gwyned's picture
By: gwyned, gwyned
Jan 26 2010 3:19am
5
Login to post comments
5260 views


As I mentioned in my previous Pauper Draft article, there is a certain affinity that exists between the Pauper format and Limited play.  As my ability in Limited has developed, this affinity has become even more pronounced; indeed, there seems a strong correlation between success in one and in the other, at least in my case.  Of course, I would not dare to rank myself as an expert in either format - ask any of my fellow Standard Pauper players, and they will rank me as having moderate ability and no more.  Nonetheless, as one who has had my share of success in both formats, I believe that I do have some interesting insights to share, and hope that my readers continue to enjoy and comment on my articles.  Indeed, I hope that in the months to come I will have several more Pauper's Draft articles to share.  However, before exploring this particular draft, I feel a need to touch on a subject that I have given more and more thought to as of late: the validity of the Swiss Draft Queues for skilled drafters.

I. Swiss Queue Drafting

All too often on this site and others like it, I sense a general disdain for Swiss Queues as a legitimate, skill-intensive drafting experience.  Indeed, several talented drafters who contribute regular articles express that while they may play Swiss drafts on occasion, only an 8-4 Queue win is really worthy of an article writeup.  This same sentiment seems to have been expressed in my previous draft writeup, almost dismissing my wins as simply taking advantage of the general poor skills of the other drafters around the virtual table.  In general, the consensus seems to be that only neophyte players enter Swiss queues on a regular basis, while the more skilled players exclusively limit themselves to 4-3-2-2s or better.  Or, perhaps more specifically, while an 8-4 sweep demonstrates remarkable skill on the part of the drafter, a similar feat in Swiss is nothing exceptional.

However, I have noticed two trends of late that seem to belie this consensus.  First, I have noticed several writers who comment on the general lack of skill of one of the players they face in a match, manifesting itself either in poor card selection, poor play choices, or both.  Indeed, it seems these authors often specifically point to a screencap of their winnings, as if to say, 'Yes, this really was an 8-4 queue, despite the poor play of my opponent.'  Now this may be for a variety of reasons.  No doubt there truly are a few hapless new players who wander into such a queue with no real understanding of its expert status.  Perhaps too such players are simply trying to capitalize on the higher quantity of Rares that tend to get passed around in higher level queues, where playability always trumps monetary value.  But whatever the reason may be, it seems to me that even an 8-4 Queue is no guarantee of the skill of one's opponents.

Second, I have likewise noticed that I have faced some very skilled opponents in the Swiss Queues I have played in.  Such opponents draft solid pools of cards, carefully tweak their deck for maximum efficiency, and demonstrate tight, skilled play during their matches.  Although the current state of the MTGO client no longer allows one to view the rating of one's opponents, I contend that it would not be unusual to see players in the Swiss Queues with a rating of 1750+.  Again, this may happen for a variety of reasons - the belief that one's EV tends to be higher in Swiss, a desire to get as much play as possible from one's initial investment, or simply the same attitude that drives players to play Tier 1 tournament-level decklists in the Casual Room.  Whatever the reason, I would argue that a Swiss Queue is likewise no guarantee of skill.

Now, having said all that, I certainly would not argue that, in general, the skill of one's opponent tends to be higher in the more competitive queues.  Expert drafters, able to draft several times a week, will be attracted to the 8-4 Queue, where their skill allows them to reap the benefits of the higher payout for the winner of the event.  Similarly, once a player has a solid grasp of drafting and understands the particular Block being drafter, he or she tends to be attracted to the 4-3-2-2 Queue in hopes of both demonstrating and improving one's skill as a drafter.  But none of these generalities warrant the disdain many players have for the Swiss Queue.  One must judge a player on the basis of his or her picks and gameplay decisions, and not on the competitiveness of the particular event he or she is participating in.

For myself, although I have dabbled in 4-3-2-2 Queues with varying degrees of success, the limits of both budget and drafting frequency tend to push me almost exclusively into Swiss Queues.  For me, there is nothing worse than spending the time and energy drafting and constructing a viable Limited deck only to go down in flames thanks to the ever mercurial shuffler, quickly finding myself eliminated from the event without the chance to really explore just how viable my deck truly was.  And given how frequently I manage to pick up a valuable Rare during the event, the return on my initial investment is usually sufficient to allow to scrounge together enough to enter my next draft with a minimum of additional funds.

So, assuming you haven't already written me off as an average player at best with little insight to actually contribute, I invite you to sit back, pour a glass of your favorite beverage, and enjoy the first part of my latest Zendikar Swiss Queue draft.

II. Swiss ZZZ Draft

  Pack 1 pick 1:

  My Pick:
 

The Hideous End is no doubt the best pick of the pack, followed by the Oracle of Mul Daya.  Other playables certainly include Grazing Gladehart, Into the Roil, and Shatterskull Giant.  Given how frequently one picks a stellar Black card P1P1 in Zendikar Draft only to find oneself completely cut-off from Black in subsequent picks, I elected to go with the Oracle.  In a strong Green deck the Oracle can become a near-bomb in strength in that it both accelerates one's mana towards the larger Green fatties and can also enable multiple Landfall abilities per turn.  The fact that I am passing the Gladehart is not ideal, but its presence is hardly a strong signal to my fellow drafters downstream.

  Pack 1 pick 2:

  My Pick:
 

Speaking of which, I gladly take the Grazing Gladehart here.  This is a fairly weak pack, although the Goblin Ruinblaster, Guul Draz Vampire, Sky Ruin Drake, and Quest for the Gravelord are all fine.  It seems way too early to commit to heavy Red with Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle.  I also considered the Greenweaver Druid, but of the two Green cards the Druid is much more likely to wheel.  Also, as of yet I am not sure how helpful the acceleration will actually be in my deck.

  Pack 1 pick 3:

  My Pick:
 

Some other decent playables here, but nothing strong enough to convince me to stop cutting the Green cards.  Mold Shambler is a fine card, providing a decent body and potentially the ability to deal with an opponent's troublesome Artifact, Enchantment, or even to create a color-hose situation by destroying a mana source.

