Editorial Section:
Chapter 1:
Pick a deck (RDW in my case). Acquire the cards you can and build a road map for acquiring the cards you need. What can you do without, what can you use in the mean time. Pick a deck with the style you like. Pick a deck that you can become comfortable with. I wasted a lot of time, energy and tickets during Alara Block Constructed trying to work out an XColor Control deck I liked, when in point of fact, I really should have been playing Jund all along. It was a mix of pride and over-confidence on my part. I don't have the time or, quite frankly, the skill required to eek out wins in Block constructed with a deck based around knowing the best play and the best outs for every threat I see on the stack across from me. As such, I should have focused on either Jund, Naya, Tropical Hut or some other aggressive deck. Even if 5 Color Control was the best deck in the format; in my hands it wasn't the best deck. Instead of using my skills to force my opponent to have answers I tried to perform above my skill level and paid the price for my arrogance. Knowing what I know now, I realize I should have been playing aggro decks the entire time. Maybe I still wouldn't have won the daily events but I would have optimized my chances of at least placing in the prizes on occasion. And that, is how someone needs to get started with competitive magic if you're not made of money. Find a deck that performs well enough for you to win some packs and start to improve or branch out.
Interestingly enough, this topic is one of the least written about of all the topics I've put in the list so far (the rest are below). However, I found it kind of odd that I couldn't really find an article talking about the way a player chooses a deck... and I after some time reading and reading and reading the answer dawned on me. Good players write strategy articles for sites. Good players can play pretty much any deck better than I can. A good control deck in a good player's hands is far more potent than in mine. Likewise, good players can play mid-range, rock, combo and aggro better than I can. So when they write about a good deck they're doing it in the mindset that they can play any deck better than the average player. From their perspective the only deck to play is the best deck in the format; since they'll have the best results in any given tournament. BUT! For the rest of us, for the average or slightly above/below average player, this is not always the best course of action. Sometimes the best deck takes too much skill or effort to profitably pilot. At this point, the best deck in the format is no longer the best deck in the format for that person. Maybe with lots of testing, lots of work and lots of preparation it COULD be the best deck for that person. And if the player in question realizes that their time or skill is just not where it needs to be to utilize the best deck it could be that the best deck for that person in that format is a more forgiving or more explosive deck.
But not everyone plays the same decks the same ways. For instance, some players may just grok combo decks better than the others. Some people just understand the way handle a mid-range deck's resources compared to the others. Others just really feel comfortable running some sort of control decks. To these players the "Best Deck in the Format" may not be THEIR best deck in the format. So with this in mind it's probably a good idea to ask yourself a few questions for the format you are looking at getting into or improving.
- What decks have I had success with in the past?
- What deck type am I the most comfortable with?
- Are there any decks in format that I like?
- Can I afford the deck that I want to play?
- If not, can I be competitive with changes to the deck?
Once you know what you WANT to play the next step becomes a bit more important, and that is actually building it and playing it. It's not a stretch to say that many people can't just run out and build the decks they want to play whenever they want to. For the great many that have to make sacrifices for the deck they like to play then they really need to figure out if the deck they desire is even within their grasp. Some things can be moved around a little bit without too much of a loss in functionality. For example, back in the days of Affinity Arcbound Ravagers were pretty pricey. They were a huge part of the deck but weren't the only way for that deck to do what it needed to do. Atog was often run in decks alongside Ravager and sometimes instead of. Trade-off's will cost a few percentage points of speed, damage, tempo, power, etc. But as long as you can get close, and are comfortable with the deck you should be able to make enough in the two man queues and Daily Events to fund finishing off the deck.
Going forward in the next few chapters I'll visit some other concepts in a coherent and repeatable manner. I'm building this and will be appending the chapters week to week. I'm doing it in a week to week fashion since there is a ton of articles and words written for each of these, but none of them compile them into one coherent itinerary style format. Next week, I'll cover a lot of things that happen to destroy people's chancing of winning. Feel free to add any additional topics I may have missed in the comments! I'll add them in and cover them in the next few weeks, along with reference materials to study.
