So, SCG Worcester kick-started Theros Standard, and I thought I'd talk about where I expect the format to go in the next month or so (the timeline could be sped up by a number of factors), but States will likely have a huge impact on the meta.
Worcester clearly established Esper Control and Red-based aggro as the two top dogs of the format. Each deck has variants, and I want to talk about them a little.
Red-based/red-like aggro
Each deck/color brings slightly different tools to the table. Green provides Ghor Clan Rampager and the ability to go bigger via Sylvan Caryatid and a green mid-game, whereas white provides Boros Reckoner, Imposing Sovereign, and Soldier of the Pantheon. Brave the Elements, Boros Charm, God's Willing, and Rootborn Defenses, and Spear of Heliod are also very playable spells that come out of white.
I expect this deck to remain largely unchanged throughout the metagame. The top end varies from Fanatic of Mogis to Chandra to large green men to Stormbreath Dragon to Heliod, but overall the core plan is the same. This archetype will serve as the gateway to the new format, and I believe this time it will stand the test of time. It has significant game against the midrange decks as well as control, and thus I think will stick around, although I do expect the popularity to wane as people become more prepared for the specific cards and lists that aggro players are bringing.
Esper Control
This is going to be the elephant in the room in this format. Esper Control has everything - Thoughtseize, Good removal for creatures and non-creatuers, a 4-mana wrath, solid card flow spells, good planeswalkers, excellent finishers, and a number of very strong trumps. Oh, and they have Sphinx's Revelation to top it all off. Of course, Esper cannot play all the tools, but the fact that it has access to all these tools makes it a very difficult deck to attack in the abstract.
The problem is that Esper can exist on a continuum. Compare Calcano's Esper against my esper and you can see what I am getting at. Esper can shift to be a very Weissman-style deck (much like Calcano's list), or it can go the other direction and be very tap-out-like (my list). These lists have very different strengths and weaknesses, and what works against one Esper list is not likely to work against another. There are some exceptions, and I will go through them here.
Cards that are good against Esper regardless of build:
1. Burning Earth
2. Thoughtseize
3. Planeswalkers (particularly ones that generate threats, a la Xenagos)
4. Non-creature threats (Heliod, Hammer of Purphoros)
5. Aetherling
There are other cards that will be very good against the instant-heavy version and there will be cards that will be good against the tap-out version, but if you run those cards you run the chance of running into an Esper deck that is prepared for them.
If you look at the cards I just listed, you will note that they are only really answered by countermagic and Detention Sphere. This is, I believe, the correct plan to fight Esper Control. I believe Esper can be beaten if you stress its countermagic and Detention Spheres, allowing you to slip though a threat here or there. The issue with this is that you need to apply pressure while doing this, otherwise you give Esper the time to cycle Azorius Charms, use Jace, or play Sphinx's Revelation and ensure that they have sufficient card volume to deal with your threats.
Burning Earth is the biggest threat, but Esper isn't cold to it. In addition to DSphere, Ray of Dissolution is a reasonable answer, and Blood Baron of Vizkopa can fight the card. I think Blood Barons will be in many sideboards for many tournaments to come.
Moving Forward
I expect Esper and UW to remain popular choices. The other major thing I expect to see is the rise of GR midrange.
GR midrange has solid tools for dealing with mono-red in the form of Sylvan Caryatid, Flames of the Firebrand, Anger of the Gods, as well as its own one and two drops (Experiment One, Dryad Militant, Kalonian Tusker, Burning-Tree Emissary, Scavenging Ooze, all the red one and twos as well). This means that the GR midrange deck can actually pack some punch in the early game, due to these ones and twos. This serves two purposes. Firstly, it puts speedbumps in the way of aggro players, allowing the GR player to use their bigger top end to catch up. Secondly, it allows them to apply early pressure against control, much the same way aggro does. It is very easy for GR to set up its maindeck to be reasonable against aggro.
Oh, also, GR Midrange players, Ember Swallower is bad, Flames of the Firebrand is good (it is probably better than Anger)
GR Midrange also has a wealth of tools for combating Esper out of the sideboard. Burning Earth, Hammer of Purphoros, and additional walkers (Domri and Xenagos) will cause headaches for control players, because any one of these threats can take the game by themselves. This plan will overload the control player's Detention Spheres and ultimately cause giant headaches. Just remember to keep in your early creatures so you can force them to tap mana so you can resolve your mid-game threats.
Because of these factors, I foresee a rise in GR Midrange, and we'll hit a format where the midrange deck and the control deck will have to dance around and adapt to what the other side is doing, with mono-red around to keep everyone honest.
Other decks
I think the tools for other decks are relatively weak. Naya midrange seems reasonable, but contrary to popular belief, Voice is pretty horribly positioned right now. It doesn't do enough against aggro (Firefist Striker + Legion Loyalist ensure that), and Esper, especially the tap-out versions, aren't really that greatly bothered by the card. If you really want to be a voice deck, you need to be running one drops in addition to Voice, and that puts you in the terrible spot of being really bad against Esper since you can't genuinely afford a third color (your mana shits on you if you do).
Many of the other midrange control or control shells are just worse versions of Esper, as they either lack the black removal or the blue spells (Jace, Sphinx's Revelation, Supreme Verdict). It is possible that Grixis might be a thing, but I am very skeptical, just as I am very skeptical of the GW-based midrange decks.
I think the field will stabilize in a little while, and there will likely be a metagame development that introduces a new deck, but I think aggro, GR Midrange, and Esper are all here to stay, and I would definitely look at getting one of those decks if you plan on playing this format in the long term.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
SCG Worcester Standard Preparation Review
This is what I played at SCG Worcester:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=59611
Now, I want to talk a little bit about my preparation for the format, and my expectations going forward, and why I was able to identify what was going on at the event and how the format will look going forward. There are three things when preparing for an unknown format:
1) What is the area historically like
2) What do people like playing
3) What is actually good/What will be winning
In answer to the first question, the Boston area is historically very polarized. People like to play aggressive decks (either aggro, midrange aggro, or aggro-control) or they are like me and go ISLANDS ARE FOREVER! With this in mind, I created a testing regimen which allowed me to correctly identify what the field would look like in general and what it would look like at the top.
I began my testing with Naya, mainly because it was a holdover from the old standard and it tested very well intially, however, once a few cards were spoiled (Ashiok in particular) the deck failed to perform and I immediately pushed it aside. That is when I went into looking at a polarized format, as the midrange deck fell apart.
I began testing various forms of red-based aggro, throwing them against control and midrange and they were having quite a lot of success. This told me that red-based or red-like aggro was a real thing, and definitely something to be worried about in the new metagame. Thus, this became a top testing priority.
As the spoiler was unveiled, we were constantly making tweaks to our various aggressive lists and learning a lot. For control, the best thing to test against is the most aggressive lists that are still stable. Control's problem against aggro is not what happens in the midgame (control's cards are always going to be more powerful and help it gain ground), but what happens in the early game. If the aggro deck can get out far enough in front of the control deck, it can often simply ride that lead to victory.
What we found was that the control decks were able to keep up with aggro early, but just barely. Next, we ran the aggro lists against various mid-range lists (mostly ones based on Sylvan Caryatid, Fleecemane Lion, and Voice of Resurgence). Surprisingly we found the more aggressive lists to have match-ups that ranged from okay to amazing. This, combined with our early realization that Ashiok and Esper control had extremely strong mid-range match-ups in general led to the realization that the format was very polarized - aggro and control are good, mid-range is not. This meant that aggro and control would be WINNING.
Now for the question of what would show up. Due to it being the first week of a format, I expected a low density of control. In Boston, this meant enough to make it a dominant force at the top tables, but not in the general field. I did expect various GW-based midrange decks as well as GB-based ones to show up, alongside GR aggro, GR aggro-midrange, GR Ramp, and red-based aggro (I wasn't sure whether mono-red, Boros, or perhaps RB was the best, but they are all essentially the same deck, at least from a control player's perspective). We tested other sorts of decks but very little else stuck
Here's what my preparation showed:
GR midrange was mediocre. A deck based on Mystics and Caryatids would get run over by the aggro decks pretty consistently while not being fast enough to punish the Sphinx's Revelation decks. It would win games on the back of its giant monsters (like this deck always does), but overall I expected a low conversion percentage to the top.
Red-based/red-like aggro was very good (white weenie was included in this), and GR was the best performing version of that deck. GR has the tools to win the aggro mirror (Scavenging Ooze, Rampager, etc), while having strong threats vs. Control (Mistcutter Hydra, Stormbreath, Hammer of Purphoros, Xenagos/Domri). This allows it to stake out a space in which it is strong in many match-ups, and GR came out in my testing as the top aggro or mid-range aggro list (depending on the build). Mono-red showed up late as a contender, and we didn't have time to fully vet it. I knew Fanatic of Mogis and new Chandra were good, and they proved to be slightly better than I expected, but GR did perform very well, according to my expectations.
