Build Boring Decks

This is a pretty exhaustive article on draft formats that makes the case for building consistent decks rather than flashy ones. 

It articulates something that I think I've been trying to work towards over the past year: that a cool idea still needs fundamentals to support it. And if the fundamentals aren't there, the cool idea never really crystalizes into a working one. 

I can see it with my deckbuilding choices-even though the current built of Black Wind, Fire & Steel had me focusing a little too narrowly on a creature type, I still made sure to bring a proper curve and kinda boring cards so that I could just play a game of Magic.

And with recent advice I even broadened my scope a little to include more fundamentals (card draw is good) even though thematically it wasn't on. 

I suppose that's why we talk about "Blue shells" for certain decks or "Delver shell" because you start off with that solid base and then play around with 8-10 cards. 

But the basic principles are what I want to remember and I think those things apply regardless of what format I'm building decks for.

Conspiracy Video & Khans of Tarkir Spoiled.

I don't draft often: I find the format a bit too expensive for my blood but I understand the attraction. It's very dynamic and full of choices that reward or punish you right away.

I do like the direction that Wizards has taken the Conspiracy set, though. There's a very cool video of it in action here, and though it's long I think it's a really nice way to give players a taste for what the set is about.

Conspiracy feels a bit like WotC's take on the draft format, in much the same way that Commander sets are their method of approaching the Commander (formerly EDH) format. The video even mentions the 'Command Zone' as a space for the Conspiracies that can be drafted and used, which I think is a very clever way to add to the draft format without creating more rules complexity. Kudos to WotC for coming up with such an elegant solution.

I also like that they're reprinting some critical spells for the eternal format, like Brainstorm, Misdirection and Fact or Fiction. Which, of course, I also don't like because those spells do not have correspondingly powerful analogs in the other colors.

Bitch, bitch, bitch. The important part is that some valuable staples are being reprinted in a format where the goal is to open packs, not to build constructed decks. And besides, it's not true; cards such as Exploration, Swords to Plowshares, Vampire Hexmage and Decimate (a fantastic Commander card) are also being included. These are all useful cards many of which have gotten expensive and if reprints can help keep or bring the prices down, all the better.

Except for Tarmogoyf. Jesus that card is insane.

Next we have the Khans of Tarkir fall set announcement and yeah, there's very, very little to go on.

But here's what I am deducing: the set's symbol and name suggest a Persian influence which is exciting to me for multiple reasons.

First, this harkens back to one of the earliest, actually I believe the first Magic expansion, Arabian Nights. That is an area of culture that Magic hasn't touched on in a long, long time and after Arabian Nights was completed, they decided they wouldn't use established settings for a Magic set again, so Arabian Nights occupies a fairly unique place in Magic's history. This could be a way for Wizards to reclaim some of that history.

There is also a high possibility of a Mongolian theme instead and that works for me as well because I believe it's important for Magic to reach into worlds that are not dominated by white people, which they have been for 2 of the past 3 sets, and Western concepts for 3 of the past 3. And that's the other part that's exciting to me: a chance to see a Magic spin on different myths from cultures I'm very unfamiliar with, because there will inevitably be some brief discussion about where those myths spawn from. A chance for me to learn something interesting is always cool.

There is a huge maybe of the opportunity for Magic to reclaim juuuuust a little bit of the Arabian Nights history via this set, even if it does tilt heavily towards a Mongolian vibe. Allusions, if you will, which I think would be an opportunity for cool little Easter eggs.

Born of the Gods pre-release

I used to do a little better at the pre-releases and I seem to be in a bit of a slump. I went 1-2 last weekend (same as at Gatecrash)and while I had a nice enough time, I just couldn't get the games to fall my way. Yet I don't really feel that concerned. While writing this post, I saw this video on the Knight's Tour, a chess problem that mathematicians have been working on for years. What's interesting about that video, for me, is how people took an already complex problem (how can we use the knight to touch every square on the board) to make an even more complicated problem (let's make a perfect square!)

For me this idea explains a great deal. I am interested in revamping my decks until they work and then my interest tends to fall away. Solving a problem means I don't have to work on it anymore. I think this is why I keep generating decks: they are new problems so solve. But Theros doesn't seem to give me a problem to solve. None of my losses felt as though they were due to player error or a misunderstanding of the environment, or a revelation about how the cards in BotG interacted with Theros. I either had creatures or I didn't, or worse, I just had creatures outclassed by theirs, and that feels more like a luck-based loss than a skilled one.

I started off with a B/W build that I thought had a very solid curve-lots of plays turns 1-3-but it didn't pay off for me in the first match. I was up against an aggressive RW build and couldn't find a fourth land in either game. It's all well and good to have a curve but at some point I still need mana to play the bigger creatures that come along. Never happened. The match was over before match slips had been delivered!

So I decided to use my extra time to look over my deck and change it up. Green had been my original choice over white, but the curve in white was better so that concept won me over. I swapped the white out for green and thought I had a much better gameplan (cast big creatures and hope for the best).

It worked out better in round 2; I went 2-1 against a U/R deck using scry and fliers to pave the way to victory. I was able to mount an offense as well as use Fate Unraveler for the slow burn to keep myself in it. My final play of game 3 involved Bestowing an Setessan Oathsworn with Nylea's Emissary and then attacking for 10.

Unfortunately, my third matchup was not going to be as kind. Playing opposite a BW deck that had Brimaz and played it in games 1 and 2, I was in for an uphill battle. I lost to Brimaz in game one; game two when he showed up on turn 3, I managed to stalemate the board and eventually use Fleetfeather Sandals on Fate Unraveler to fly over for the win.

But game three had me mulligan down to 5 cards. In a limited environment, this is almost akin to conceding. Despite that, I still made a pretty good stance, keeping my opponent off WW by milling at least 3 Plains via two Returned Centaurs but in the end I was just overwhelmed by lifelink and fliers and lifelinked flilers.

What's discouraging is that not only did I not have an answer, I was never going to have an answer. There was not a deck configuration that was going to help me in that game: I could either splash a third color for some removal, and look at losses due to mana screw, or I could do what I did. Mana is so important that I prioritized it over running one copy of Magma Jet, and I think rightly so.

Lesson from the games: Enchantment removal can be used as creature removal, but it is unwise to consider it actual removal.

Math is cool

A couple of interesting articles using math:

First, one on the number of lands you could or should run in Limited.

Next, an article on the fallacy of running only and ever only 61 cards. Some good brainfood--but don't get wrapped around the axle either. Some of the rules in Magic exist so we don't go insane.

Still, if you're not already reading Mr Chang's articles, you are missing out. He's doing some of the best strategy theory I've seen in years.

I don't agree with everything he comes up with, for example, his recent article on why blue is the best color (because it gives you more choices!) should also be read with the comments, as they come out and say: not so much. Blue is frequently the best color because it is given the two strongest abilities in the game at higher regularities and for cheaper costs than other colors, namely card draw and stack interactions but having more choices overlooks the mechanical elements that unbalance the game.

Still, it's worth reading. I don't suggest that everyone start building pro-caliber decks: I merely want to know what choices I am making and why and these articles can help with that. Any reason is valid, so long as I'm willing to accept the consequences.