Chapter 2: Tightening your play
Long time readers will know that I recently found a system for tightening my play that I've been using to good effect; it's the OODA loop as described by Alexander Shearer here (http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/in-development-observe-orient-decide-act/). The article goes over ways of keeping yourself from making silly play mistakes like missing a land drop, tapping the wrong mana for the wrong payments, forgetting "on board" tricks and so on. I'm happy to say that many of my foolish moments have been rectified by applying the details listed in that article; both on MTGO and in my Paper playing times. The very best thing about this article is that it is one of the few universal articles I've seen about the concept. There have been dozens and dozens of articles about making the right play, but sadly, they tend to get mired in format or match-up specific circumstances. Sometimes, in some formats, it's the right play to run a 2/2 creature into a 2/2 creature on turn three (namely, Onslaught block with morphs). The person on their back foot would almost never risk a block. That's a clearly distinct difference from the normal "right play" of most sealed formats.
Instead of a slew of format specific thoughts, the OODA loop article explains how to apply very general principals to your games and make better plays throughout each match. The one bone I'd pick with the article is that it makes a huge jump from mid-level player to high-level player. That's not to say that the details in the article are wrong. Far from it, they're all very, very good. However, there's almost too much for a new-to-tournament player to understand and apply right off the bat. The curve is so steep. Begin by focusing on the weakest areas of your play. And I guarantee that almost everyone reading these words right now has a 'weak area' or two. Heck, I think I have five... at least. But focus on those first. Of course, that assumes everyone is self aware enough to KNOW what their weak points are. To get us thinking about some of the more typical issues in Magic, let's answer a couple questions to see if anything jumps out at us.
1) Do you ever lose a creature to an on-board block/trick?
2) Do you ever alpha strike for 1 or two less than you expected to?
3) Do you get surprised by a block or attack that your opponent makes?
4) When playing around a card, do you stick with it?
5) Have you seen a better play seconds, or a turn, after making a mistake?
6) Have you forgotten cards in your hand that could have been used profitably?
If you answered "yes" or even "sometimes" to any of those questions, you've just narrowed down a place to start. Losing a creature, resource or tempo to something that's plainly visible is a far too common mistake, and one I recently made myself. It involved an
Aura Gnarlid with which I played in auto-pilot mode. I simply became too used to it not being blockable and ran it into a creature that could, quite obviously, block it. Nothing on the board should ever surprise me like that, and it crushed me, knowing that I made such an obvious mistake. Thankfully I don't usually punt games like that, however, even once is often enough to get my attention that I need to keep working on my OODA Loop. But let's get back to the answers regarding the above questions.
1) Do you ever lose a creature to an on-board block/trick?
If the answer is yes, then that's a very significant sign that you are probably not playing very tightly at all. There is no excuse for missing an on board situation. Magic is a great game, largely due to the hidden information aspect. You don't know your opponents hand, nor his library layout. You have to guess at some levels and you have to use learned experiences... those things you don't know should create enough challenge for you to win. Missing a trick the opponent may or may not have in hand is one thing... missing a plain as day trick on the board is quite another.
2) Do you ever alpha strike for 1 or two less than you expected to?
Similar to #1, but not quite as bad and kind of ties into the next one. If you think you can attack for lethal in an alpha block and miscount the damage that you can get through or the damage it would take to kill your opponent, that is indicative of sloppy play. Sometimes you have to make a play that you know will not kill your opponent if they block correctly; or if they have one of any number of tricks. Sometimes you're just up against the wall and have to go for whatever sliver of victory you might be able to grab or have to attempt a win via a bluff. That's a tough call to make but certainly an understandable one. That's not the same as just misreading your damage amount or their available blockers though.
3) Do you get surprised by a block or attack that your opponent makes?
As I mentioned above, this ties in with #2. Sometimes you think your opponent would have to be crazy to a make a block when you send in a better creature into battle, only to realize, too late, that they left it back because they have a trick up their sleeve. It's hard to get a read on your opponent on MTGO, but some things certainly should stick out like a sore thumb. One of which is leaving back a perfectly good attacker, and mana, while you attack into it next turn. It *could* be that they just want to scare you away from attacking, or it will more often be a telegraph that they have something worth doing to your attacker.
4) When playing around a card, do you stick with it?