Esper was also clearly the best control deck. All other builds had problems which we identified.
American Control
American Control has two builds - a superfriends-like version, or an instant-based version centered on Steam Augury. The issue we found was one of defensive deck speed. Especially on the draw, the American deck had issues reacting quickly enough to the persistent threat base that RG or Boros could generate, and would sometimes just get run over by the faster red draws.
Grixis
The lack of a genuine sweeper was a problem against the larger aggro decks, particularly GW running Spear of Heliod. Often a solid number of 4/4's would show up, which is a headache for Grixis. Supreme Verdict proved its value here.
UW
UW ended up not being significantly favored against the faster aggro decks (which I didn't like), and still had very large issues with strong Voice of Resurgence lists. It was, however, not vulnerable to Burning Earth, which was an aspect working in its favor. Mistcutter Hydra proved to be a huge issue for this deck in testing.
Esper
Burning Earth. That is all I have to say.
With an understanding of all the decks, Esper proved to be the deck that provided the most advantages in exchange for its vulnerabilities. The list I ran takes into account most of what happened in our testing.
Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver is extremely strong against mid-range, and still okay against aggro and control. Against aggro, Ashiok has 5 loyalty and forces them to fight it, since all their dudes are the same size and very cheap, Ashiok can often drop multiple dudes pretty quickly, which puts a huge speedbump in their way. Against control, Ashiok can serve the same sort of threat as Ajani Vengeant did, slowly ticking toward the ultimate and threatening to nuke their hand (which is almost as good as nuking their lands). The card is, in fact, very strong and an asset in Esper's toolbag.
Esper has the best removal - Supreme Verdict is the best sweeper and black provides the best spot removal. Grixis has only access to the latter, and American/UW only have access to the former. Far//Away also proved to be an all-star in testing, a result which was confirmed during the event, as I wished I was running more copies of the card.
Esper has a legitimate (though not very good) plan of covering its primary weakness - Burning Earth. Esper can do this by combining Thoughtseize, Annul, Ray of Dissolution, Detention Sphere, and Blood Baron of Vizkopa to fight Burning Earth at pretty much every stage of the game. None of the other control decks can claim this comprehensive coverage of a weaknesses. Esper can shift itself to fight Burning Earth at all stages, and can do so with cards that frequently have value elsewhere, and are thus not simply narrowly directed towards fighting Burning Earth. Note that my final list included all of these cards as a method for covering that weakness.
The list I settled on was designed to cash, and T8 if I got lucky. Since I expected a field of midrange and aggro, but I expected aggro and control to win, I tuned my list to defeat most of the field, and left myself vulnerable to control in G1, with a sideboard plan for games 2 and 3 of bringing in lots of cards and using 7 Duress effects to position myself for the fights properly. This ended up being the correct thing to do (for me) as I faced a bunch of mid range and aggro, all the way to the point where I was effectively a lock for a top 32 position. I drew into the payout against a player playing GW whom, judging by his list, I was probably favored to significantly advantaged against.
In the end, the Top 32 of the event is exactly what I expected, lots of aggro and control, with a smattering of other things that happened to do well/got lucky/were played by very good players.
Going forward, I can't recommend an Esper list like the ones that T8ed, as I feel like the GR midrange aggro decks in particular can effectively adapt to beat them. The combination of threats attacking from a variety of angles (Xenagos, Domri, Mistcutter Hydra, Hammer of Purphoros, Stormbreath Dragon) combined with a general aggressive stance necessitates a proactive approach to control. Going forward, I would play my list with the following changes as a start:
-1 Thoughtseize, -1 Ratchet Bomb, -1 Doom Blade, -1 Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver, +1 Far//Away, +1 Essence Scatter, +1 Syncopate, +1 flex slot.
I think the sideboard is fine, for now.
As to what the finalized list would look like, I'm not sure, but I am very happy with my preparation for the event, and achieved my goal of performing well, although, of course, I would have liked to win the event.
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=59611
Now, I want to talk a little bit about my preparation for the format, and my expectations going forward, and why I was able to identify what was going on at the event and how the format will look going forward. There are three things when preparing for an unknown format:
1) What is the area historically like
2) What do people like playing
3) What is actually good/What will be winning
In answer to the first question, the Boston area is historically very polarized. People like to play aggressive decks (either aggro, midrange aggro, or aggro-control) or they are like me and go ISLANDS ARE FOREVER! With this in mind, I created a testing regimen which allowed me to correctly identify what the field would look like in general and what it would look like at the top.
I began my testing with Naya, mainly because it was a holdover from the old standard and it tested very well intially, however, once a few cards were spoiled (Ashiok in particular) the deck failed to perform and I immediately pushed it aside. That is when I went into looking at a polarized format, as the midrange deck fell apart.
I began testing various forms of red-based aggro, throwing them against control and midrange and they were having quite a lot of success. This told me that red-based or red-like aggro was a real thing, and definitely something to be worried about in the new metagame. Thus, this became a top testing priority.
As the spoiler was unveiled, we were constantly making tweaks to our various aggressive lists and learning a lot. For control, the best thing to test against is the most aggressive lists that are still stable. Control's problem against aggro is not what happens in the midgame (control's cards are always going to be more powerful and help it gain ground), but what happens in the early game. If the aggro deck can get out far enough in front of the control deck, it can often simply ride that lead to victory.
What we found was that the control decks were able to keep up with aggro early, but just barely. Next, we ran the aggro lists against various mid-range lists (mostly ones based on Sylvan Caryatid, Fleecemane Lion, and Voice of Resurgence). Surprisingly we found the more aggressive lists to have match-ups that ranged from okay to amazing. This, combined with our early realization that Ashiok and Esper control had extremely strong mid-range match-ups in general led to the realization that the format was very polarized - aggro and control are good, mid-range is not. This meant that aggro and control would be WINNING.
Now for the question of what would show up. Due to it being the first week of a format, I expected a low density of control. In Boston, this meant enough to make it a dominant force at the top tables, but not in the general field. I did expect various GW-based midrange decks as well as GB-based ones to show up, alongside GR aggro, GR aggro-midrange, GR Ramp, and red-based aggro (I wasn't sure whether mono-red, Boros, or perhaps RB was the best, but they are all essentially the same deck, at least from a control player's perspective). We tested other sorts of decks but very little else stuck
Here's what my preparation showed:
GR midrange was mediocre. A deck based on Mystics and Caryatids would get run over by the aggro decks pretty consistently while not being fast enough to punish the Sphinx's Revelation decks. It would win games on the back of its giant monsters (like this deck always does), but overall I expected a low conversion percentage to the top.
Red-based/red-like aggro was very good (white weenie was included in this), and GR was the best performing version of that deck. GR has the tools to win the aggro mirror (Scavenging Ooze, Rampager, etc), while having strong threats vs. Control (Mistcutter Hydra, Stormbreath, Hammer of Purphoros, Xenagos/Domri). This allows it to stake out a space in which it is strong in many match-ups, and GR came out in my testing as the top aggro or mid-range aggro list (depending on the build). Mono-red showed up late as a contender, and we didn't have time to fully vet it. I knew Fanatic of Mogis and new Chandra were good, and they proved to be slightly better than I expected, but GR did perform very well, according to my expectations.
Esper was also clearly the best control deck. All other builds had problems which we identified.
American Control
American Control has two builds - a superfriends-like version, or an instant-based version centered on Steam Augury. The issue we found was one of defensive deck speed. Especially on the draw, the American deck had issues reacting quickly enough to the persistent threat base that RG or Boros could generate, and would sometimes just get run over by the faster red draws.
Grixis
The lack of a genuine sweeper was a problem against the larger aggro decks, particularly GW running Spear of Heliod. Often a solid number of 4/4's would show up, which is a headache for Grixis. Supreme Verdict proved its value here.
UW
UW ended up not being significantly favored against the faster aggro decks (which I didn't like), and still had very large issues with strong Voice of Resurgence lists. It was, however, not vulnerable to Burning Earth, which was an aspect working in its favor. Mistcutter Hydra proved to be a huge issue for this deck in testing.
Esper
Burning Earth. That is all I have to say.
With an understanding of all the decks, Esper proved to be the deck that provided the most advantages in exchange for its vulnerabilities. The list I ran takes into account most of what happened in our testing.
Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver is extremely strong against mid-range, and still okay against aggro and control. Against aggro, Ashiok has 5 loyalty and forces them to fight it, since all their dudes are the same size and very cheap, Ashiok can often drop multiple dudes pretty quickly, which puts a huge speedbump in their way. Against control, Ashiok can serve the same sort of threat as Ajani Vengeant did, slowly ticking toward the ultimate and threatening to nuke their hand (which is almost as good as nuking their lands). The card is, in fact, very strong and an asset in Esper's toolbag.
