counter-arguments:
Mindslaver-
"My opponent has Mindslaver, when they activate it against me, the cheaper counter may give them the opportunity to counter my own spell when they otherwise wouldn't have."
This is a description of a game state, not a strategy. Stoic Rebuttal is still strictly better at beating the strategy your opponent is playing. If your deck can indeed take advantage of the discounted cost, you're better off at preventing the Mindslaver from resolving, which is far more relevant to how that card will impact the match, as compared to what will happen when the opponent needs to cast it out of your hand. Ultimately, once they've activated Mindslaver on you, they've won the game. So what you have in your hand, and what they do with it, isn't really relevant to what's the best strategy. Even if you did know that all of your opponents on a given day were running Mindslaver, would you choose cancel over stoic? Absolutely not. Maybe if in your deck its literally impossible to Metalcraft, then you would be indifferent between the two cards, but you certainly aren't saying that Cancel is better.
Meddling Mage-
"My opponent cast a meddling mage, naming Stoic Rebuttal! I bet you wish you had a cancel now!?" No, I wish i had a lightning bolt to kill the damned Meddling Mage. That's what makes Meddling Mage good, once they know what IS in the opponents deck, they have the dynamic decision to prevent you from playing it. Unfortunately, NEITHER Cancel, nor Stoic Rebuttal can be defended from that. Maybe you trick your opponent once, by running an inferior card, but it certainly isn't increasing your overall outcome (this is covered in the "equilibrium" part of the link i provided above. In fact they're probably just playing poorly, if they chose to name a card with Meddling Mage, that isn't even in your deck.
Defining Payoffs/Outcomes-
Outcomes, in the case of MTG are your win% against a given strategy over time. Because MtG is a game that contains variance, we must rely on the law of large numbers to assign payoffs to any given card choice. Cancel would never provide a higher win% against any given strategy than Stoic Rebuttal would, but Stoic Rebuttal COULD provide a higher win% against many strategies, if the deck was built to take advantage of its inherent "betterness".
Why we shouldn't be in a vacuum:
Sometime between when I began this post, and now, @mtgaaron Head of MTG R&D chimed in, and explained that he uses "Strictly Better" to compare two cards in a vacuum, and if Card A is better in every way than Card B then it is Strictly so. It's good to know that my Stoic Rebuttal example still fits his definition, but I don't agree with his definition.
Magic is not a vacuum, and neither is the metagame for any given format. This is really the issue here, we don't want to be isolating individual cards as reasons why one card could be better than another, but rather, strategies that an opponent may select before the game begins.
For example, Counterbalance, is of course a card, while it also is the namesake card of an entire Legacy archetype. While, the existance of the card creates the existence of the archetype, its a fine line that says its the archetype that makes it relevant to the discussion. The Counterbalance player (or rather, deck designer) has taken a look at the metagame and said, "I've noticed that in Legacy, most decks run cards that have low casting costs, and run from 0 to about 5. There's a much higher density of those cards in the 1-3 range. I'm selecting a strategy that gives me a strong ability to consistently counter every spell they cast, using other abilities that can manipulate the top card of my library." Here, my example of Stoic Rebuttal vs Cancel still stands, because they both have the same CMC of 3, even though Stoic Rebuttal may actually cost less. There are CERTAINLY times when selecting one card choice over another has been impacted by the existence of this deck, infact I read an article about it this week, and i'll find it and update it here. The fact that making such a card choice is actually better to defeat one strategy, is no trivial fact, it is what we are precisely defining.
Another such example is Chalice of the Void, in mono-brown vintage archetypes. This is the reason why blue players keep both Hurkyl's recall and Rebuild in their 75. While the difference in CMC is not the only reason why one card is not strictly better than another, it is the reason its selected in this case.It is simply another illustration why 2 cards with the same/similar functional ability at different CMC's cannot be considered strictly better in formats where archetypes that can limit the types of CMC's their opponents can play, are available to be chosen.
Many are saying, that without the vacuum, nothing valuable can said.