  Pack 1 pick 4:

  My Pick:
 

After completely writing off Hideous End earlier due to the typical overabundance of Black drafters, it is surprising to see both Surrakar Marauder and Vampire Hexmage left in this pack.  The Frontier Guide can be a decent Green card, but it is definitely weaker than either the Marauder or Hexmage.  After some thought, I grabbed the Marauder, hoping that with Green as my primary color I will pick up enough fixing to be able to splash Black for some later removal or cheap critters.

  Pack 1 pick 5:

  My Pick:
 

Back to cutting Green in this pack.  In fact, one could make the argument that the Oran-Rief Recluse is the strongest card left in this pack anyway.  Seeing as how Green often has trouble dealing with fliers, and the fact that I have passed several decent Blue fliers, having a few of these spiders in my pool could prove quite important.

  Pack 1 pick 6:

  My Pick:
 

Tough decision here for Green - Harrow, Savage Silhouette, or Vines of Vastwood? Of the three, Harrow is probably the least likely to make its way back to me.  Additionally, it does provide the ability to splash into Black or even Red for some removal or other goodies, and, like the Oracle, can enable some potent Landfall combinations.  Also worth noting that Blue appears to be under-drafted at this point.

  Pack 1 pick 7:

  My Pick:
 

Although Tajuru Archer is another method for Green to deal with fliers, I have often been disappointed with Allies, even as a sub-theme.  Another Oran-Rief Recluse is a more reliable means of accomplishing the same goal, and the extra Toughness can enable it to block early against an aggressive deck.

  Pack 1 pick 8:

  My Pick:
 

Green and Blue continue to make their presence felt around the table.  It is looking more and more likely that I am the only heavy Green drafter at this point.  While Vastwood Gorger is a fine pick, Timbermaw Larva is definitely stronger.  It comes down earlier and is usually stronger than the wurm on offense.  And while its 2 Toughness on defense is pretty meager, blocking seems to be only a secondary concern in Zendikar.  Besides, the Gorger can often be picked up quite late, so I'll probably have another shot at it in subsequent packs.

  Pack 1 pick 9:

  My Pick:
 

Maybe Black has been fairly under-represented in these initial packs.  It is worth noting here that of the Black cards, only the Hideous End was taken from this pack.  Seeing as how this was a less than stellar pack, I am surprised to see the Soul Stair Expedition come back around.  Although the Expedition isn't really worth splashing for, since it is unlikely I would get it out early enough to make it worthwhile, it is still the best pick in this pack.

  Pack 1 pick 10:

  My Pick:
 

I am glad to see the Greenweaver Druid wheel.  Although I still don't have a lot of Green fatties, I can expect to pick some up in the next two packs, and thus I can be fairly certain the Druid's acceleration will be a strong addition to my growing pool.

  Pack 1 pick 11:

  My Pick:
 

Not surprisingly, little is left now.  While Tanglesap can be useful in the right circumstances, I'd rather take the Kazandu Refuge and hope for a few juicy Red cards to splash for.

  Last 4 picks from Pack 1:
 
   
And so I finish off Pack 1 with two Basics Lands, a U/W Dual Land I almost certainly won't play, and a Frontier Guide that could make the deck if I am short on playables.

  Pack 2 pick 1:

  My Pick:
 

This was a difficult and somewhat disappointing opener for Pack 2.  Obviously, there is not a single Green card in the pack.  The best cards are Kor Sanctifiers, Punishing Fire, Surrakar Marauder, and Umara Raptor.  The burn spell probably would have been the best pick here in retrospect, but since I had already picked two Black cards, and was hoping maybe to sneak in one or two others, I ended up picking the Verdant Catacombs.  Not only did it strengthen my ability to go into Black, but it also could help me sneak in an additional Landfall ability at just the right time.  The fact that this fetch-land is still worth about a pack in tix no doubt contributed to my decision as well.

  Pack 2 pick 2:

  My Pick:
 

And now there's even less here than in the previous pack.  I don't think I will be heavy enough Red to warrant taking Molten Ravager or Ruinous Minotaur.  I've also passed enough Blue that I have no intention of trying to slide into that color now.  Stonework Puma would be alright, but I also have no desire to try to force Allies at this juncture.  The Zendikar Farguide would have been a fair Sideboard card, but it's a horrid second Pick.  Having argued myself out of just about every card in this pack, I eventually ended up picking the Magma Rift simply on the principle that it is removal, and that between the Oracle and Harrow I should be able to absorb the loss of a land without too much difficulty.

  Pack 2 pick 3:

  My Pick:
 

Now this is much better.  The best picks here are clearly the Baloth Woodcrasher and the Kor Skyfisher.  While Scute Mob is a strong card, in the best case scenario it is merely a vanilla 5/5.  Considering the cards I already have drafted, I seem to be in good shape to support the Woodcrasher, and perhaps even to force Green sufficiently that I will pick up the lion's share of solid Green cards in the next pack.  Providing that I continue to cut the Green, the fact that I am passing both the Scute Mob and the Shambler shouldn't be received as a strong signal for Green.

 Pack 2 pick 4:

  My Pick:
 

Although my estimation of Savage Silhouette has increased recently, I am not sure this was the right pick in retrospect.  I have not yet had the chance to play much with Oran-Rief, the Vastwood, but in this situation it probably was the stronger pick.

  Pack 2 pick 5:

  My Pick:
 

This was yet another mistake.  At this point in the draft I still was thinking that I would try to sneak in some solid Black cards to splash, and Crypt Ripper certainly qualifies as a solid Black card.  Of course, both the fact that it costs BB to cast and requires additional Black mana to really be powerful makes it awkward to splash, to say the least.  The Territorial Baloth was definitely the right pick here for me.

  Pack 2 pick 6:

  My Pick:
 

Here I considered the Explorer's Scope, but at this point I had very few two drops, and as such I did not think it would be a strong pick.  The choice was thus between the Territorial Baloth and the Vastwood Gorger.  Again, considering my Landfall build, the Baloth was better.  Of course, had I picked the Baloth in the previous pack, I could have picked up the Gorger here instead.  Also of note is a fairly late Kor Hookmaster, which makes me wonder what other colors are being drafted around me.

  Pack 2 pick 7:

  My Pick:
 

At this point I was feeling fairly desperate for two drops, and seeing as how I was going to be almost mono-Green anyway, Nissa's Chosen fit the bill perfectly.  While Harrow is certainly the stronger pick in theory, at this point in my draft it didn't seem that additional mana fixing and/or Landfall was really where I was lacking.  In any case, Green certainly continues to be wide open.