This one's a bit more advanced, and I sadly can't find the article I first read about the concept. But the gist of it is this: if you start to play around <card that will beat you> do you keep playing around it until it won't? Generic examples of this concept involve playing around a removal spell in limited for two turns but then trying to play an aura that you really want to resolve? If you start to play around it the best course of action is to continue to play around it for as long as it takes to get yourself out of danger. If your opponent has the card you fear, you make them use it sub-optimally. If they don't, you're playing sub-optimally. That's the trade-off, of course. And as with every "rule" to Magic, this one has its own built in rule breaking moments. For example, if the only way you'll win is by throwing a
Snake Umbra onto an
Aura Gnarlid and swing, you have to risk your opponent having the
Heat Ray or other such removal.
5) Have you seen a better play seconds, or a turn, after making a mistake?
Again, this is loose play at it's finest (worst?), but better than the above. At least you're beginning to *see* the mistakes that you probably just ignored or didn't notice before you started watching for misplays. The solution for this is very simple; slow. down. Think things through, and use something like the OODA loop I linked before. Even though catching the mistake is good, making that mistake is still as bad as ever.
6) Have you forgotten cards in your hand that could have been used profitably?
This may seem unbelievable to some, but it happens far too often to not be mentioned. I've seen a few examples of this recently, generally with draft decks, where someone has a card in hand but forgets or doesn't realize that the card can be used. Like
Demystify while facing down an Umbra'd creature, or not removing a frustrating enchantment that's messing with attacking and blocking... in the same turn of the same game. The answer is the same as most of these issues; slow down and think about the game state, what's important and what you have to do about it. Even if there's nothing you think you can do about it, you really should double or triple check the board state and your hand to ensure you're not holding an answer.
Thankfully for MTGO, there's a lot of things that you don't have to handle to keep up good "tight play". Things like "may" abilities trigger automatically. Things like shuffling and cutting and randomizing a deck. But of course, there are things that MTGO can lull you into a missed play due to the way it works and handles so many other things. I've lost count of the number of
Hammer of Bogardan returns I missed in 8th edition leagues. Keeping your stops set correctly is perhaps the biggest loose play that is MTGO specific. Keeping you stops at a minimal level is crucial for expedient game play, however, the likelihood of missing an at-will upkeep card increases. Once you cast the card, set the stop. Even if you may not need it the next turn, or at the next opportunity, just get the stop there until you need it or for sure won't need it.
Reference Articles:
Alexander Shearer's
In Development - Observe, Orient, Decide, Act
Mike Flores'
Catachresis:
Ken Collier's
The Tao of Silent Bob: Ten Things You Are Doing Wrong
Jeff Cunningham's
Managing Mana Screw
Alexander Shearer's
In Development
Chapter 3: Sideboarding
I spent a lot of time thinking about a good analogy for the art of sideboarding... the one I liked the best to date is to liken it to a bra hook while in high school. You probably understand the mechanics of it, and you know that success hinges on your ability to use it. However what is missing is lack of preparation and practice under pressure.
Considering the fact that at least half of your high level games will be sideboard based it is baffling to me that so little effort is placed on the sideboard by players. I've seen some very interesting theories and thoughts on practical sideboarding lately. It used to be that general consensus for sideboarding involved figuring out good cards to bring in against certain matchups, which is still the way that many people operate today. This works particularly well when one of the sideboard card is dedicated hate for a certain matchup. Recent examples include bringing in
Kor Firewalker to deal with Red Deck Wins decks, however many other cards have served this purpose in the past. Cards like
Chill and
Warmth were run for the same reason as the Firewalker is now. Dredge forced people to run sideboard hate for removing graveyards, and so on. When there's a clear-cut hoser for a deck type a top down approach works really well.
But not all sideboard slots are created equally. It's not at all surprising to see that some slots are dedicated to fixing a matchup against a certain archetype instead of one specific deck. Say, like bringing in more creature removal to fix a bad matchup against aggressive decks, or bringing in uncounterable threats against counter spell heavy decks.