Esper has the best removal - Supreme Verdict is the best sweeper and black provides the best spot removal. Grixis has only access to the latter, and American/UW only have access to the former. Far//Away also proved to be an all-star in testing, a result which was confirmed during the event, as I wished I was running more copies of the card.
Esper has a legitimate (though not very good) plan of covering its primary weakness - Burning Earth. Esper can do this by combining Thoughtseize, Annul, Ray of Dissolution, Detention Sphere, and Blood Baron of Vizkopa to fight Burning Earth at pretty much every stage of the game. None of the other control decks can claim this comprehensive coverage of a weaknesses. Esper can shift itself to fight Burning Earth at all stages, and can do so with cards that frequently have value elsewhere, and are thus not simply narrowly directed towards fighting Burning Earth. Note that my final list included all of these cards as a method for covering that weakness.
The list I settled on was designed to cash, and T8 if I got lucky. Since I expected a field of midrange and aggro, but I expected aggro and control to win, I tuned my list to defeat most of the field, and left myself vulnerable to control in G1, with a sideboard plan for games 2 and 3 of bringing in lots of cards and using 7 Duress effects to position myself for the fights properly. This ended up being the correct thing to do (for me) as I faced a bunch of mid range and aggro, all the way to the point where I was effectively a lock for a top 32 position. I drew into the payout against a player playing GW whom, judging by his list, I was probably favored to significantly advantaged against.
In the end, the Top 32 of the event is exactly what I expected, lots of aggro and control, with a smattering of other things that happened to do well/got lucky/were played by very good players.
Going forward, I can't recommend an Esper list like the ones that T8ed, as I feel like the GR midrange aggro decks in particular can effectively adapt to beat them. The combination of threats attacking from a variety of angles (Xenagos, Domri, Mistcutter Hydra, Hammer of Purphoros, Stormbreath Dragon) combined with a general aggressive stance necessitates a proactive approach to control. Going forward, I would play my list with the following changes as a start:
-1 Thoughtseize, -1 Ratchet Bomb, -1 Doom Blade, -1 Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver, +1 Far//Away, +1 Essence Scatter, +1 Syncopate, +1 flex slot.
I think the sideboard is fine, for now.
As to what the finalized list would look like, I'm not sure, but I am very happy with my preparation for the event, and achieved my goal of performing well, although, of course, I would have liked to win the event.
Friday, September 27, 2013
How three lands change everything
So, early in my testing gauntlet I dismissed UW control as unplayable because it lost to basically all of the myriad of aggro and midrange aggro I constructed. It did beat some decks, but most of those were test builds that were designed to push a deck to a particular extreme in one way or another, and weren't actually good decks. I was running them just out of curiosity to see what the strengths and weaknesses of a strategy were if you pushed it. This sort of data is often useful because knowing the strategic extremes allows you to better incorporate those ideas into your gauntlet decks, thus making them stronger.
Throughout testing, I continued to occasionally run decks up against UW to ensure that my results were still valid, not because I thought the deck was good, but because I thought people would play it, so I believed I still had to be ready for it. I think that people often play bad decks, especially in a new format, and that is a major factor when testing for a new format - ensure you beat all the bad decks.
But something funny happened last night. I went to my LGS and people seemed to be on UW. The lists were not that different, except for one change - my UW list was not running Mutavault.
I found it difficult to believe that Mutavault alone could change the results of a deck that performed so poorly in testing, yet I respect the players at my LGS so I didn't dismiss it and went home and swapped out three lands for three Mutavaults and ran the most problematic match-ups for UW from my gauntlet testing (it's a midrange aggro deck), a deck that has been demolishing pretty much every control deck we put in front of it.
UW improved it's results from a projected 20/80 to a projected 50/50.
Three Mutavaults. That was all.
I still don't fully believe what I saw last night but this fact alone means that UW is back on the map, and the deck not being vulnerable to Burning Earth (due to 16 basics), is, in fact, a huge point working in its favor. That was the entire reason I considered the deck in the first place. UW is significantly harder to side against for the aggro/midrange strategies than Esper is due to the lack of Burning Earth as an option. Things like Hammer and Purphoros are still good against it, as are Planeswalkers, but there is no dedicated "I win" card against UW.
A tabled Burning Earth will beat Esper, American, or Grixis most of the time. UW can easily work around it for an extended period of time. This alone means that UW solves one of the main problems I was encountering with the three color control decks - the post board games were difficult because of Burning Earth.
There are a few more hurdles that UW has to overcome, but I will be looking into that today. There are also tweaks that I will definitely be making around the edges of my list, due to what I've discovered from playing the other decks, but it's a strange experience to have such a strong contender appear so late in testing.
All because of Mutavault. !@#$ you Mutavault.
Throughout testing, I continued to occasionally run decks up against UW to ensure that my results were still valid, not because I thought the deck was good, but because I thought people would play it, so I believed I still had to be ready for it. I think that people often play bad decks, especially in a new format, and that is a major factor when testing for a new format - ensure you beat all the bad decks.
But something funny happened last night. I went to my LGS and people seemed to be on UW. The lists were not that different, except for one change - my UW list was not running Mutavault.
I found it difficult to believe that Mutavault alone could change the results of a deck that performed so poorly in testing, yet I respect the players at my LGS so I didn't dismiss it and went home and swapped out three lands for three Mutavaults and ran the most problematic match-ups for UW from my gauntlet testing (it's a midrange aggro deck), a deck that has been demolishing pretty much every control deck we put in front of it.
UW improved it's results from a projected 20/80 to a projected 50/50.
Three Mutavaults. That was all.
I still don't fully believe what I saw last night but this fact alone means that UW is back on the map, and the deck not being vulnerable to Burning Earth (due to 16 basics), is, in fact, a huge point working in its favor. That was the entire reason I considered the deck in the first place. UW is significantly harder to side against for the aggro/midrange strategies than Esper is due to the lack of Burning Earth as an option. Things like Hammer and Purphoros are still good against it, as are Planeswalkers, but there is no dedicated "I win" card against UW.
A tabled Burning Earth will beat Esper, American, or Grixis most of the time. UW can easily work around it for an extended period of time. This alone means that UW solves one of the main problems I was encountering with the three color control decks - the post board games were difficult because of Burning Earth.
There are a few more hurdles that UW has to overcome, but I will be looking into that today. There are also tweaks that I will definitely be making around the edges of my list, due to what I've discovered from playing the other decks, but it's a strange experience to have such a strong contender appear so late in testing.
All because of Mutavault. !@#$ you Mutavault.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Reorienting in the new metagame
Now that the full spoiler is out and I've had to test, I've found out some interesting things about the metagame, and I thought I'd share some thoughts here.
1) The fact that the second set of duals is tap-lands makes the mana slow enough and awkward enough for 1-drops to punish.
This fact means that mono-red, Boros, b/r, or whatever other 1-drop based aggro build you want to play are, in fact, viable. Of course, it goes beyond just putting one drops in your deck, but, if you build your deck to punish stumbles, opposing decks WILL stumble enough for you to actually take advantage of it. You don't have to force your opponent to stumble.
I approve of this fact.
2) The lack of "incidental value" forces focused strategies.
There aren't a lot of cards in this format that grant "incidental value" in the same way that Thragtusk and Huntmaster of the Fells did. For the most part, a lot of the cards are pretty straightforward. This speaks to my favorite distinction in games - strategy vs. tactics.
This format rewards strategic strength, which is something I like.
Why?
Consider a card like Thragtusk. Thragtusk is NEVER bad. It is, tactically, a very strong card. This makes it strategically a very weak card because it does not cater or support one particular strategy significantly more than it supports neighboring strategies (e.g., being slightly more controlling doesn't make your Thragtusks better than the next guy's, neither does being slightly more aggressive). In formats with lots of tactically strong cards, the interactions revolve around these cards and how best to exploit these cards tactically.
Now, consider a card like Sphinx's Revelation. Sphinx's Revelation is a card that greatly rewards playing it strategically. Understanding how, when, and where to use Sphinx's Revelation has a great effect on the efficacy of the card. Strategically placing (in a deck) and utilizing (through play) the card will win and lose you games depending on how good you are at it.
The less cards you have that are tactically strong, the more you have to rely on cards that are strategically strong. The more you rely on strategically strong cards, the more you rely on how the individual moving parts of your deck interact with each other. Tactically strong decks are full of "good stuff" that happens to also interact well. Strategically strong decks can be full of "mediocre or bad stuff" that needs to come together to be much greater than the sum of its parts. Strategy is just as beautiful as tactics, although sometimes it is harder to see.
This is not to say that previous formats have been exempt from strategic play, but overall, I think Magic in recent years has been more centered on tactical play. In the end, many decks recently have been strong because they have been tactically overwhelming. They simply have more options that are equal or superior to what the opponent can do. Strategic play, on the other hand, is beautiful to watch, and has been very lacking. I am glad to see it making a return.