  Pack 2 pick 8:

  My Pick:
 

Another fattie, or more acceleration? Again, since I felt like I was lacking in low drops, it seemed wise to pick up more acceleration, hoping to quickly ramp up to enough mana to get my more powerful creatures into play.  Two Greenweaver Druids makes it that much more likely that I will be able to get at least one into play early enough to make a solid contribution.

Pack 2 pick 9:

  My Pick:
 

Not really interested in anything here.  I continue to resist the urge to draft any White cards, given how weak the G/W archetype typically is.  Expedition Map would have been another source of fixing, but instead I elected to take the Hagra Diabolist and deny it from finding a home in a Black or Ally deck somewhere else around the table.

  Pack 2 pick 10:

  My Pick:
 

It's late enough in the second pack that I'm happy to take a Zendikar Farguide as a Sideboard card.  Of course, given how strongly I am drafting Green, it is not likely that it will see a lot of play in my upcoming games.

  Pack 2 pick 11:

  My Pick:
 

Pretty late Mold Shambler here, which I gladly take.  Of the four Green cards present in this pack during P4, only the Scute Mob was taken.

  Last 4 picks from Pack 2:
 
 
My last few picks from Pack 2 cement me firmly into Mono Green, holding on to my Black and/or Red fixing in the hopes of securing a few juicy Removal spells.  And, at last, I pick up a Vastwood Gorger to add to my growing zoo of fatties.

  Pack 3 pick 1:

  My Pick:
 

Perfect! While Nissa's Chosen or Vines of Vastwood would be fine, Burst Lightning is just the kind of spell I was hoping to splash Red for.  There are a few other decent cards here, but nothing to get too excited about.

  Pack 3 pick 2:

  My Pick:
 

Lots of good Green choices here - Nissa's Chosen, Harrow, and Turntimber Basilisk.  While I am still short on two drops, the Basilisk can serve as removal with the right Landfall pieces in place.  Windborne Charge is certainly something to watch out for against any White decks I may encounter.

  Pack 3 pick 3:

  My Pick:
 

What a pack! Again, several good choices here: Giant Scorpion, Harrow, Turntimber Basilisk, or Vines of Vastwood would all be strong picks for me at this point.  Since Black is only a splash, the scorpion is probably not the best pick, especially since the Basilisk is arguably equal in strength.  Combat tricks are pretty important in Zendikar, and particular for Green archetypes, and for that reason I went with the Vines.  Its ability to pump up an attacker and/or dodge a untimely Removal spell makes it quite potent!

  Pack 3 pick 4:

  My Pick:
 

Another Gladehart, or the Adventuring Gear? Once again, due to my perceived lack of early drops, I thought the Gladehart was the stronger choice.  With all the different land shenanigans I have at my disposal, the lifegain from multiple Gladeharts should be very pronounced.

  Pack 3 pick 5:

  My Pick:
 

This pack seems to be the perfect payoff for my heavy emphasis in Green.  The only strong cards left in the pack are Green, including the very nice River Boa, which I gladly add to my collection.  Oran-Rief Survivalist would be a fine addition had I tried for the Ally subtheme, but P3P5 is hardly the time to start building such a theme.  In any case, I would argue that the Boa is almost always the better pick thanks to Regeneration and the sometimes-relevant Islandwalk.

  Pack 3 pick 6:

  My Pick:
 

Once again, there are several great choices here: Explorer's Scope, Oran-Rief Survivalist, Primal Bellow, and Vines of Vastwood among them.  The fact that both an Armament Master and a Kor Sanctifiers are left in this pack shows that it must have been quite deep.  But even more unusual is the presence of Disfigure, which I gladly take to add to my Black splash.

  Pack 3 pick 7:

  My Pick:
 

More yummy Antelope to keep my life-total high.  With three of these, I should be in pretty strong shape.

  Pack 3 pick 8:

  My Pick:
 

Grim Discovery offers some interesting possibilities.  While Soul Stair Expedition is definitely better for returning creatures from the Graveyard, the ability to retrieve lands sacrificed to Harrow or Magma Rift may warrant including it in my decklist.  Of course, I am hardly short on playables at this point, so it may not make the cut after all.  Hating the Into the Roil instead is certainly a defensible decision in this spot.

  Pack 3 pick 9:

  My Pick:
 

Happy to pick up another copy of this useful combat trick.

  Pack 3 pick 10:

  My Pick:
 

Nothing left here that I am remotely interested in.  The Goblin War Paint, Caravan Hurda, or Narrow Escape are all borderline playables, and while I ended up taking out the Narrow Escape, removing any of these three is probably defensible.

  Pack 3 pick 11:

  My Pick:
 

Khalni Gem can be a decent Landfall initiator or mana-fixer, but at this point I have no need of either.

  Last 4 picks from Pack 3:
 

In my last picks of the draft, I am delighted to pick up a very late Primal Bellow, giving me a full suite of combat tricks and removal to go with my decklist.

This draft converter created by Benjamin Peebles-Mundy.
Visit the draft converter today!

III. ZZZ Swiss Draft Decklist


A few build notes:
1.  I ended up leaving both the Grim Discovery and the Soul Stair Expedition in the Sideboard.  I decided I had enough playables that they weren't really needed; besides, neither of them are powerful enough to be worth splashing for.
2. I did end up running the Surrakar Marauder, even though it's not that likely to come out early.  I feel like I've got a good shot at fixing for one of my two splash colors fairly early, and for that reason the Black two-drop seemed worthy of inclusion.
3. I ended up including one each of the Mold Shambler and the Oran-Rief Recluse, as both are somewhat situational.  This will allow me to make adjustments after Game 1 to compensate for appropriate targets from my opponent's decklist.
4. With Landfall as such an important mechanic, I definitely wanted to run 18 lands, and as such had to make some tricky cuts to get down to 22 cards.  I ended up leaving out the 3rd Gladehart as a result.

Unlike many of my drafts, this particular pool has some interesting choices, albeit minor ones.  I would enjoy hearing comments about how I might have tweaked the build for great strength and/or consistency.