Another question to figure out just how much are you willing to sacrifice to fix a bad match-up. Having a White Weenie deck run
Kor Firewalker in the sideboard isn't much of a stretch for the improvement in the match-up as you can usually just swap out one two drop 2/2 for another one. However, if you're keeping up with a lot of the winning decks in the MTGO events you'd notice that decks that COULD run the firewalker are largely ignoring them for other lifegain effects that are better in general, as opposed to dedicating four slots to hose one specific deck. This generally tends to happen when a that has been hated out of a format disappears from the meta... decks that could run the specific hate don't need to do so. This is the question that Bant, Mythic, and U/W(x) decks are seeing right now. It's no longer worth the slots to hose RDW. As such, they have weakened themselves to the RDW god-hands, but have strengthened themselves against the rest of the field. However, sometimes, a match-up is just so bad that you have to either dedicate a lot of your sideboard to get to 50%+ in the match-up, and when that happens, it becomes a case of weakening your sideboard greatly against the rest of the field. At times, this is an okay trade off; other times it's unacceptable. Assuming the deck you have a horrible match-up against isn't the dominant deck in the field, you may decide that you just want to ignore that match-up and focus on beating the more popular decks you'll face.
The contrary questions becomes how much are you willing to sacrifice to keep a good match-up good. If you have a good sideboard for the close match-ups you'll have to figure out what the odds are of an opponent's sideboard being able to overwhelmingly improve their match-up against you. If you know that you'll have a very hard fight in games two and three after boarding then you must determine if the sacrifice of the sideboard against other decks is worth it...
If it seems like there's a lot of game/counter-game/counter-counter-game going on, that's the trick. Sometimes you'll get lucky and be able to nail a metagame and have the exact right sideboard for the match.
That's all the old thoughts about the approaches to sideboarding ... we have recently been privy to some interesting new thoughts on sideboarding. Instead of thinking about what to bring in, you consider what the worst cards are for each match-up. Once you've identified the suboptimal cards in each match-up you then move into finding the overlapping answer cards. The more decks and match-ups a card improves the higher the value you give it, within reason, of course. By doing it this way you essentially approach the sideboard in reverse. Instead of finding answers and plugging them into the deck, you find the the worst cards and plan their removal.
Lastly for the week, we have a rather unique approach to sideboarding in that you essentially change your deck between the main deck and sideboard. The concept is known as "transformational sideboarding" and it has been around for a good long while. There have been numerous decks that start out as, say, a mid-range deck and depending on the opponent's deck you turn it into a full on control deck out of the board. There have also been times when an easily hated out Combo deck turns into a straight aggressive deck out of the board which would keep the combo itself from being disrupted.
Additional Reading:
MTGO Academy -
Star City Games' Transformational Boarding-
Chapter 4: Practicing the right way
Chapter 5: Preparing for the tournament, physically and mentally
Chapter 6: Playing at the high level
Discussion Items:
New price champion - JACE!
Recently Jace the Mind Sculptor took the crown of "most expensive card on MTGO" from the previous champion of Force of Will. Jace is seeing play in many formats and in many decks and has a ton of extra value due to the current Pro Tour Qualifier season.
Card Price Discussion:
As mentioned above, Jace has taken the crown for Force of Will and is now squarely in the lead. I don't know how long this will last, since it is likely partially due to the fact that the MTGO PTQ's. However, even after that's all said and done I think he's going to be super high for a good long while. The shelf-life of Worldwake has the same as any last set, except for the fact that it's a second set instead of a last set...
As for some of the more impressive movers, Avenger of Zendikar has taken some huge leaps lately on the heels of some good showings with a G/u Landfall-esque deck. Kargan has been put to good use in many of the RDW and DDW decks of late. Entomb holds onto some INSANE prices in the eternal formats and a slew of Mythics climb up this week as well.
As for droppers... Natural Order took a HUUGGEEE hit this week for reasons I'm unsure of. I don't think that there are any huge events with nix tix for the set any time soon, so I'm still a bit confused about that swing. Except for Gideon, all the other 'by value' droppers were eternal based, which tracks with last week's movements for those same types of cards.