Limited will always be there for players who want to play tactically, as sealed and draft inherently revolve around board states and tactical options. Constructed should always reserve strong aspects of strategic play to balance things out. After all, knowing why and how to use (read, when to put in a deck, how many, and when to play) cards is, in fact, a necessary skill as well in Magic.
3) Tactical play hasn't gone away
There are still a lot of really interesting tactical interactions in this format. Individual card synergies present many different opportunities to utilize interesting aspects of your cards. An example of this is the Whip of Erebos/Obzedat interaction. Cards like Boon Satyr and Ghor-Clan Rampager also create really interesting tactical decisions, never mind something like Boros Reckoner.
Needless to say if you want your deck to have tactical strength and the capability of winning tactical battles, you can still do that.
Conclusion
I have other thoughts, but they've escaped me at the moment, so I'll end this here, but in the meantime I would ask you to think about how your cards are connecting in the decks you build. Not only is having a proper strategic focus important, but it is also important to understand how EACH card fits in that strategic plan, and not just be playing a card because it is "good."
I have a feeling there will be very few objectively "good" cards in this format, but there will be many cards that are excellent at fulfilling a smaller subset of functions, and thus utilizing each card to its maximum potential and having your cards support each other will be more important than it has been in a while.
1) The fact that the second set of duals is tap-lands makes the mana slow enough and awkward enough for 1-drops to punish.
This fact means that mono-red, Boros, b/r, or whatever other 1-drop based aggro build you want to play are, in fact, viable. Of course, it goes beyond just putting one drops in your deck, but, if you build your deck to punish stumbles, opposing decks WILL stumble enough for you to actually take advantage of it. You don't have to force your opponent to stumble.
I approve of this fact.
2) The lack of "incidental value" forces focused strategies.
There aren't a lot of cards in this format that grant "incidental value" in the same way that Thragtusk and Huntmaster of the Fells did. For the most part, a lot of the cards are pretty straightforward. This speaks to my favorite distinction in games - strategy vs. tactics.
This format rewards strategic strength, which is something I like.
Why?
Consider a card like Thragtusk. Thragtusk is NEVER bad. It is, tactically, a very strong card. This makes it strategically a very weak card because it does not cater or support one particular strategy significantly more than it supports neighboring strategies (e.g., being slightly more controlling doesn't make your Thragtusks better than the next guy's, neither does being slightly more aggressive). In formats with lots of tactically strong cards, the interactions revolve around these cards and how best to exploit these cards tactically.
Now, consider a card like Sphinx's Revelation. Sphinx's Revelation is a card that greatly rewards playing it strategically. Understanding how, when, and where to use Sphinx's Revelation has a great effect on the efficacy of the card. Strategically placing (in a deck) and utilizing (through play) the card will win and lose you games depending on how good you are at it.
The less cards you have that are tactically strong, the more you have to rely on cards that are strategically strong. The more you rely on strategically strong cards, the more you rely on how the individual moving parts of your deck interact with each other. Tactically strong decks are full of "good stuff" that happens to also interact well. Strategically strong decks can be full of "mediocre or bad stuff" that needs to come together to be much greater than the sum of its parts. Strategy is just as beautiful as tactics, although sometimes it is harder to see.
This is not to say that previous formats have been exempt from strategic play, but overall, I think Magic in recent years has been more centered on tactical play. In the end, many decks recently have been strong because they have been tactically overwhelming. They simply have more options that are equal or superior to what the opponent can do. Strategic play, on the other hand, is beautiful to watch, and has been very lacking. I am glad to see it making a return.
Limited will always be there for players who want to play tactically, as sealed and draft inherently revolve around board states and tactical options. Constructed should always reserve strong aspects of strategic play to balance things out. After all, knowing why and how to use (read, when to put in a deck, how many, and when to play) cards is, in fact, a necessary skill as well in Magic.
3) Tactical play hasn't gone away
There are still a lot of really interesting tactical interactions in this format. Individual card synergies present many different opportunities to utilize interesting aspects of your cards. An example of this is the Whip of Erebos/Obzedat interaction. Cards like Boon Satyr and Ghor-Clan Rampager also create really interesting tactical decisions, never mind something like Boros Reckoner.
Needless to say if you want your deck to have tactical strength and the capability of winning tactical battles, you can still do that.
Conclusion
I have other thoughts, but they've escaped me at the moment, so I'll end this here, but in the meantime I would ask you to think about how your cards are connecting in the decks you build. Not only is having a proper strategic focus important, but it is also important to understand how EACH card fits in that strategic plan, and not just be playing a card because it is "good."
I have a feeling there will be very few objectively "good" cards in this format, but there will be many cards that are excellent at fulfilling a smaller subset of functions, and thus utilizing each card to its maximum potential and having your cards support each other will be more important than it has been in a while.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Thoughts after the full reveal
So, Theros is completely spoiled, and I want to talk a little bit about how I feel about the set.
In many respects, I am underwhelmed by Theros, and in others I am very excited. The set as a whole seems very flavorful, but I'm not a fan of the way it looks like the mechanics will play out in limited. This format seems to either be about voltroning dudes up or playing with large monsters. IMO it looks very swingy or board-stally, maybe both. Neither of those factor are things I enjoy in formats. I'm concerned by the lack of good removal, particularly at instant. Also, I wish some of the Bestow guys were better, but maybe the mechanic is stronger in limited than I think it is.
Would this have been too much to ask for?
Bestow Griffin - 2W
Creature - Griffin
Flying
When Bestow Griffin or enchanted creature dies, put a 2/2 Griffin token into play
Bestow 2W
2/2
Or maybe this:
Bestow Elephant - 2G
Creature - Elephant
When Bestow Elephant or enchanted creature dies, put a 3/3 Elephant token into play
Bestow - 2G
3/3
Astute observers will recognize these as Bestow versions of Griffin Guide and Elephant Guide. Obviously these are too strong at common (maybe even at uncommon), but I think they would've made cool rares and are likely constructed playable.
Anyway, I don't want to spend a whole ton of time on limited because it's not my forte, but my initial impressions of this limited format are mediocre, although I'll reserve judgment until I actually play it. I'll be playing quite a few prerelease flights, as well as SCG Worcester team sealed, so by the end of that I'll have a decent idea of what the format looks like.
Constructed, on the other hand, looks excellent. There's a strong variety of decks and strategies, and even strategies that look similar can diverge in interesting ways. I'm still not a fan of the creature-focused-ness of Standard in general, but I've long since accepted that I can no longer play creature-less 75's on a regular basis, even if I would like to; doesn't mean I have to like it :-p.
Anyway, the way I see it, this is how the metagame is shaping out.
Aggro
There seem to be a wide variety of aggro strategies. I'm sure some of these will float to the top, but right now it appears if you want to be attacking early, there are quite a few options. Red-based aggro (RG, Mono-red, Boros) all looks good, especially with Madcap Skills, which has proven extremely strong in testing. Of the three, I like RG the best, but only because it seems to have the best game against Control. Mistcutter Hydra and Xenagos have both proven to be very resilient threats, and alongside some good aggressive openings can generally cause problems.
I think the mono-colored options outside red are for White Weenie and maybe mono green. I haven't tested Mono-green, but WW looks promising. Heliod and Mutavault give the deck a bit more of a mid-game than is historically present in WW, and Imposing Sovereign often allows WW to establish tempo advantages. The quality of the threats WW has is actually very high, which definitely works to the deck's benefit. It is still vulnerable to Supreme Verdict, but that's to be expected.
Midrange
I'm not really sure what's going on here. I'm sure there's a midrange deck, but I can't seem to find it. The manabase seems to be the primary issue. The Scry lands essentially prevent you from being 3 colors, but being 2 colors I feel it's better to tilt more aggressive, as the pressure you can apply just wins you games. Also, this makes Madcap Skills better, a card which often allows you to just run over the slightly slower 3-color midrange decks.
The only real exception to this has been GW Tokens. Tokens has performed very well in the creature match-ups, but hasn't been great against control. There may be a strong sideboarding plan to fix that, but I haven't found it yet. Even so, I don't expect control to be a huge part of the field, so playing Tokens and hoping to get lucky may be a viable choice.
I'll be keeping my eyes out, but I haven't really seen a good option for midrange or mid-range control. Mid-range aggro like RG is pretty good, but I discussed that in the "aggro" section.
Control
Esper has been our control deck in testing, and it's performed fairly well. I haven't had the time to really take a second look at American or a look at Grixis, but I don't really see many other options beyond those three. I still think Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver is an excellent metagame choice given the number of creatures I expect to see, but Steam Augury is a compelling reason to play red. American will have serious issues vs. Mistcutter Hydra (not something I look forward to, as it is one of the strongest threats, even with Esper's suite of Black removal and Far//Away), and Grixis only has Anger of the Gods as a sweeper.
I find it hard to believe a control deck other than Esper will rise to the top, as I feel like that deck has the best tools. It is, of course, not impossible, because Steam Augury is VERY good, but I just don't think the supporting tools are there yet.