IV. Game One, Round One:

I win the toss, elect to play first, and open with the following hand:
 

An easy keeper, with a T2 Surrakar Marauder, removal, and a combat trick.  I play out the Verdant Catacombs and immediately fetch a Swamp.  My opponent drops an Island and passes, and my Library coughs up a Forest.  I summon the Marauder onto the Battlefield.  My opponent drops a Plains and summons an Ior Ruin Expedition.  I draw my Baloth Woodcrasher, drop my third Forest, and attack with the Marauder, dropping my opponent to 18 life.  On his turn, my opponent feeds the Expedition an Island and summons a Reckless Scholar, which I Disfigure during my End Step.  I draw another Forest, swing in with the Maruader yet again, and summon the Timbermaw Larva.  My opponent feeds a Swamp to his Expedition this time, summons a Pillarfield Ox, and passes the turn.  I draw a Mold Shambler. So, how to proceed?

In retrospect, the best play would have been to enchant the Marauder with the Savage Silhouette and swing with both.  The Evasion on the Marauder, coupled with the Regeneration and P/T boost, would have been quite potent.  However, I chose a sub-par play - enchant the Larva instead.  A minor mistake, to be sure, but one that potentially makes a difference.

In any case, I send the now 7/7 Larva oozing across the Battlefield, drop my opponent to 9 Life, and end my turn.  My opponent feeds yet another Swamp to his Expedition, sacrifices it to draw 2 cards, smacks me down to 17 with his Ox, and during his End Step uses a Kicked Into the Roil to return my Larva to my hand.  Given this situation, I would have much preferred to have my Larva still on the Battlefield rather than the Marauder.  Lesson learned, I hope.

On my turn I draw a Forest and consider my options.  I am still one mana shy of being able to summon the Baloth.  While the Mold Shambler could keep the Ox from successfully attacking, resummoning the Larva seems the better option, as it will enable me to continue to press my advantage.  So I drop the Forest, swing in with the Marauder, and return the Larva to the battlefield, leaving one Green mana up in case I have an advantageous opportunity to play Primal Bellow.  On his turn, my opponent swings in with the Ox, summons a Giant Scorpion, and passes the turn.  My Library then gifts me with yet another Forest.  So now what?

Do you see the win this turn? With both of his Islands tapped, there are almost no cards that could prevent me from swinging in for the win; in fact, I believe that only Shieldmate's Blessing or Narrow Escape could prevent me from hitting for lethal.  The plan is simple - swing in with both creatures and pump up whichever one is unblocked with the Bellow for an additional +5/+5, doing exactly fatal damage with an unblocked Marauder.  Game over, right?

Wrong.  Unfortunately, this is where I make my second, and much more costly, mistake of this draft.  Thinking I can rely solely on the Evasive ability of the Marauder, I swing in with it only, and even more foolishly, proceed to drop the Bellows on it before blockers are declared.  My opponent, no doubt amused by my foolishness, blocks the Marauder with the Giant Scorpion and sends both to the Graveyard. 

So doesn't such a terrible mistake indicate that I have no rights to be publishing this game into this sort of article? Actually, I have two reasons that I wanted to share this particular game:
1. In the heat of the moment, it's easy to make a quick decision that ends up being, well, bone-headed.  Don't do that. Take the time to evaluate and doublecheck your move before you act.  But more importantly...
2. When you make a bone-headed mistake, take a deep breath, keep your cool, reevaluate your board position, and figure out how to recover and keep pressing forward towards the win.  While I am the type of person very prone to simply getting frustrated and allowing that anger to color the rest of my play in this type of situation, I was able to shake off my decision, evaluate that I was still in a decent position on the board, and continue with the game.

So, after combat, I decided I would wait on playing the Mold Shambler, hoping for a juicy Permanent I could destroy, and instead passed the turn.  On his turn, my opponent cast a Spreading Seas on one of my Forests, swung in with the Ox to drop me to 13 life, and summoned a Sky Ruin Drake onto his side of the virtual table.  Back on my turn, I draw a Nissa's Chosen and swing in with the Larva.  Somewhat surprisingly, my opponent simply takes the damage, dropping him to 1.  I finally summon the Baloth Woodcrasher and pass the turn.  My opponent next's turn consists of dropping a Swamp, slapping down a Crypt Ripper, and using Narrow Escape on one of his Islands to return it to hand and gain 4 life.  He declines any attacks and passes back the turn.  I draw a Turntimber Basilisk and swing in with both the Baloth and the Timbermaw Larva.  This is how my opponent blocked:

Was this an ill-timed attack on my part? Was this the best possible blocks my opponent could have made? Looking back, while my opponent could have triple-blocked the Larva and traded only one of his creatures for it (after boosting his Crypt Ripper with his one remaining Swamp), this would have left the Baloth alive, and after dropping down to 1 damage all I would need is a land to win thanks to Trample.  As it was, my opponent lost 2 of his creatures and removed only 1 of mine.  Following combat, I summoned both the Nissa's Chosen and the Turntimber Basilisk, and after looking at his next draw on his subsequent turn, my opponent conceded.

V. Conclusion

Considering that this is already a monster of an article, this seems like a good place to stop.  Next week I'll return with the second part of this draft, bringing you more in-depth analysis of my other games in this draft event.  Hopefully my insights have been helpful and my mistakes have challenged you to great scrutiny of your own play.  I truly do not believe that my actions during that first game are reflective of my actual Magic ability, but I suppose I will have to let my readers be the judge of that during Part Two of my article.  As always, comments are appreciated.  Thanks for reading!

38 Comments

Not bad by Yi60 (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:37
Yi60's picture

Regarding the Scute mob comment, Scute mob can keep growing beyond 5/5. to 9/9 13/13

Stuff I would have done by Reaper9889 at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 06:37
Reaper9889's picture
5

Stuff I would have done differently:

Pack 2 pick 3: I would proberly have taken the Mob. It is splashable (so someone WILL pick it) and can be played quite fast. With a (big bit) of luck the baloth would even cycle (since it is not as splashable). Futheremore I havnt played with the mob and would like to try.

Pack 2 pick 4: Oran-rief. You are nearly monogreen (also) at that point and the ability to get your creatures away from two thoughness is very strong.

The crypt ripper pick was just wrong.

Futheremore I would have played grazing over maradur, since 3 lands is not enough to get maradur down in the early game and harrow doesnt matter for a agro creature. Futheremore you knew that most ppl wasnt in blue nor green so the fear wasn't that important.