That may, or may not be true, and I tend to disagree. Each person is going to find different types of information valuable. But lots of valuable things can be said about comparing cards both inside and outside of the vacuum. Basically, if you don't like my definition (see: textbook), then we should simply be using a different term. Just because the definition some have chosen may be more "valuable" to you, doesn't make it correct. I'm going to once more go back to my good ol' ... "Just say better, and then describe quantitatively and qualitatively, how it is better. Using the term strictly better, is rarely correct, and when it is, it probably isn't even describing what you'd like it to."
Hopefully the comments section below will allow the debate to continue in a format that doesn't stop us at 140 characters (after we @ all the interested parties).
Looking forward to the flames!
1) People are not defining "Strictly Better/Worse" correctly. (@modogodot provided a definition he claims WotC R&D uses, and later I'll get into why I disagree. Even if THEY use it, doesn't mean they are correct in what it actually means. EDIT: Since then @mtgaaron did infact use a similar definition to @modogodot, which @modogodot confirmed he agrees with)
2)Magic Players love hyperbole. This doesn't have much to do with this conversation, but is typically how these sorts of things come up. One person uses the phrase in hyperbole, gets shot down, and then mass hysteria ensues.
Onward, Ho!
Game theory, from an academic standpoint, is one of my strengths. This debate, really is, an academic one. It's a debate over how to define the term, not how it impacts game development/design, or actual game play or strategy. Many people are saying, but it's only useful if we define it like this...! We don't define academic terms for their usefulness. "Strictly Better" was not defined for the purposes of MTG, and if it just so happens that you don't find any value in using that term, as its defined, then we probably just shouldn't. If @modogodot (and others) choose to create a different definition, to describe only Magic The Gathering, that's their perogative, but it's never going to be the globally accepted definition of what the term means, and will always continue to create confusion when used.
I (and others including @marshallLRcast) suggested sticking to the term "better". Which is much safer, and easier to debate with out academic minutia. But, here we are, and since I'm particular about my academics, I'm going to set the record straight.
Strictly Better, is a common replacement, for "Strictly Dominant Strategy".
In game theory, the general premise of study is that both players select a strategy before the game begins, then the game happens, and both players execute said strategy, and then there is a result, where each player receives a payoff/outcome from the result of the game. A common example you may already be familiar with is The Prisoner's Dilemma. While that example is not a zero-sum game, like MTG, a much simpler example is Rock-Paper-Scissors is indeed a zero-sum game. Before the game begins, each player mentally selects what they will choose, and after 1-2-3-Shoot, they display their strategy using hand symbols. In this case there is only 3 outcomes: Win(+1), Lose(-1), and Draw(0). There is no Strictly Dominant Strategy in this game, as there is no single choice (or mixture of choices) that is always better than any other. (There is an optimal mixed strategy, that provides the best EXPECTED outcome, but is not strictly best, i'd be happy to write more about mixed strategies if people are interested.)
I digress. Here, we're trying to define "strictly better" as it applies to one MtG card, over another. What the term means in this context is: Card A is better than Card B to be included in a deck, because to combat every given STRATEGY (or card choice etc) the opponent may select, Card A provides an equal or better outcome, never worse.
My example will be: Stoic Rebuttal is strictly better than Cancel.
How much better? Not much really, in most decks not at all, but that's now what we're getting at here.
Common (incorrect) counter-arguments:
Mindslaver-
"My opponent has Mindslaver, when they activate it against me, the cheaper counter may give them the opportunity to counter my own spell when they otherwise wouldn't have."
This is a description of a game state, not a strategy. Stoic Rebuttal is still strictly better at beating the strategy your opponent is playing. If your deck can indeed take advantage of the discounted cost, you're better off at preventing the Mindslaver from resolving, which is far more relevant to how that card will impact the match, as compared to what will happen when the opponent needs to cast it out of your hand. Ultimately, once they've activated Mindslaver on you, they've won the game. So what you have in your hand, and what they do with it, isn't really relevant to what's the best strategy. Even if you did know that all of your opponents on a given day were running Mindslaver, would you choose cancel over stoic? Absolutely not. Maybe if in your deck its literally impossible to Metalcraft, then you would be indifferent between the two cards, but you certainly aren't saying that Cancel is better.