Other
There are quite a few interesting brews (Whip, various devotion builds, maybe something with Bestow or centered on the new Cabal Coffers), but I am unsure that any of those can genuinely stick. The Aggro decks all look very good at applying pressure, which puts a real constraint on trying to do something interesting/cool. It's definitely possible, but there's a lot of work involved.
Ramp has been okay, as long a it runs Hammer of Purphoros. Without that card, the deck is simply too vulnerable to Doom Blade. But, for those of you who like to cast giant monsters, you can do that. Just make sure you have Mistcutter Hydra and Hammer.
Anyway, that's what I've seen as far as playing this new Standard format. I'm happy to talk ideas with people.
In many respects, I am underwhelmed by Theros, and in others I am very excited. The set as a whole seems very flavorful, but I'm not a fan of the way it looks like the mechanics will play out in limited. This format seems to either be about voltroning dudes up or playing with large monsters. IMO it looks very swingy or board-stally, maybe both. Neither of those factor are things I enjoy in formats. I'm concerned by the lack of good removal, particularly at instant. Also, I wish some of the Bestow guys were better, but maybe the mechanic is stronger in limited than I think it is.
Would this have been too much to ask for?
Bestow Griffin - 2W
Creature - Griffin
Flying
When Bestow Griffin or enchanted creature dies, put a 2/2 Griffin token into play
Bestow 2W
2/2
Or maybe this:
Bestow Elephant - 2G
Creature - Elephant
When Bestow Elephant or enchanted creature dies, put a 3/3 Elephant token into play
Bestow - 2G
3/3
Astute observers will recognize these as Bestow versions of Griffin Guide and Elephant Guide. Obviously these are too strong at common (maybe even at uncommon), but I think they would've made cool rares and are likely constructed playable.
Anyway, I don't want to spend a whole ton of time on limited because it's not my forte, but my initial impressions of this limited format are mediocre, although I'll reserve judgment until I actually play it. I'll be playing quite a few prerelease flights, as well as SCG Worcester team sealed, so by the end of that I'll have a decent idea of what the format looks like.
Constructed, on the other hand, looks excellent. There's a strong variety of decks and strategies, and even strategies that look similar can diverge in interesting ways. I'm still not a fan of the creature-focused-ness of Standard in general, but I've long since accepted that I can no longer play creature-less 75's on a regular basis, even if I would like to; doesn't mean I have to like it :-p.
Anyway, the way I see it, this is how the metagame is shaping out.
Aggro
There seem to be a wide variety of aggro strategies. I'm sure some of these will float to the top, but right now it appears if you want to be attacking early, there are quite a few options. Red-based aggro (RG, Mono-red, Boros) all looks good, especially with Madcap Skills, which has proven extremely strong in testing. Of the three, I like RG the best, but only because it seems to have the best game against Control. Mistcutter Hydra and Xenagos have both proven to be very resilient threats, and alongside some good aggressive openings can generally cause problems.
I think the mono-colored options outside red are for White Weenie and maybe mono green. I haven't tested Mono-green, but WW looks promising. Heliod and Mutavault give the deck a bit more of a mid-game than is historically present in WW, and Imposing Sovereign often allows WW to establish tempo advantages. The quality of the threats WW has is actually very high, which definitely works to the deck's benefit. It is still vulnerable to Supreme Verdict, but that's to be expected.
Midrange
I'm not really sure what's going on here. I'm sure there's a midrange deck, but I can't seem to find it. The manabase seems to be the primary issue. The Scry lands essentially prevent you from being 3 colors, but being 2 colors I feel it's better to tilt more aggressive, as the pressure you can apply just wins you games. Also, this makes Madcap Skills better, a card which often allows you to just run over the slightly slower 3-color midrange decks.
The only real exception to this has been GW Tokens. Tokens has performed very well in the creature match-ups, but hasn't been great against control. There may be a strong sideboarding plan to fix that, but I haven't found it yet. Even so, I don't expect control to be a huge part of the field, so playing Tokens and hoping to get lucky may be a viable choice.
I'll be keeping my eyes out, but I haven't really seen a good option for midrange or mid-range control. Mid-range aggro like RG is pretty good, but I discussed that in the "aggro" section.
Control
Esper has been our control deck in testing, and it's performed fairly well. I haven't had the time to really take a second look at American or a look at Grixis, but I don't really see many other options beyond those three. I still think Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver is an excellent metagame choice given the number of creatures I expect to see, but Steam Augury is a compelling reason to play red. American will have serious issues vs. Mistcutter Hydra (not something I look forward to, as it is one of the strongest threats, even with Esper's suite of Black removal and Far//Away), and Grixis only has Anger of the Gods as a sweeper.
I find it hard to believe a control deck other than Esper will rise to the top, as I feel like that deck has the best tools. It is, of course, not impossible, because Steam Augury is VERY good, but I just don't think the supporting tools are there yet.
Other
There are quite a few interesting brews (Whip, various devotion builds, maybe something with Bestow or centered on the new Cabal Coffers), but I am unsure that any of those can genuinely stick. The Aggro decks all look very good at applying pressure, which puts a real constraint on trying to do something interesting/cool. It's definitely possible, but there's a lot of work involved.
Ramp has been okay, as long a it runs Hammer of Purphoros. Without that card, the deck is simply too vulnerable to Doom Blade. But, for those of you who like to cast giant monsters, you can do that. Just make sure you have Mistcutter Hydra and Hammer.
Anyway, that's what I've seen as far as playing this new Standard format. I'm happy to talk ideas with people.
Friday, September 13, 2013
White Weenie in Theros?
I came up with some ideas yesterday that look promising if you are an aggressive player. White Weenie in particular seems interesting, and RG aggro has potential but I don't have a good list yet. Here's WW though
4 Dryad Militant
4 Soldier of the Pantheon
4 Precinct Captain
4 Daring Skyjek
4 Imposing Sovereign
4 Boros Reckoner
3 Spear of Heliod
3 Heliod
3 Banisher Priest
4 Brave the Elements
19 Plains
4 Mutavault
Normally I avoid White Weenie like the plague, but this deck actually has some game, so I thought I'd throw it out there. Cedric Phillips would be happy.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
More format shifts from Theros spoilers
So, I finally got around to testing Mono-Red, and it was surprisingly good against a deck filled with Watchwolves. The culprit is simple - Madcap Skills. I didn't expect that card to completely turn around the match-up, but it almost does that single-handedly. Post board is a different animal, but even Unflinching Courage may not be enough by itself, and, if Unflinching Courage needs help vs. Mono-Red, well, the format is really going to be interesting.
The plan of the Watchwolf deck is to use one larger creature (Watchwolf/Loxodon Smiter/Boros Reckoner) to hold off a swarm of smaller creatures (Foundry Street Denizen, Rakdos Cackler, BTE, Gore House Chainwalker, whatever). The problem with that plan is that Madcap Skills turns it on its head. Combined with sufficient burn, it's not hard to delay the critical "2-creature" count until its too late.
Legion Loyalist also has its part to play, as an army of watchwolves isn't necessarily so good when you can force through Foundry Street Denizen (because it can have 3 power).
Here's the kicker - I did my mono-red testing without the new Jackal Pup. The new Jackal Pup only makes the deck stronger, as Legion Loyalist now has another 1-drop to help push past an army of 3/3's. I'd look at the following list:
4x Firedrinker Satyr
4x Rakdos Cackler
4x Foundry Street Denizen
4x Legion Loyalist
4x Burning Tree Emissary
4x Firefist Striker
4x Madcap Skills
4x Skullcrack (could be a number of things, but Skullcrack seems to be the best for now)
4x Lightning Strike
4x Magma Jet
16x Mountain
4x Mutavault
Note: Goblin Shortcutter is also available to this deck, and it might be a viable sideboard card
Now, this deck definitely has a lot of weaknesses. It's not amazing, but it IS blisteringly fast and dirt cheap to build, so likely similar decks will show up from time to time in this format. It likely won't dominate the format, but mono-red is a constraint you have to think about when building. You do need a plan against this deck, and it will likely come and win a few tournaments when people forget it exists and thus underprepare for it.
The other card spoiled that changes things is Anger of the Gods (the new Slagstorm). Here's what that card does:
1) Counters much of the pressure put on the format by mono-red
2) Makes the watchwolf plan much, much, much worse as there is a sweeper at 3 now as well as 4
3) Gives American Control support for Verdict (not that it needs it)
4) Gives Grixis Control a much needed sweeper for early game dudes
5) Deals SIGNIFICANT splash damage to the RG ramp/rampish strategies. Zhur-Taa Druid, Llanowar Elves, and the Caryatid will suffer a lot of splash damage as Control decks will now have an effective means of slowing ramp down.