I would also have played the shampler (or only played the warrior) in that last turn over the turntimber since Marsh Casualties would be a blowout.

I prefer swiss to 4-3-2-2 to 8-4 since I figure that I will end up with more packs in the long run even with a winrate of about 2/3 in either swiss or 4-3-2-2 and I am not sure that I am good enough for 8-4. I do have a rating of around 1830 though, mainly on the back of Tempest, Lorwyn and sealed.

Scute Mob vs. Woodcrasher by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:28
gwyned's picture

Totally forgot that the Scute Mob can continue to grow each upkeep. And, yes, I suppose the Woodcrasher is more likely to table, although I really doubt that would happen most of the time. In fact, I still think the Woodcrasher is a stronger pick, simply because it is more resiliant in the face of removal and because its Trample ability means it cannot simply be chump-blocked.

And as I mentioned in my writeup, I would agree with your assessment on P2P3 and P2P4.

I would have to say Pack 3 by Anonymous (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:05
Anonymous's picture

I would have to say Pack 3 Pick 1 was completely wrong, you most definitely should've gone with the tarn there.

he already had decent mana by ShardFenix at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 14:37
ShardFenix's picture

he already had decent mana fixing, why he pick more redudndant fixing over an easily splashable removal spell? Especially considering mono green doesnt really have removal to begin with?

because he's in a swiss que by Anonymous (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:46
Anonymous's picture

because he's in a swiss que each win only means one pack thus picking a card worth on pack ='s the same as a game win.

What I meant was, considering by Anonymous (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:53
Anonymous's picture

What I meant was, considering a tarn is like winning a match anyway, he might as well have gone for it. He even said as much himself earlier when he picked the catacombs.

Decline in prices by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 21:14
gwyned's picture

At the time of this draft, the ZEN Duals had already declined in price enough that the major buy bots wouldn't even buy them from me anymore. I did end up getting about a pack's worth of value out the Verdant Catacombs, but it took some time to find the right buyer. At the time, I seem to remember the Scalding Tarn not being as valuable (although I could be wrong about that - currently, they are valued at MTGOTraders equally); furthermore, since there was a strong pick in its place (Burst Lightning), I never really considered it.

well this is why swiss is by ShardFenix at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 23:16
ShardFenix's picture

well this is why swiss is easier i think, players just rare draft making it far easier to win multiple packs and raise ratings.

Gu? by Holy3456 (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:29
Holy3456's picture

P1P3 and P1P6 you had a shot at 2 Windrider Eels... aren't 4/4 fliers good any more?

Windrider Eels by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:31
gwyned's picture

The problem is the Eels are 2/2 fliers for 4 that, typically, will come out after you've played out a lot of your Lands already. Being 2 toughness, they are weak against any of the top tier removal. I would argue that Mold Shambler is the better card, at least since I am already committed to Green. Equally, continuing to cut Green seemed the better choice to me at the time.

Maybe I am undervaluing the Eels...

Thanks for the insight. I by wortwelt at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:56
wortwelt's picture

Thanks for the insight. I like your honesty concerning your skill and place in the game. I'm short on budget too, so I mostly draft swiss.

While I had very enjoyable games in swiss, sometimes swiss goes horribly wrong and you run into decks far better than your own, though you never saw THESE cards.

I had once a draft in my local shop, and the seating was such that two unexperienced drafters, both quite new to the game, passed to the local "pro". I was sure he would get a ridiculous deck due to misevaluations of the poor new players. And guess what - he ended up playing some sort of black red aggro "still had all these" Deck and swept everybody with triple burst lightning, 2 or 3 geopedes and vampire nighthawk (which, he pointed out, got as third pick.)

While I think that often swiss comes down to a perfectly normal draft, I suspect it can go wrong in exactly that way.

Or maybe I'm just a bad player and ranting. Not sure :-)

"Do you see the win this by whatisfgh at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:27
whatisfgh's picture

"Do you see the win this turn? With both of his Islands tapped, there are almost no cards that could prevent me from swinging in for the win; in fact, I believe that only Shieldmate's Blessing or Narrow Escape could prevent me from hitting for lethal. "

Disfigure, narrow escape, shield-mates blessing, pitfall trap.

Actually... by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:35
gwyned's picture

I knew as soon as I said "there are almost no cards" and listed the few I could think of, I would miss some. Technically Disfigure wouldn't have done it, as I could have played the Primal Bellow in response. Both Pitfall Trap and Narrow Escape would have worked as well.

I also did not think it was likely that my opponent had removal in hand, as it would have been advantageous to use it earlier. Yes, he could have just drawn it.

a) you can't both rely on by InNeutral (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 17:21
InNeutral's picture

a) you can't both rely on offensively bellowing for the kill AND on saving below to play in response;
b) disfigure still keeps your opponent alive for an extra turn even if you successfully resolve bellow over it, due to the -2 power it applies to target creature.

Since you have to play the by whatisfgh at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 07:44
whatisfgh's picture

Since you have to play the bellow to win, if he blocks the larva with the scorpion (since he's dead if he doesn't anyways) he in fact blows by playing it in response.

though more likely if he had disfigure he would just kill the larva, with the trigger on the stack, and you can pump it...

Ok, what I'm saying it that disfigure is the trickiest card to play around there if you want to win that turn.

But yeah, I agree with your assessment that he likely didn't have removal, so you really only have to play around the non removal tricks.

I don't know where you think by Godot at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 16:40
Godot's picture

I don't know where you think of me in terms of your spectrum of Limited writers with opinions on Swiss, but while I tend to write up 84s, I've long preached Swiss as the optimal online draft format for all but the very best drafters, i.e., those who can go infinite in 84s. My current split for 84/Swiss/43 participation in Zendikar drafts currently sits at 17/25/1. I'm a little ashamed of that "1" in the 43 column, it must have been a spot where I needed to start a draft NOW if I was going to be able to fit one in.

While I think it's undeniable that the overall quality of play is, on average, worse in Swiss, you are absolutely correct that you will face good players in Swiss and bad players in 84. What amuses me is that the the worse-on-average aspect of Swiss players is held up as a *negative* for the format, as though Real Men Play 84 or whatever. It is a poker adage that the most important decision you make in any given session is table selection. You can be the 10th best no-limit hold'em player in the world, but if you choose to sit down at a game with #s 1-9 on the list, you are going to lose money. If the goal is to bleed money on MTGO as slowly as possible, the lower-quality of play at Swiss is a benefit--it represents good table selection.