Card Price Charts:
Card Price Graphs:
avenger of zendikar chart
kargan dragonlord chart
entomb chart
master of the wild hunt chart
all is dust chart
time warp chart
sterling grove chart
oracle of mul daya chart
nirkana revenant chart
dragonskull summit chart
avenger of zendikar chart
oracle of mul daya chart
nirkana revenant chart
master transmuter chart
cast through time chart
kargan dragonlord chart
master of the wild hunt chart
khalni hydra chart
drowned catacomb chart
ball lightning chart
natural order chart
wasteland chart
force of will chart
tundra chart
taiga chart
null rod chart
tropical island chart
vampiric tutor chart
underground sea chart
gideon jura chart
natural order chart
wasteland chart
open the vaults chart
undiscovered paradise chart
fulminator mage chart
sunken ruins chart
beastmaster ascension chart
goblin recruiter chart
cephalid coliseum chart
blood moon chart
51 Comments
reason Natural Order plummeted so badly is because it comes in a Precon deck for 12.99. Still at 16 tix it's over priced
Hmmm which precon is that? I don't recall hearing about that.
I've had a look round the net and I cant find anything, do you have any more info?
I thought it dropped because we just had MVW NixTix and a ton got released. Not sure what Precon you are talking about... I gess it is possible as it's not on the reserved list...
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Savage_Stompdown
RE: picking a deck. I think the local meta you deal with also has a huge impact on whether the deck you have selected can go the 10 yards. I have seen people build decks that ripped up the top tiered decks because they knew the players they would face, knew how they liked to sideboard, knew every card in their deck and basically they didn't necessarily have a high skill level but they had a wealth of information. I think that is a key point. I do acknowledge that your skill level should dictate what kind of deck you choose but I don't think it is the only factor to consider. When I played semi competitively, I found that aggro control or mid-range suited my temperament better than aggro or control and I never liked playing combo because it felt like one wrong play would end the game. I loved Squirrel Prison, I loved Malka Rock, I hated Prosbloom, I hated Stroking Moma even though I tested and designed my own version. I loved UW rebels but hated Sligh. I played a mono blue counterwall deck at one large event and went 5-2 but hated it more than any other event I played previously. (My losses were to two local pros.) My point is the best deck for you to play must also be one you love playing. If you love it you will learn all the nuances and that will prepare you for whatever your opponents throw at you. Like any art form practice makes perfect.
I am not a huge fan of the method of mechanistic looping you suggest as it requires a sort of constant state of awareness that is beyond me. I am more likely to screw something up by trying to do it right than I am just playing the way I usually do. I do lose focus sometimes but again I think this comes down to how much you want it. Do you really want to win? Do you have the will to play even though you are taking a huge beating so that you can top deck the game winner at 1 life? This is I think far more important than the perhaps dozens of tiny mistakes you can make which might lead to a loss. I've known some amazingly sloppy players who just love to win more than anything else and they do despite their insanely bad plays.
I am not really arguing that people shouldn't do it that way, just saying it isn't a 100% solution to poor play. And for some of us no solution at all. Imho practice with the deck you are playing is much more important to be consistent. Magic is a thinking game. The more you can think in chunks and the less in bits, the better your planning will be. Now sometimes you have to analyze every detail and look for every out on each side before deciding your play but usually that time consuming process is over kill. Most people are not that careful.
Sideboading strategies are either really hard or really easy. Not usually will there be a middle ground. Everyone knows burn hates life gain so if you are facing RDW, tossing in Kor Firewalkers is probablya good idea. But Chill is a situationally good card against some red decks and not so good against others. I am not saying you shouldn't side it in against RDW for example but it isn't as clearly good as Kor Firewalker. It has the same problem that Stone Rain has. It's effectiveness dies to land draw.
"we have recently been privy to some interesting new thoughts on sideboarding. Instead of thinking about what to bring in, you consider what the worst cards are for each match-up. Once you've identified the suboptimal cards in each match-up you then move into finding the overlapping answer cards. The more decks and match-ups a card improves the higher the value you give it, within reason, of course. By doing it this way you essentially approach the sideboard in reverse. Instead of finding answers and plugging them into the deck, you find the the worst cards and plan their removal. "
This should be in sideboarding 101. You always have to consider what part of your deck isn't performing against the opposing deck. What cards are dead or mostly nullified? What also do you EXPECT to be dead when your op correctly sides against your deck. That is all part and parcel of the sideboarding basics. Again I prefer a more holistic intuitive approach to the mechanistic analytical approach but essentially they both boil down to the following: cull the cards you know are not working, cull cards that you expect to be weakened, bring in cards that will do better in those slots.