Anger of the Gods will be the next place I go in my testing, to see how it impacts how various control decks are positioned. Before, I felt Esper was slightly better positioned than American (even with Steam Augury), and I don't think Anger changes that, but it may push Grixis into the territory of viability. After all, having access to 8 Duress effects as well as Steam Augury seems very strong in the control mirror. No Sphinx's Revelation, but American will never resolve that card against Grixis and Esper might have some trouble doing the same.
This format continues to excite me, as the strategic and tactical tensions are very tight. I approve.
Also: Ashiok continues to perform very very well in testing. I think it's time to get on the train people.
[edit] This means I'm basically putting down Naya. I will still look at it periodically, but the deck needs major revisions, and I will probably only come back to it after the full spoiler is released. Potential exists, but it really is being stretched very thin, and may be past the breaking point at this juncture.
[edit] This means I'm basically putting down Naya. I will still look at it periodically, but the deck needs major revisions, and I will probably only come back to it after the full spoiler is released. Potential exists, but it really is being stretched very thin, and may be past the breaking point at this juncture.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Naya - The Reveal
So, I've had a change of heart about revealing my gauntlet Naya list. It's not really revolutionary, but no one is talking about the deck and I really don't understand why. It stomps most of the random brews we've thrown against it. The deck is really strong, really consistent, and really good (it's also really expensive, but we won't go there yet). I haven't really done much with the sideboard, as the full spoiler isn't out yet, but you can get a decent idea of what cards are good looking at block sideboards for the deck. The key here is to realize that the Theros temples mean Naya cannot run 1 drops, and thus becomes a bigger deck.
Big Naya:
4x Voice of Resurgence
4x Fleecemane Lion
2x Scavenging Ooze
4x Loxodon Smiter
3x Boros Reckoner
4x Ghor Clan Rampager
4x Stormbreath Dragon
3x Purphoros, God of the Forge
4x Domri Rade
4x Flex Slot (currently 2x Mizzium Mortars and 2x Selesnya Charm)
4x Temple Garden
4x Sacred Foundry
4x Stomping Ground
3x R/W temple
3x R/G temple
3x Selesnya Guildgate
2x Forest
2x Plains
Throw your random brews against this monster, because I'm pretty sure this is the gatekeeper deck of the format. Some notes:
Domri + Purphoros is really really really good. You can only run 2x Purphoros if you want to get to 60 cards, but I think the 3rd one is correct. 25 lands is definitely correct.
The flex slots are genuinely flex slots. Run whatever you want, the deck will perform fine as long as the cards in those slots are fairly functional in aggressive builds.
Voice is the card that is underperforming the most. You'll still want the card, but we're playing around with lists that don't have the full 4 maindeck right now.
If you play the deck correctly, the mana doesn't generally get too much in the way of playing your threats in a timely manner, as your curve is so strong. Sometimes you might play a 3 drop on turn 4 but that's fine, given the quality of threats in your deck. This deck is simply very consistent at producing a stream of 3/3 and 4/4 threats to beat your opponent's face in. It works.
This is the gauntlet list we've been testing against and why we feel Naya is the gatekeeper deck of the format. Seriously, run stuff up against it; you'll see how good it is.
Big Naya:
4x Voice of Resurgence
4x Fleecemane Lion
2x Scavenging Ooze
4x Loxodon Smiter
3x Boros Reckoner
4x Ghor Clan Rampager
4x Stormbreath Dragon
3x Purphoros, God of the Forge
4x Domri Rade
4x Flex Slot (currently 2x Mizzium Mortars and 2x Selesnya Charm)
4x Temple Garden
4x Sacred Foundry
4x Stomping Ground
3x R/W temple
3x R/G temple
3x Selesnya Guildgate
2x Forest
2x Plains
Throw your random brews against this monster, because I'm pretty sure this is the gatekeeper deck of the format. Some notes:
Domri + Purphoros is really really really good. You can only run 2x Purphoros if you want to get to 60 cards, but I think the 3rd one is correct. 25 lands is definitely correct.
The flex slots are genuinely flex slots. Run whatever you want, the deck will perform fine as long as the cards in those slots are fairly functional in aggressive builds.
Voice is the card that is underperforming the most. You'll still want the card, but we're playing around with lists that don't have the full 4 maindeck right now.
If you play the deck correctly, the mana doesn't generally get too much in the way of playing your threats in a timely manner, as your curve is so strong. Sometimes you might play a 3 drop on turn 4 but that's fine, given the quality of threats in your deck. This deck is simply very consistent at producing a stream of 3/3 and 4/4 threats to beat your opponent's face in. It works.
This is the gauntlet list we've been testing against and why we feel Naya is the gatekeeper deck of the format. Seriously, run stuff up against it; you'll see how good it is.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
SCG Worcester Prep - Standard
So, I'm looking ahead to SCG Worcester and have been preparing for the event. I'm going to keep the specific list I've been running a secret, but, I'm willing to talk about the format in general and what I have found. Here's the primary thing to realize:
Naya Midrange is EXTREMELY efficient and very hard to deal with. If your strategy isn't focused and prepared, the deck will simply tear it apart.
This means that I would stay away from random brews and 1-drop based aggro unless you are convinced they can handle Naya. For the brews, that is possible but unlikely. I'm pretty sure anything playing Rakdos Cackler and/or Experiment One is just going to get its ass kicked by Naya.
I am not playing the strategy, but a friend of mine is, so I won't post our exact list, but, sufficed to say, it's not really that much of a mystery. Play a bunch of 3/3's and 4/4's with Domri and go to town, we do have some special tech prepared though, so that's why I'm not posting the full 75.
My own personal plan is to play Esper, as I indicated last time. The list has changed quite a bit with new reveals, and there is definitely a lot of tech in the Esper list. I will talk about it more publicly after the event. If you are interested in tap-out control though, let me know. It is not impossible for me to be persuaded to give out some tech.
Now, for something I can tell you. This deck is good, can handle Naya, and probably can handle the random stuff. I think Esper is slightly better, so I'm not playing it, but if you are inclined to play this sort of deck, you are welcome to start here:
4x Chain to the Rocks
4x Syncopate
2x Essence Scatter
3x Render Silent
2x Mizzium Mortars
4x Supreme Verdict
3x Detention Sphere
2x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
2x Turn//Burn
4x Steam Augury
3x Sphinx's Revelation
4x Steam Vents
4x Hallowed Fountain
4x Sacred Foundry
4x Azorius Guildgate
4x Island
2x Mountain
1x Plains
Weissman-style control is viable, and is a threat in this format. You can play Aetherling in the Elspeth slot if you really want, and some number of Heliod might be good. I threw this main together last night after seeing Steam Augury and played with it a bit. It definitely has a lot of teeth, but from testing against Esper and Naya, I still feel more comfortable playing Esper.
Well, that's all
Naya Midrange is EXTREMELY efficient and very hard to deal with. If your strategy isn't focused and prepared, the deck will simply tear it apart.
This means that I would stay away from random brews and 1-drop based aggro unless you are convinced they can handle Naya. For the brews, that is possible but unlikely. I'm pretty sure anything playing Rakdos Cackler and/or Experiment One is just going to get its ass kicked by Naya.
I am not playing the strategy, but a friend of mine is, so I won't post our exact list, but, sufficed to say, it's not really that much of a mystery. Play a bunch of 3/3's and 4/4's with Domri and go to town, we do have some special tech prepared though, so that's why I'm not posting the full 75.
My own personal plan is to play Esper, as I indicated last time. The list has changed quite a bit with new reveals, and there is definitely a lot of tech in the Esper list. I will talk about it more publicly after the event. If you are interested in tap-out control though, let me know. It is not impossible for me to be persuaded to give out some tech.
Now, for something I can tell you. This deck is good, can handle Naya, and probably can handle the random stuff. I think Esper is slightly better, so I'm not playing it, but if you are inclined to play this sort of deck, you are welcome to start here:
4x Chain to the Rocks
4x Syncopate
2x Essence Scatter
3x Render Silent
2x Mizzium Mortars
4x Supreme Verdict
3x Detention Sphere
2x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
2x Turn//Burn
4x Steam Augury
3x Sphinx's Revelation
4x Steam Vents
4x Hallowed Fountain
4x Sacred Foundry
4x Azorius Guildgate
4x Island
2x Mountain
1x Plains
Weissman-style control is viable, and is a threat in this format. You can play Aetherling in the Elspeth slot if you really want, and some number of Heliod might be good. I threw this main together last night after seeing Steam Augury and played with it a bit. It definitely has a lot of teeth, but from testing against Esper and Naya, I still feel more comfortable playing Esper.
Well, that's all
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Looking ahead to Theros
So, I think it's about time that we begin looking ahead to Theros. From what I've heard, the general consensus appears to be that we are looking at a control and mid-range dominated format. Here's why:
1) Naya loses very little.
2) Many of the good 2 for 1 creatures are rotating (Thragtusk, I'm lookin' at you)
3) Geist/Invisible Stalker are rotating
4) Monstrous, Heroic, and Bestow indicate a format focused around large creatures, either by their own making (Monstrous) or Voltron (Bestow). Heroic plays into this because it gives you side benefits for Voltron-ing smaller dudes.