Not to mention the fact that Swiss pays 12 packs to 43's 11. "Let's see...better players and a smaller prize pool, or worse players and a larger prize pool? Tough choice..."

I think two things are at work as to why 43s remain so popular despite the worse payout: first is a delusion about one's round-one win percentage. "I can win the first round (and two packs), like, 80% of the time, no problem." The second is chasing the dream of a net positive in packs. "If I want to be able to come out ahead, I *have* to play 43." If you are a regular 43 drafter, your win percentage in the first round is probably lower than you think, and you aren't looking at the long-term for pack returns. "Always slightly negative" after each Swiss is superior to the "occasionally positive, sometimes slightly negative, sometimes extremely negative" of 43.

If 4322 switched payouts to 5322, It would change everything. As long as Wizards only pays 11 packs on 43 while paying 12 packs on 84 and Swiss, though, 43 will forever be the sucker bet. Don't make it!

Quite honored by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:36
gwyned's picture

I would definitely hold you, Godot, as one of the premier drafters/writers in the MTGO scene. And, as such, you definitely fit the mold of typically writing up 8-4s, although I don't believe I've ever heard you express any rationale for not writing up your Swiss drafts.

Also, more than likely your views on Swiss influenced me to defend it as a valid drafting experience. And while I'm definitely glad that you enjoy your share of Swiss drafts, it also reinforces my feelings that expert drafters certainly play their share of Swiss!

I appreciate your comparison to Poker - I hadn't quite thought about it in that light. Thanks for your comments!

Case in point - I'm one of by Joyd (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 17:05
Joyd's picture

Case in point - I'm one of the 1750s in the Swiss drafts that you mention. I don't have any delusions about my play skill; I know that in an 8-4, I'd be hemorrhaging money. I also like that I always get three rounds to get "feedback" on how my draft decisions went instead of (potentially) fewer. (I'd disagree that 1750 online limited rating represents me sharking it up in a shallow pool, like playing a tier one deck in the casual room; my rating comes from doing a little better than average in (mostly) Swiss drafts over an extended period of time; I'm not actually that great of a drafter or player.)

Also, I'm definitely still interested in Zendikar draft writeups! It's still weeks until WWK released online, and until then, it's the premiere draft format for us.

Didn't mean to accuse by gwyned at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:10
gwyned's picture

Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to say that anyone with a 1750+ Limited rating who plays in Swiss is a "shark in a shallow pool;" merely that such a mentality might explain why a very skilled drafter might play Swiss. Similar to my situation, it sounds like you simply believe that it is a good fit for your current abilities and/or offers you the best return on your investment.

In defense of 4322 by rwildernessr (RoninX) (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:23
rwildernessr (RoninX)'s picture

First, well done article. Thanks for the content.

Second, the factors some of you are leaving out in your evaluation of 84 vs. 4322 vs. Swiss are time, variance, and opportunity. Yes, the total payout in 4322 is less. Yes, swiss can be very valuable in providing a larger sample size to evaluate a given draft/drafters skills. However, in terms of total value 4322s have some benefits:

Time - Zendikar is a pretty fast format, but draft + 3 rounds still often takes 2.5 hours, and some formats take much longer. If a draft goes badly awry - actually MORE likely in swiss where everyone rare and hate drafts more than they should - I would rather not be committed to fumbling around trying to pick up an extra pack for the next couple of hours, and be able to jump in another queue and try my luck and skill at balancing out my losses. Of course, I refuse to multi-queue out of common courtesy.

Variance - Variance is usually argued as a reason to play swiss. After all, you can draft an amazing deck and proceed to keep a two lander that just needs to draw one land and never get there, and then follow it up with a mull to 4 when none of your 18 land show up. This happens, it is true. But exposing even the best decks to additional rounds increases their odds of losing greatly, and swiss does not reward exposing a winning deck to additional rounds with increasing gains because it takes those packs and deepens the prize pool. Players that honestly feel that they have a very good chance to start 1-1 (or better) most of the time in a swiss pool will usually be better served in a 4322 since then they'll have the chance to get more out of their best decks.

Opportunity - I touched on this earlier, but you don't get *anything* worth more than 2 tix passed passed the second pick in swiss queues, at least in my experience. This means that your ability to "pad" your draft via hawking an occasional rare is entirely eliminated further diminishing the potential total value of your draft. I don't advocate (or participate) in flagrant rare drafting (extreme examples aside), but potentially getting a sphinx as late as pick 3-4 should be one of the rewards of feeding your fellow drafters good signals. *Not* getting a sphinx when the mono-red guy on your right rare drafts it over burst lighting is just aggravating. Obviousl,y 4322 queues are not exactly idyllic PT tables where people draft solely to build the best deck possible... but the swiss queues are just lousy with rare drafters.

This is not to say that swiss is bad per se, and it is GREAT that we have them now, but they do not make sense for everyone. Are many people's perceptions of the "success" in 4322 clouded? Yes. But it actually is the "right" fit for some drafters... but probably not for nearly as many as draft it ... and unfortunately this level of popularity is ultimately the reason why wizards continues to deprive us of a 5322.

Godot's picture

Double post, sorry, first one gave me an error.

* The time thing is by Godot at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 02:19
Godot's picture

* The time thing is overrated. The only round where you are waiting more than you would in single elimination is round two, and even then, sometimes you are in the slowest match.

* I don't feel there is quite the raredrafting gap between Swiss and 43 that you see. While I obviously haven't drafted a ton of Zendikar 43, I end up drafting plenty of 43 in the nix tix events where it is all that is offered, and drafted a ton of 43 before Swiss was available, and don't feel like there is a huge difference between the level of raredrafting in 43 and Swiss. I admit this is just my sense, it would take some data crunching of a large sample size to prove this either way.

* The raredrafting scenario you mention works both ways. You cite the Sphinx you should have had for your blue deck. What about when a guy two seats upstream from you in pack 3 in BR, takes a Sphinx over the Hideous End, and the next guy in WU passes it to you P3P3 for your BG deck? You are more likely to get potent on-color commons and uncommons later than you should because of raredrafting than you will be denied rare bombs, because frequently the raredraft will not be for a limited bomb, but for a fetchland or something.

