Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Data incomplete

Last night I went up against a U/B Illusions deck (the aggro one with Phantasmal Bears, Dragons and evil, Oh my!) with 0+2=1 and though I was subject to early pressure, I was able to get five lands out by turn 3 and drop a Dirtcowl Wurm, followed next turn by a Sunder.

After the Sunder, my Wurm became a 5/6 and the Illusions player started to get a lot more timid, not playing lands: I don't blame her, because despite getting me down to 8, I was able to cast Meloku and start pumping out 1/1 flyers next turn. The options were difficult: Does she press on trying to get me down or does she have the tools to take me out and so holding back is the best option?

Unfortunately,  her unfamiliarity with the deck (she was borrowing it) meant that she didn't press her advantages as much as she could have and I was able to swing for 17 in a turn, including 11 in the air.

The evening was getting late, so we didn't get another game in and that's too bad. Testing out this particular deck hasn't given me enough data to figure out what's working or not, merely: I either stop or die to The Big Spell. There's got to be more to it than that, so I think I'll be keeping this deck in reserve to get more info from.


  1. Monday Night Tug'n-Taps/Double-Taps is fun and social, but it is really difficult to put in solid 2-out-of-3 testing scenarios.

    We need to get back to doing home-based events again. :)

  2. I am exceedingly reluctant to post people's name w/o permission on the blog. It's just my way--I don't mean to depersonalize anyone, just protect their privacy, so I kick off presuming people want it. I didn't even know she had a blog!

    Has the YWLIJAD deck changed since that posting? There was black mana there so I can only assume the presence of Doom Blade (or like.)

  3. You're speaking to the fact that there are Drowned Catacombs in the deck.

    Those were thrown in there because I was originally going to splash black, but got lazy about removing them once I narrowed down to 60.

    I'll delete/edit the comment if she doesn't approve. I've requested permission.

  4. Thanks for your concern on using my name, but honestly I'm not the most anonymous person. As long as you're not like "OMG that girl was such a bad player and also she is a stupidface" or something. ;)

    If I had known you were play testing the deck, I might have tried to stress its functionality a bit more. As it was, yeah I was still trying to learn the deck I had borrowed from Stonethorn, and thusly was trying to find a sneaky way around bringing out more land that would have just pumped up your creature. That Illusion deck does have a lot of small spells so it *might* have worked under different circumstances.

    Like I said that night, I'm a better defensive than offensive player. I'll work on that. :)

  5. It's hard to say I'm playtesting this deck, as it is roughly 13 years old. Since I have approx 150 decks though, this blog (and my current motive when playing) is go go through those decks and give them a bit of my undivided attention, even if it's only a week's worth.

    But you played how you played: to me that's how we learn. I know it's trite but there is a saying that goes: We cannot see past the choices we don't understand. (Yeah, I got all Matrix there.) If I would say anything, I'd ask: Do you know why you did what you did? (I ask this of stonethorn all the time when we play.)

    The other part is: though I haven't gotten much playtime with this deck, that doesn't mean I haven't learned. Even our matchup gave me something, I just would've liked enough time to get more.

    And gods help me should I ever be so rude and nasty to someone I play cards against, especially online or behind their back. I would not deserve to play the game, much less against such excellent people as yourself.