5) Cavern of Souls is rotating
All in all, I think this means that countermagic and spot removal become MUCH stronger post rotation. Now, we can look to the cards themselves.
As far as strategy-defining cards are concerned, I think Sphinx's Revelation is the strongest card we have. Other cards may prove to be stronger overall, but most of those are more generalist (e.g. Voice). I think 2nd place in this category goes to either Burning Tree Emissary or Domri Rade (yes, being mono-creature is strategy-defining).
So, why is Sphinx's Revelation the strongest strategy-defining card? Sphinx's Revelation is, right now, the endgame of control. Why is control good in the new format?
1) Naya is a big aggro deck. Traditionally, control is good against big aggro because they are still vulnerable to Wrath and are generally not fast enough to punish the control player for durdling. Domri Rade messes with this a little, but we have tools for him (will be addressed later)
2) Thoughtseize is very good for control (it is also good against control, but information is one of the most valuable assets to a control player).
3) Supreme Verdict gets a lot better
4) The introduction of Doom Blade provides a good removal spell
5) Many of the good haste creatures are rotating, so fast aggro will have less reach and slow aggro will have less ability to put pressure on post-Wrath.
6) The tools for control are there.
7) Standard has been very creature-based recently, and this format looks to be no exception. However, like I said before, the strategy of Wrath + removal + counters got a lot better.
The critical cog in the wheel of control is a card I think many people have not really thought about - Merciless Eviction. What does Merciless Eviction accomplish?
1) Allows you to leave in a couple Wraths for the control mirror, because it can kill Jace/new Elspeth, as well as the new gods.
2) It kills Fluffy without triggering him (Underworld Cerberus for the non-initiated)
3) Artificially inflates your Wrath count against big aggro because it kills Domri Rade
4) At the end of the day, it's still a six mana wrath, which historically we have always been willing to pay for in Standard
Merciless Eviction is not great at anything. Six mana wraths have always come with side benefits, and Eviction's ability to "handle" other threats is the benefit of playing the card. Combined with DSphere and Thoughtseize, Esper should be able to keep most of the major non-creature threats out of its hair, allowing the rest of the deck to focus on what control does best - stomping decks that want to attack a lot.
The best way to build a specific deck is, in fact, to build the 60 you want to be playing in each match-up, then aggregate. Right now, I'm looking at Control, Naya, and some form of faster swarm aggro as major archetypes. It's possible there will be some form of rock-ish deck incoming, but it lost enough in the last rotation that Theros is going to be a major component of either a Doran-colored or Jund-colored list. Since the specific threats this list is running will be greatly relevant to what I want to be doing against it, I'm leaving it out of the process for now. These are the lists I came up with.
vs. Esper:
4x Negate
4x Render Silent
4x Cancel
4x Thoughtseize
4x Duress
2x Read The Bones
3x Detention Sphere
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Sphinx's Revelation
3x Jace, Architect of Thought
vs. Naya:
4x Doom Blade
4x Thoughtseize
3x Essence Scatter
2x Celestial Flare
1x Warped Physique
4x Supreme Verdict
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Detention Sphere
3x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
4x Sphinx's Revelation
vs. Swarm Aggro:
4x Doom Blade/Ultimate Price
4x Warped Physique
4x Supreme Verdict
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Detention Sphere
4x Fiendslayer Paladin
3x Jace, Architect of Thought
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
3x Sphinx's Revelation
3x Read the Bones
Aggregate list:
4x Thoughtseize
3x Doom Blade
2x Far//Away
2x Warped Physique
3x Detention Sphere
2x Merciless Eviction
4x Supreme Verdict
3x Sphinx's Revelation
2x Read the Bones
2x Jace, Architect of Thought
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
2x Render Silent
3x Essence Scatter
1x Negate
Sideboard:
4x Fiendslayer Paladin
2x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
3x Negate
4x Duress
1x Render Silent
1x Sphinx's Revelation
Just my two cents on where I think this format is going.
1) Naya loses very little.
2) Many of the good 2 for 1 creatures are rotating (Thragtusk, I'm lookin' at you)
3) Geist/Invisible Stalker are rotating
4) Monstrous, Heroic, and Bestow indicate a format focused around large creatures, either by their own making (Monstrous) or Voltron (Bestow). Heroic plays into this because it gives you side benefits for Voltron-ing smaller dudes.
5) Cavern of Souls is rotating
All in all, I think this means that countermagic and spot removal become MUCH stronger post rotation. Now, we can look to the cards themselves.
As far as strategy-defining cards are concerned, I think Sphinx's Revelation is the strongest card we have. Other cards may prove to be stronger overall, but most of those are more generalist (e.g. Voice). I think 2nd place in this category goes to either Burning Tree Emissary or Domri Rade (yes, being mono-creature is strategy-defining).
So, why is Sphinx's Revelation the strongest strategy-defining card? Sphinx's Revelation is, right now, the endgame of control. Why is control good in the new format?
1) Naya is a big aggro deck. Traditionally, control is good against big aggro because they are still vulnerable to Wrath and are generally not fast enough to punish the control player for durdling. Domri Rade messes with this a little, but we have tools for him (will be addressed later)
2) Thoughtseize is very good for control (it is also good against control, but information is one of the most valuable assets to a control player).
3) Supreme Verdict gets a lot better
4) The introduction of Doom Blade provides a good removal spell
5) Many of the good haste creatures are rotating, so fast aggro will have less reach and slow aggro will have less ability to put pressure on post-Wrath.
6) The tools for control are there.
7) Standard has been very creature-based recently, and this format looks to be no exception. However, like I said before, the strategy of Wrath + removal + counters got a lot better.
The critical cog in the wheel of control is a card I think many people have not really thought about - Merciless Eviction. What does Merciless Eviction accomplish?
1) Allows you to leave in a couple Wraths for the control mirror, because it can kill Jace/new Elspeth, as well as the new gods.
2) It kills Fluffy without triggering him (Underworld Cerberus for the non-initiated)
3) Artificially inflates your Wrath count against big aggro because it kills Domri Rade
4) At the end of the day, it's still a six mana wrath, which historically we have always been willing to pay for in Standard
Merciless Eviction is not great at anything. Six mana wraths have always come with side benefits, and Eviction's ability to "handle" other threats is the benefit of playing the card. Combined with DSphere and Thoughtseize, Esper should be able to keep most of the major non-creature threats out of its hair, allowing the rest of the deck to focus on what control does best - stomping decks that want to attack a lot.
The best way to build a specific deck is, in fact, to build the 60 you want to be playing in each match-up, then aggregate. Right now, I'm looking at Control, Naya, and some form of faster swarm aggro as major archetypes. It's possible there will be some form of rock-ish deck incoming, but it lost enough in the last rotation that Theros is going to be a major component of either a Doran-colored or Jund-colored list. Since the specific threats this list is running will be greatly relevant to what I want to be doing against it, I'm leaving it out of the process for now. These are the lists I came up with.
vs. Esper:
4x Negate
4x Render Silent
4x Cancel
4x Thoughtseize
4x Duress
2x Read The Bones
3x Detention Sphere
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Sphinx's Revelation
3x Jace, Architect of Thought
vs. Naya:
4x Doom Blade
4x Thoughtseize
3x Essence Scatter
2x Celestial Flare
1x Warped Physique
4x Supreme Verdict
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Detention Sphere
3x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
4x Sphinx's Revelation
vs. Swarm Aggro:
4x Doom Blade/Ultimate Price
4x Warped Physique
4x Supreme Verdict
2x Merciless Eviction
3x Detention Sphere
4x Fiendslayer Paladin
3x Jace, Architect of Thought
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
3x Sphinx's Revelation
3x Read the Bones
Aggregate list:
4x Thoughtseize
3x Doom Blade
2x Far//Away
2x Warped Physique
3x Detention Sphere
2x Merciless Eviction
4x Supreme Verdict
3x Sphinx's Revelation
2x Read the Bones
2x Jace, Architect of Thought
3x Blood Baron of Vizkopa
2x Render Silent
3x Essence Scatter
1x Negate
Sideboard:
4x Fiendslayer Paladin
2x Elspeth, Sun's Champion
3x Negate
4x Duress
1x Render Silent
1x Sphinx's Revelation
Just my two cents on where I think this format is going.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Well, I'm back again, let's talk design
So, I'm using this post to revive my blog, which never really got off the ground. This is, obviously, a Magic: The Gathering blog but I may post some other things occasionally. I will try to keep a regular update schedule
Darwin Kastle recently wrote a good article exploring what he feels are some design issues in Magic briefly. I'm going to cover my opinions on what he talked about as well (some in more detail), as well as some things he didn't talk about.