* re: variance: I don't reach the same conclusions as you do on this front. For one thing, when you advance in rounds in 43/84, it is generally to face better and better decks. If you lose in the first round of Swiss, you generally go on to face worse decks. Also, see Shaterri's article about the value of raredrafting for a statistical backup about the flatter payscale of Swiss not making 43 a better bet. It simply doesn't make up for that missing pack, or for the fact that the road in Swiss sometimes gets easier instead of harder.

http://puremtgo.com/articles/ev-raredrafting-and-you

It is a very mathy article, but here is a quote regarding the mathematical conclusion drawn about the different queues:

"Comparing EVs for the different queues reveals something interesting: the 4-3-2-2 queues are never the 'best' choice. If your win percentage against the field is less than 50%, then the Swiss queues are your best bet; if it's better than 50%, then 8-4 becomes better than 4-3-2-2. In fact, this still holds if we skew the win percentages to account for different opponent strengths: if you assume that your win percentage against the average Swiss opponent is 5% better than vs. the average 4-3-2-2 opponent, and 5% better against the average 4-3-2-2 than the average 8-4 opponent, then Swiss becomes your best bet up to about a 65% win percentage vs. the field (and thus a 55% chance against the 8-4 opponents), and above that 8-4 takes over again. In fact, Swiss and 8-4 queues still dominate if you assume a 10% strength difference — all that changes is the crossover point."

Finally, on general *principle* people should avoid 43s because of the lower payout. "Sure Wizards! You guys keep an extra pack of profit for this draft, we don't want it. Think of it as a tip from the Magic community!" That's what everyone who enters a 43 queue is saying...

I disagree with godot on the by whatisfgh at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 08:20
whatisfgh's picture

I disagree with godot on the time thing, 4322's on average are far shorter than swiss, due solely to the fact that they are single elimination.

Assuming on average 40 minutes, rounds, and 25 minutes to draft it works out swiss = 145 min, 4322 = 25+40*loss+80*win*loss + 120*win*win.

since loss = 1-win and win is between 0 and 1, you can see how on average a 4322 can never take as long as a swiss (unless of course you have a 100% chance of winning... but I don't think you'd be complaining then)

Assuming you have something like an unlikely 75 win percent against the filed (which would be high) you save ~30 minutes in on average.

Agree with godot on rare thing.

Agree with godot on the math thing, for handy reference (I don't know if I'm allowed to post external links, please edit it out if I am not)
here's a spreadsheet of your ev in various formats (not taking into account increasing/decreasing difficulty as rounds progress, as it's a spread sheet. maybe I'll program up a terrible gui). I've posted this before but it has been simplified and the number of formats it calculates is larger.

http://sites.google.com/site/whatisfgh/spreadsheet

I think time, convenience(ie it was firing), and practice are the only reasons to draft 4322's (well and probably superstition... did you know a university ran the numbers in football, and it is almost never more profitable to punt than it is to just go for it on the fourth down? Yeah, it's kind of like how teams almost always punt (no pun intented))

Time, convenience are self explanatory.

By practice I mean (assuming an increasing level of difficulty as you progress up the queue which as a below post states might be faulty). In that it is harder to go from drafting with "bad" players to "great" players, than it is to go bad->medium->great, so you may be using 4322's to get a feel for the format to gain access to 84's. As well you may be training for a paper tournament, in which case learning the format on a scaling curve might help.

That said I don't think practice constitutes drafting only 4322's... it should just be a temporary thing.

side note: I'm one of those mid 1700 players in the swiss... just for some reasons I trust my math and know that since I'm less than 50% to beat an average 84er

Oh, but to be fair with the by whatisfgh at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 08:39
whatisfgh's picture

Oh, but to be fair with the time thing, I at one point calculated EV/Hour, and it still turns out that it is better to play 84's than 4322's, it just happens sooner, if I recall that, 4322's and 84's become more attractive to someone who is worried about ev and time (something like 5% points I think)

Regarding the time issue: the by Godot at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 01:14
Godot's picture

Regarding the time issue: the relevant consideration, in my mind, is the amount of dead time between rounds. 43 wins on that front, but I think it's often overstated, since only the time between rounds two and three is longer on average in Swiss. And whatever, so you spend 25 minutes surfing while waiting for round three in Swiss instead of 15 in 43, it just doesn't feel that relevant to me personally. (Totally pulling those numbers out of thin air, BTW, just making the point.)

The "Swiss takes longer" argument you are presenting basically assumes that a lower start-to-finish draft time, including the actual playing of Magic, is desirable. If that's the case, I have the solution: don't draft at all! That takes zero minutes, and has a solid pack EV of 0 as well.

But that's not why we're in this--the Magic itself has a great deal of value. Personally, my goal is to get as much Limited Magic as I can for as little money as possible. Therefore, if the thing I am buying from Wizards when I draft (besides cards) is "matches of Limited Magic," Swiss absolutely blows 43 *and* 84 away. Tickets aside, let's say my EV for both Swiss and 43 is -1 pack per draft. With Swiss, I am buying three matches of Limited Magic for .33 packs per match, every time. My cost per match in 43, where I may get 1, 2, or 3 matches, is significantly higher.

This carries over to the "hourly rate" argument as well. "I can lose a pack per draft in 43 in about *half* the time it takes me to lose a pack per draft in Swiss!"

Somehow, that's not a selling point for me on 43...

I am in no way advocating by whatisfgh at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:19
whatisfgh's picture

I am in no way advocating 4322's, I'm just listing reasons why someone might want to "save time" and draft 4322's.

All I'm doing with the math is Profit/(Average time for draft based on win %) (where profit = EV - Cost to draft + approximate value of cards opened)

The point I'm making is that if someone *does* value a shorter start to finish time, then 4322 can be attractive. (though nice work trying to trick people into dividing by 0 ;D)

The last three paragraphs just elaborate on the comment to my comment I made. So I agree? ;)

Like I said, I play swiss and do not advocate 4322 but I can understand people wanting to play it for the reasons I stated above. As long as they aren't playing it because they they like punting on the fourth down I don't really care what people do with their money... it does keep wizards in business offering me swisses

edit: though I should probably modify my calculations to take into account for "dead time". something like average match length = 40-45, you average match play length = 30-35

edit2: You've probably now stolen my day, as I'm inclined to just make a customizable spread sheet gui... just fyi

Right, I realize you aren't by Godot at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 14:26
Godot's picture

Right, I realize you aren't defending 43 as much as playing devil's advocate for the time factor, and that we basically agree. I just used your comment as a jumping off point for a general rebuttal on the time defense of 43. Many people simply parrot the "Swiss takes longer" and "hourly rate" arguments without thinking it through from a "true dead time" standpoint or a "what am I really buying here?" standpoint.