Another thought about Sideboarding is the transformational sideboard. This idea is also important because if done well it can catch your opponent off guard. Switching out 15 control cards for 15 aggro creatures/spells could be just the mind game you need to win game 2 and or 3. This is tricky if your opponent knows you can do this but if you catch them unprepared you can just win by fiat. Sometimes nothing helps you more than wrecking your opponent's game plans.
The real problem is that sideboarding is always going to be difficult for average players because what makes us average or slightly above average perhaps is information and applied knowledge. Experience too but really that can be made up for. But if you don't do the homework on the field you are facing you are relying solely on limited information which in war gets people killed and in magic results in match losses.
Kor Firewalker isnt that great of a threat for RDW. I was wrecked by RDW running Unstable Footing which killed the three Firewalkers I was blocking with.
No one has mentioned the banning of Mystical Tutor yet so I guess I will. This seems like a very indirect way for WOTC to get the price of cards like Lion's Eye Diamond and Entomb to drop in price. I realize storm can function without Mystical relatively well, but Reanimator really loves Mystical. Personally, I sold my 4x copies of Entomb last night. I hope I made the right decision, but I am pretty sure prices will drop.
I think this banning will have quite a big effect on other cards as well.
when is tutor getting banned? guess i missed that one
July 1st
Unbanned is Illusionary Mask and Grim Monolith
Great job Eric, great stuff throughout...
i love the sideboarding and bra unhooking analogy, priceless
I forgot that one...totally cracked me up too! ...although I'm sure it offended some (see also: Paul Leicht) - who's probably knitting a sweater while watching Opera and writting a large rebuttal about how unsensitive we are :) (kidding Paul...ok, not really :) guess we'll see...
Wow asshat much? lol. I don't knit but I do make embroidery thread lanyards being a shorthaired hippie and all...
Nice! Bravo!
Now I have to scan one somehow just to show I wasn't being clever. :/
dude you are such a douche...im surprised at the level of crap that spews forth from your mouth on a regular basis. Really I mean either get a better attitude or shut the hell up. No one needs you're constantly condescending filth on this site.
is that directed at me or paul?
probably directed at you, paul, and himself :)
would make this site much better without the triumvirate.
said the random guy...who no one even knows...
Hey I know who Rainin6 is (kinda). He's a regular poster who almost always has something negative to say to those he dislikes. Also from his posts he is an above average player who scorns those whose play style differs from his own and he seems to like to brag a bit. It is all good. His opinion is like the morning dew, a little wet and yet it will soon evaporate leaving nothing of substance behind.
As for Deluxe, I think he just doesn't know how to take advice and is used to negative attention getting. Sometimes being an asshat is easier than owning up to mistakes and letting things move on.
I just like playing tennis with you and shard :)
yeah too bad so far its 45-love in my favor for this thread. Im like the Federer of puremtgo...
paul's pretty accurate on that one! im a negative nancy, i'm a decent player but i don't "scorn those whose play style differs" from mine. mm i don't think i'm much of a bragger but i'm sure i posted my MOCS results in comments time to time...more so for puremtgo representation.
as for the morning dew....
my gripes with people:
paul: always complains about being too poor to play X or Y and let's everyone know this at all times. from ur picture, looks like ur a grown ass man - so it appears extra pathetic when you can't or won't buy cards that you WANT to play with. other than that i dont really have a problem with what you have to say - in fact, the rest is fine.
shard: has ridiculous, off-the-wall opinions and comments that are completely irrational and not well-thought out. if there is anyone that suffers from logorrhea (sp?) - i.e. diarrhea of the mouth, it would be you. perhaps you could serve this site better but keeping ur mouth closed from time to time. and spoke only when you have something well thought out. i'm glad you run those PREs and so you should stick to those... running PREs doesn't entitle you to speak without thinking sir.
deluxe: i don't really have any gripes with you. u have fun pauper articles. let people rip on you and you take it in stride. cest la vie.
and that's my morning dew =)
Well hyperbole aside (All the time?) I don't know if you've seen me complain about my collection lately. I am still in a weird position of having more cards than I need for some decks and not enough for others but I have been working pretty hard to make it what I want it to be. Currently on my 3rd ME dual land for example.