Meddling Mage-
"My opponent cast a meddling mage, naming Stoic Rebuttal! I bet you wish you had a cancel now!?" No, I wish i had a lightning bolt to kill the damned Meddling Mage. That's what makes Meddling Mage good, once they know what IS in the opponents deck, they have the dynamic decision to prevent you from playing it. Unfortunately, NEITHER Cancel, nor Stoic Rebuttal can be defended from that. Maybe you trick your opponent once, by running an inferior card, but it certainly isn't increasing your overall outcome (this is covered in the "equilibrium" part of the link i provided above. In fact they're probably just playing poorly, if they chose to name a card with Meddling Mage, that isn't even in your deck.
Defining Payoffs/Outcomes-
Outcomes, in the case of MTG are your win% against a given strategy over time. Because MtG is a game that contains variance, we must rely on the law of large numbers to assign payoffs to any given card choice. Cancel would never provide a higher win% against any given strategy than Stoic Rebuttal would, but Stoic Rebuttal COULD provide a higher win% against many strategies, if the deck was built to take advantage of its inherent "betterness".
Why we shouldn't be in a vacuum:
Sometime between when I began this post, and now, @mtgaaron Head of MTG R&D chimed in, and explained that he uses "Strictly Better" to compare two cards in a vacuum, and if Card A is better in every way than Card B then it is Strictly so. It's good to know that my Stoic Rebuttal example still fits his definition, but I don't agree with his definition.
Magic is not a vacuum, and neither is the metagame for any given format. This is really the issue here, we don't want to be isolating individual cards as reasons why one card could be better than another, but rather, strategies that an opponent may select before the game begins.
For example, Counterbalance, is of course a card, while it also is the namesake card of an entire Legacy archetype. While, the existance of the card creates the existence of the archetype, its a fine line that says its the archetype that makes it relevant to the discussion. The Counterbalance player (or rather, deck designer) has taken a look at the metagame and said, "I've noticed that in Legacy, most decks run cards that have low casting costs, and run from 0 to about 5. There's a much higher density of those cards in the 1-3 range. I'm selecting a strategy that gives me a strong ability to consistently counter every spell they cast, using other abilities that can manipulate the top card of my library." Here, my example of Stoic Rebuttal vs Cancel still stands, because they both have the same CMC of 3, even though Stoic Rebuttal may actually cost less. There are CERTAINLY times when selecting one card choice over another has been impacted by the existence of this deck, infact I read an article about it this week, and i'll find it and update it here. The fact that making such a card choice is actually better to defeat one strategy, is no trivial fact, it is what we are precisely defining.
Another such example is Chalice of the Void, in mono-brown vintage archetypes. This is the reason why blue players keep both Hurkyl's recall and Rebuild in their 75. While the difference in CMC is not the only reason why one card is not strictly better than another, it is the reason its selected in this case.It is simply another illustration why 2 cards with the same/similar functional ability at different CMC's cannot be considered strictly better in formats where archetypes that can limit the types of CMC's their opponents can play, are available to be chosen.
Many are saying, that without the vacuum, nothing valuable can said.
That may, or may not be true, and I tend to disagree. Each person is going to find different types of information valuable. But lots of valuable things can be said about comparing cards both inside and outside of the vacuum. Basically, if you don't like my definition (see: textbook), then we should simply be using a different term. Just because the definition some have chosen may be more "valuable" to you, doesn't make it correct. I'm going to once more go back to my good ol' ... "Just say better, and then describe quantitatively and qualitatively, how it is better. Using the term strictly better, is rarely correct, and when it is, it probably isn't even describing what you'd like it to."
Hopefully the comments section below will allow the debate to continue in a format that doesn't stop us at 140 characters (after we @ all the interested parties).
Looking forward to the flames!
Friday, March 11, 2011
#FF Follow Friday Edition!
I was up really late last night following the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami, such destruction, my heart goes out to anyone affected by the distaster.
On a lighter note:
Time to try out a new Follow Friday tradition (#FF)! Instead of simply tweeting who I reccomend to follow, I'll give my twitter highlights of the week.
But, before we got to that, I have to do a little plug for my newest article over at QS Insider. This one is about Tracking Your Results.