Mana Problems
I think Darwin is on the other side of a bug/feature relationship with this as far as Magic is concerned. There are people who feel that mana screw/flood is a bug in the game that needs to be solved, whereas I feel that it is just an inherent feature of the game. Mechanics like Kicker and Flashback are great ways of dealing with this, but I feel like land//spell split cards are a bad idea.
Skill Testers
I can see where Darwin is coming from here, and I want to make a clearer definition of Skill Testers. I see three basic categories of skill testers.
1) Waste of cardboard - these cards are no good. They will never have a sufficiently large impact on the game to be worth a card. Vanilla 1 mana 1/1's are often an example of this. Another example would be something like this - 1W Sorcery, Gain 2 life.
2) Over-costed, but functional card - These are cards that are clearly over-costed, but do have a discernible impact, if played, in a reasonable number of situations. Cyclops Tyrant is an example of this.
3) Sideboard cards - These are pretty self-explanatory. Examples range from cards like Naturalize to Leaf Arrow.
Of these three categories of cards, I think 2 and 3 are fine, but I would like to see a reduction in the number of cards that fall into category 1. The crucial thing to remember about card design is the following:
Card power is completely relative. For there to be good cards, there must be bad cards as well.
The interesting thing comes in HOW you make cards bad. Basically, there are three ways of making a card bad:
1) Make it not-functional
2) Make it under-powered.
3) Narrow its effective application
Not-functional cards are wastes of cardboard. They do not have sufficient impact on the game state to do anything. They are a necessary evil, but I would seek to minimize the number of these.
Narrow or under-powered cards, however, do have function, and thus, by definition, are skill-testing. Because the situations in which they are good are infrequent, it requires skill to identify those situations. This allows stronger players to differentiate themselves from weaker players, which I think is a good thing.
Looking at Green
I think Darwin makes an excellent point regarding the dials thing. It is, in fact, the core issue with green. There are two major dials for making cards useful and good. Most strong cards push on both of these dials, but often one of these dials is turned up significantly higher than the other.
1) The numbers are strong
2) The card provides a lot of util options
Let's look at a relevant comparison. Historically blue has been the best color in Magic, something that I myself have written about here. Let's take a look at two recent standard staples that showcase the dichotomy I'm talking about - Thragtusk and Snapcaster Mage.
Why is Thragtusk good? Thragtusk is good because the numbers are strong. The card itself would be weaker if we tweaked the numbers down, even if we left everything else the same. Example
NeoTusk - 4G
Creature - Beast
When NeoTusk comes into play, gain 3 life.
When NeoTusk leaves play, put a 2/2 Bear token into play
3/3.
If you look at it, this card is reasonable for 4G, but it is definitely weaker than Thragtusk. Thragtusk's strength lies in its numbers.
Now, compare it to Snapcaster Mage. Assuming you preserve the functionality of the card, would Snapcaster Mage lose a whole ton if it were a 1/1 instead of a 2/1? Not really. The reason is because Snapcaster Mage's strength is in the options it provides the blue player. The ability to get back another spell is the primary draw of Snapcaster Mage. Thus, Snapcaster Mage's strength is in the options it provides.
The problem with green is that green cards are almost invariably turning the "numbers" dial. Rumbling Baloth is good because it is a 4 mana 4/4, which means it is good because it is a sizable creature. It's a dumb card, and doesn't really allow the player to make any interesting decisions. This is very common among green cards.
Recently Wizards has been moving away from that. The addition of the fight mechanic and the fact that it's being pushed is a good thing, particularly for limited. I would like to see this mechanic pushed more, as well as other flavorful ways for green to interact in interesting ways. Here's an example.
Ambush -
If a creature your opponent controls is attacking and unblocked you may pay if you do, put CARDNAME into play blocking that cat creature.
The templating of this ability is probably off, but I think something similar would be interesting as a green mechanic.
The addition of more cards like Scavenging Ooze also bodes well. Scavenging Ooze has its "options" dial turned higher up than a lot of green cards, and thus represents the sort of card I would like to see more often.
However, the primary issue of green is still a lack of methods of generating card advantage, particularly in limited. Basically, raw creature size nullifying opposing dudes is still green's primary method of generating advantage. I would like to see that change. I may have said this before, but I do believe that moving Sorcery speed mass draw into green is a positive change. Leave blue with Forbidden Alchemy, Ponder, Impulse, and Divination. Give green Tidings and Harmonize.
Anyway, that's most of what I wanted to talk about. Tune back in for my magical musings on a semi-regular basis.
Darwin Kastle recently wrote a good article exploring what he feels are some design issues in Magic briefly. I'm going to cover my opinions on what he talked about as well (some in more detail), as well as some things he didn't talk about.
Mana Problems
I think Darwin is on the other side of a bug/feature relationship with this as far as Magic is concerned. There are people who feel that mana screw/flood is a bug in the game that needs to be solved, whereas I feel that it is just an inherent feature of the game. Mechanics like Kicker and Flashback are great ways of dealing with this, but I feel like land//spell split cards are a bad idea.
Skill Testers
I can see where Darwin is coming from here, and I want to make a clearer definition of Skill Testers. I see three basic categories of skill testers.
1) Waste of cardboard - these cards are no good. They will never have a sufficiently large impact on the game to be worth a card. Vanilla 1 mana 1/1's are often an example of this. Another example would be something like this - 1W Sorcery, Gain 2 life.
2) Over-costed, but functional card - These are cards that are clearly over-costed, but do have a discernible impact, if played, in a reasonable number of situations. Cyclops Tyrant is an example of this.
3) Sideboard cards - These are pretty self-explanatory. Examples range from cards like Naturalize to Leaf Arrow.
Of these three categories of cards, I think 2 and 3 are fine, but I would like to see a reduction in the number of cards that fall into category 1. The crucial thing to remember about card design is the following:
Card power is completely relative. For there to be good cards, there must be bad cards as well.
The interesting thing comes in HOW you make cards bad. Basically, there are three ways of making a card bad:
1) Make it not-functional
2) Make it under-powered.
3) Narrow its effective application
Not-functional cards are wastes of cardboard. They do not have sufficient impact on the game state to do anything. They are a necessary evil, but I would seek to minimize the number of these.
Narrow or under-powered cards, however, do have function, and thus, by definition, are skill-testing. Because the situations in which they are good are infrequent, it requires skill to identify those situations. This allows stronger players to differentiate themselves from weaker players, which I think is a good thing.
Looking at Green
I think Darwin makes an excellent point regarding the dials thing. It is, in fact, the core issue with green. There are two major dials for making cards useful and good. Most strong cards push on both of these dials, but often one of these dials is turned up significantly higher than the other.
1) The numbers are strong
2) The card provides a lot of util options
Let's look at a relevant comparison. Historically blue has been the best color in Magic, something that I myself have written about here. Let's take a look at two recent standard staples that showcase the dichotomy I'm talking about - Thragtusk and Snapcaster Mage.
Why is Thragtusk good? Thragtusk is good because the numbers are strong. The card itself would be weaker if we tweaked the numbers down, even if we left everything else the same. Example
NeoTusk - 4G
Creature - Beast
When NeoTusk comes into play, gain 3 life.
When NeoTusk leaves play, put a 2/2 Bear token into play
3/3.
If you look at it, this card is reasonable for 4G, but it is definitely weaker than Thragtusk. Thragtusk's strength lies in its numbers.
Now, compare it to Snapcaster Mage. Assuming you preserve the functionality of the card, would Snapcaster Mage lose a whole ton if it were a 1/1 instead of a 2/1? Not really. The reason is because Snapcaster Mage's strength is in the options it provides the blue player. The ability to get back another spell is the primary draw of Snapcaster Mage. Thus, Snapcaster Mage's strength is in the options it provides.
The problem with green is that green cards are almost invariably turning the "numbers" dial. Rumbling Baloth is good because it is a 4 mana 4/4, which means it is good because it is a sizable creature. It's a dumb card, and doesn't really allow the player to make any interesting decisions. This is very common among green cards.
Recently Wizards has been moving away from that. The addition of the fight mechanic and the fact that it's being pushed is a good thing, particularly for limited. I would like to see this mechanic pushed more, as well as other flavorful ways for green to interact in interesting ways. Here's an example.
Ambush -
If a creature your opponent controls is attacking and unblocked you may pay
The templating of this ability is probably off, but I think something similar would be interesting as a green mechanic.
The addition of more cards like Scavenging Ooze also bodes well. Scavenging Ooze has its "options" dial turned higher up than a lot of green cards, and thus represents the sort of card I would like to see more often.
However, the primary issue of green is still a lack of methods of generating card advantage, particularly in limited. Basically, raw creature size nullifying opposing dudes is still green's primary method of generating advantage. I would like to see that change. I may have said this before, but I do believe that moving Sorcery speed mass draw into green is a positive change. Leave blue with Forbidden Alchemy, Ponder, Impulse, and Divination. Give green Tidings and Harmonize.
Anyway, that's most of what I wanted to talk about. Tune back in for my magical musings on a semi-regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)