See here is the crazy part I do think. Just because you dont agree with what i say in no way invalidates it.
It’s going to be interesting to see how the AMAZING new extended format will change prices of older cards.
I truly hope you are being sarcastic and when you say amazing you mean this is probably one of the worst things wizards has ever done. Otherwise i dont think you have any idea of what this has done to the game.
I could not agree with you more ShardFenix. This is easily the worst idea wizards has had. Now we will have to relive the boring and imbalanced strategies of standard with no alternatives. Jund and Faeries anyone?
This has seriously made me reconsider Magic as a game.
While I do share your thoughts on this Eric, if a new format is on the horizon then my main complaint is why not announce both at the same time? There is only one event I believe that will use the "new" extended and that is PT:Amsterdam. Other than that there is no reason they could not have announced it now and waited until October to make it effective like they did the previous change to extended. To have this thrown at us with 2 weeks notice for paper and 4 for online is irresponsible on their part. And just because I don't know if people realize it yet...
Remember that last standard that wasn't really fun because it was dominated by faeries? And the current standard dominated by jund and jace...yeah thats your new extended. Faeries+Jace 2.0...This certainly sounds like a fun format to me...
Their timing does seem irresponsible. Many of us have lost a lot of value on our cards overnight and I'm sure there are people out there who don't follow Wizards every announcement and have no idea about this change yet. However, as mentioned above, I believe this points directly to the new format. I'm considering buying some cards on the cheap the next few weeks while people are unloading in order to prepare for their announcement. It would be a nice way to prepare for a format which was previously too expensive to start after not playing Magic for a while.
Whenever Standard rotates out there is a huge drop off in the price of cards because most of them are never powerful enough to make it into Extended decks. While reliving the boring Standard decks of the past isn't optimal, I think that having cards that sustain their value and playability longer will be a welcome change for many of the Standard players.
Chicken Little syndrome is natural. Change is scary to some people. But surely you don’t actually think fixing a broken format is “one of the world things Wizards has ever done”?
I think the manner it which was done shows some disregard for the casual player population who perhaps doesn't contribute as much directly to WotC's bottom line but who DOES have an impact because without them there would be no secondary market to speak of. Thus no market for draft rejects and thus no reason for people to draft as much as they do. (Though I am sure some casual players do draft/crack packs on their own.) I realize this is a poor reason to consider the feelings of a section of players but I do think this is what is going on here. The people who dislike this change are those who are most invested in the 7 year format (casual players).
Tourney players adjust to whatever format brings the prizes and invest their time/money in whatever it takes to convert to the new format. Usually without much noise I might add. I doubt it is anyone's intention to say the sky is falling (but damned if my ceiling isn't :() but on the other hand I can see why it upsets those who are protesting. Last year's changes were more widely felt because they made everyone rethink their game and their skills but at the same time it was generally the same response. Pretty much by the same people. Tourney players weighed in then because they had something on the line but for the most part it was the casual scene that was more greatly impacted in terms of whether people could adjust or not.
I'd prefer to see a less draconian, more open to discussion policy at WotC because I think that would be more likely to build community which at least in theory is one of their goals. But I understand that ultimately a business can not be run by consensus. On the other hand not every change need be sweeping. The wizards could keep the old format as Old Extended to please their casual contingent and at the same time still affect the game with the new changes to extended. This has been done already with the filters for standard and old standard being available during transition months. I do not think this will happen unless the wheel squeaks to get its grease.
what was broken about it? people only played it when forced too? Like 98% of the other tournament formats? I mean extended was played during extended season...thats wonderful. How is that any different from legacy only being played and GP's and 5k's? If the format for those had been extended I doubt they would be less profitble. And turbo-nuking 3 blocks in a month some of which would have been legal for 2 more years...yeah think of something worse..
If this was not a blatant cash grab, which it is, unless you course you enjoy the feeling of wizards cock in your ass, then I would not have a problem with it. in the end basically all wizards saw was a lack of money from anything but standard since all the older formats are nearly strictly second market affars. Now they have created a format that rotates a set a year just like standard and provides added incentive to buy even more packs of new sets because hey, some cards might be good in your standard deck and others in your extended deck. Meanwhile, older players, you can all just go play legacy..oh what? you never wanted to play legacy? Well fuck you then..