Which brings me to my first #FF, @modogodot, who allowed me to post his Draft Tracker spreadsheet in my article. Greatly appreciated, dude! While I'm at it, I'll include @MarshallLRcast here too, as the Limited Resource tagteam is the only pair that gets an #FF from me every week. These guys put a lot of time into their podcast at MTGcast.com and deserve all the praise in the world. Typically you can expect great interaction with them about draft picks. This week, not so much, but Marshall chimed in on the sword discussion I had with @chosler88 and @smi77y among others. We all speculated on what the new W/R sword might have for abilities. I still think the White will be a 'demystify' effect, while Red could have Shatter or crush, but @chosler88 mentioned that none of the other swords have a "may" clause. I recently thought that maybe it could be: "... deals damage to a player destroy target enchantment and artifact defending player controls" it takes away the may, and doesn't force you to destroy your own sword. Only time will tell I suppose.
@chosler88 is another QS insider writer, and this guy is a pro, i constantly am picking up good tips from him, and his articles are always slamdunks. Along the QS vein, I also want to plug @fatecreatr who makes the most detailed spreadsheets I've ever seen. In the spike section, @joshjmtg posted some detailed metagame analysis, that was helpful to me.
Other twitter highlights: I got at least 3 links from @wrongwaygoback that made me cackle outloud. This guy is not only an insightful design and EDH blogger, but has a great sense of humor.
@dangerawesome (Dan Barrett) was one of the lucky ones who got a contract out of the SCG talent search, and is trying to name his new column. Everyone vote for my suggestion, Grin and Barrett! (Very punny.) Dan's stuff is always great, check it out, his newest was up earlier this week on starcitygames.com.
Also, @GriffnValentine, who regularly posts his original MTG art, put up a pretty sweet Factory Worker token.
Last, but certainly not least, is @card_kingdom. Rumor has it they're opening a sweet retail/gaming store in the Seattle area and beyond that, they are awesome enough to sponsor Limited Resources podcast.
On a lighter note:
Time to try out a new Follow Friday tradition (#FF)! Instead of simply tweeting who I reccomend to follow, I'll give my twitter highlights of the week.
But, before we got to that, I have to do a little plug for my newest article over at QS Insider. This one is about Tracking Your Results.
Which brings me to my first #FF, @modogodot, who allowed me to post his Draft Tracker spreadsheet in my article. Greatly appreciated, dude! While I'm at it, I'll include @MarshallLRcast here too, as the Limited Resource tagteam is the only pair that gets an #FF from me every week. These guys put a lot of time into their podcast at MTGcast.com and deserve all the praise in the world. Typically you can expect great interaction with them about draft picks. This week, not so much, but Marshall chimed in on the sword discussion I had with @chosler88 and @smi77y among others. We all speculated on what the new W/R sword might have for abilities. I still think the White will be a 'demystify' effect, while Red could have Shatter or crush, but @chosler88 mentioned that none of the other swords have a "may" clause. I recently thought that maybe it could be: "... deals damage to a player destroy target enchantment and artifact defending player controls" it takes away the may, and doesn't force you to destroy your own sword. Only time will tell I suppose.
@chosler88 is another QS insider writer, and this guy is a pro, i constantly am picking up good tips from him, and his articles are always slamdunks. Along the QS vein, I also want to plug @fatecreatr who makes the most detailed spreadsheets I've ever seen. In the spike section, @joshjmtg posted some detailed metagame analysis, that was helpful to me.
Other twitter highlights: I got at least 3 links from @wrongwaygoback that made me cackle outloud. This guy is not only an insightful design and EDH blogger, but has a great sense of humor.
@dangerawesome (Dan Barrett) was one of the lucky ones who got a contract out of the SCG talent search, and is trying to name his new column. Everyone vote for my suggestion, Grin and Barrett! (Very punny.) Dan's stuff is always great, check it out, his newest was up earlier this week on starcitygames.com.
Also, @GriffnValentine, who regularly posts his original MTG art, put up a pretty sweet Factory Worker token.
Last, but certainly not least, is @card_kingdom. Rumor has it they're opening a sweet retail/gaming store in the Seattle area and beyond that, they are awesome enough to sponsor Limited Resources podcast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)