The thing is, people *are* playing Legacy. They're playing Sealed deck and Standard tournaments even when they're not 'forced' to, and they're playing them outside of FNM and other formal support. How about this? According to the DCI's events page, there are 56 Extended tournaments scheduled for the next month in the US. Think about that a moment: 56 tournaments, in a month, in the entire country. There are 211 Legacy tournaments scheduled for that timeframe. *FOUR TIMES* as many events for a format without any substantial PTQ 'practice value' or any FNM-style Wizards support. Nobody is playing Extended outside of PTQs, flat out, and that's the problem Wizards is trying to fix.
People *are* playing all the other formats, and not just because they're 'forced' to (has Wizards sent their team of black-limo thugs out to shanghai you to your local FNM lately? Sheesh!), but because they like to. Even outside of FNM, I can think of a half-dozen places to draft weekly, as many to play Standard, and one or two Legacy tournaments in the area on any given week. I'm only aware of one monthly Extended tournament around here, and I'm not sure it regularly fires officially; I think attendance is seldom over a dozen.
Whatever you think Wizards' other motives may be (and how could this be a cash grab, given that the format still changes less annually than Standard and has less pack-buying pressure than Limited, their two primary formats?), it's unquestionable that current Extended *is* broken from the perspective of creating a viable format that people will want to play, and I laud them for at least trying to fix it.
just wait this new format will fail...the first time its starting its going to be nothing but feries, jund, planeswalkers...pretty much the last two really crappy standard seasons. I mean everyone loved Jund and Faeries...
I must have more faith in the MODO deck building community than you guys. Because with 15 different sets to work with I think there’s going to more to the new Extended than just the Jund and Fairies everyone’s talking about.
I think you are right in a way. I think 5 color control will be just as big as Jund or Faeries, and Bant should find a way into Tier 1 also. Hovering below those I can see RDW, Kithkin, Elves, Doran, Naya, Merfolk, Swans,Scapeshift, BW Tokens (Bitterblossom+Eldrai Monument sounds nice) all making a big splash when the metagame is right. I think a lot of decks will be viable, just depends on breaking them out at the right time.
ill gree on your tier one additons like 5cc and Bant. The restt will be tier 2 at best. Not to mention I think Swans is illegal, Eh not illegal but only playable til october. Sadly i have no faith in the community. Though with PT:Amsterdam there will be plenty of options for them to netdeck. Not saying its bad, they just arent creative.
What they are doing from looking at the sets and new banned cards from TSP is removing combo and a lot of the power cards from extended. The only card they have left to kick out to make EXT ok for the STD players is Tarmogoyf which they have forced to rotate in October.
It's quite clever when you look at it from that point of view, it helps new players drop into Extended from Standard and will be a god send to paper players due to their card prices.
It's all about keeping the new player base happy in paper from what I can see.
It's also going to be an amazing increase in cards for budget players online who play mostly in the classic format.
+6 for the bra analogy at the start of the sidebording section (and that section in general)
-1 for writing a "Takklemaggot" article. If you have to shrink your font size, you're doing something wrong. But I read it anyway because you're just Hamtastic.
The old Mirage and Tempest block precons appeared in the store along with the boosters. That's where Natural Order came from, I guess?
It was in the Savage Stompdown deck, right?
I'm at the office, so I can't really check, but does anyone know if these precons are still on sale?
Oh yeah, great article!
I dont think they are I cant see them in the store.
Bummer. I wonder if the price of NO is going to shoot up again soon then...
They only posted that precon for sale on one weekend, from Friday to Sunday, with next to no fanfare. Really the only place I heard about it was the auction room - mostly the dealers were buying it up and trying to flip NOs to naive bots. I went ahead and bought 4 to have a playset for myself but no real idea whether the price will recover or maintain at its new point.
I'm fairly certain the shrinking text is a site bug. I've noticed happen in my own articles as well as others like Lord Es. Etc.
It happens when you paste it from other documents. The best way round it is to paste into Notepad first and then copy it into your article.
Be that as it may for yours mine have occured only after I submitted it. I don't edit in anything but notepad++.