"I see you bought a quart of strawberries. Well, I prefer to pay the same price for a pint of strawberries because they take half as long to eat."

Lol at strawberries. For by whatisfgh at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 16:09
whatisfgh's picture

Lol at strawberries.

For those intested (I assure you it's not a virus... but for anyone that is worried about viruses always make sure to scan your rar's before unpacking them)

http://sites.google.com/site/whatisfgh/draft-ev-program

Allows for incremental (de/in)creases in difficulty as rounds progress, customized etc's...

Another Swiss guy by Redland Jack (not verified) at Tue, 01/26/2010 - 22:36
Redland Jack's picture

Just wanted to chime in as another guy with a 1750+ rating (currently 1775) who drafts exclusively Swiss. I like the fact that I get to play 3 matches every time.

I would note that I've drafted ZZZ about 15 times or so, and I've only once played against someone with an equivalent rating (as noted by the fact that my rating changed 8 points after the games. Typically I gain 3-5 points for a win and lose 11-12 for a loss).

I imagine this means that my skill level won't be increasing all that much, but I feel it's worth it, because I really hate drafting, losing in the 1st round, and then not being able to play anymore.

4,3,2,2 vs Swiss by Mikec_00 (not verified) at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 08:11
Mikec_00's picture

I could be wrong about this and it is why I wanted to elicit some opinions from other posters. I am right around a 1700 player and don't feel I am good enough to draft 8-4s and win consistently enough conserve money. So I stick to the 4,3,2,2 and the Swiss. Reading these post I feel like people might be missing something. I don't think the 4,3,2,2s are necessarily stocked with better players then the Swiss. On the contrary I think the Swiss likely has a higher average ranking among it's players then the 4,3,2,2. I can't be sure obivously since wizards nolonger lets us see our opponents limited rankings, but just from playing them as often as I do I feel the average level of competition is better in the Swiss draft.

I have actually performed better over time in the 4,3,2,2.

As for reasoning, I think that Godot hit it on the head. Swiss pays out better and has a better "EV". This means that alot o top players tyring to go infinite will go for either 8,4 or Swiss. Look a Godots own numbers 17/25/1. If other players of a similiar caliber have similiar splits, then the it seems much more likely you are going to run alot of high level players in the Swiss and less so in the 4,3,2,2.

Heck Godot's reference to the Math article is flawed since it assumes better players in the 4,3,2,2 then Swiss. However the fact that the "cat is out of the bag" on the EV thing means that top players are likely avoiding the 4,3,2,2.

Just a thought does anyone else feel the 4,3,2,2s have lower average skill the the Swiss??

I agree that competition is by rwildernessr (RoninX) (not verified) at Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:07
rwildernessr (RoninX)'s picture

I agree that competition is probably slightly weaker on average in 4322s and that is one of the major reasons that I think I certain class of player actually has the highest EV in 4322s at the moment. I think the purely mathematical approach leaves out a lot of variable, and I believe a skilled drafter can add collateral value to their drafts reasonably frequently (ie. rare draft a few cards), while still maintaining the "slow bleed".

I have to say that the rare drafting analysis is speculative because it is literally impossible to know what impact a given card will have in a deck - especially early in a draft when you may still switch arhetypes. I have a fair amount of experience and you simply see more money cards in 84 than 43 and more in 43 than swiss. This is because their payout structures support building strong decks more strongly than swiss does. Thus you have a greater opportunity to rare draft in those formats. Whether and how you take those opportunities, and how they effect your long term payout is an entirely different discussion.

Ultimately 8-4s are the best if you are good enough, but a cold or unlucky streak in 8-4 drafts hurts a lot, and you have to have the "means" (pack backlog/tix/$$$) whatever to be able to handle getting nothing back if you end up string together a few 1-1.

**PS - I would gladly boycott 4322s for as long as it took if players could band together and demand a 5322. Any budding community organizers want to take this on?

BoogieElAceitoso's picture

Never thought a seemingly inocuous opinion on the part of the writer would get such a heated debate. To chime in on this, when I started playing I thought about "graduating" from Swiss to 4-3, then to 8-4. I haven't really won consistently enough on Swiss to make the jump, but following Godot's advice on one of his podcasts I will skip the whole 4-3 class entirely. Swiss really gives more bang for my buck, as I play for fun, not for profit, and from time to time I enter an 8-4 to get slaughtered in hopes of grabbing some fancy rares for my constructed decks.

Rare Draft by Mathu (not verified) at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 14:08
Mathu's picture

Hey there Gwyned, I do consider you to be a significantly above average standard pauper player, don't sell yourself short. I have never played a swiss queue, it sounds interesting. I consider myself a fair magic player, I have played several online drafts (usually 4-3-2-2's because I thought they were more economical) but I have never even won a match in them. Even drafts that I considered to have been successful, have resulted in a loss to a better crafted deck. I even lost in a triple m10 draft where I grabbed a Garruk, 2 Great Sable Stag's, 3 Silence, one Overrun and a howl of the night pack! Despite my weaknesses, I like to draft because I feel like it is more of an interactive way to experience the game than fighting through netdecks in constructed that might as well be played by bots. With that as background, I wonder what you (or anyone else) thinks of rare drafting in any draft format. I see it like this, the tourney costs you 3.5 packs (essentially). When you grab a Verdant Catacombs, you get value for one pack back (maybe more if you put out a classified listing for it afterwards). Grabbing the scalding tarn in pack 3 would get you another pack's value. If you consider the rest of your deck to be worth about a pack (with the oracle, and I would have gone with the scute mob). you are almost whole, winning the first match gets you about 4 packs of value right there (I didn't see you use the burst lightning that you took over the tarn in that match)

Hey Mathu, Based on your by Godot at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 14:21
Godot's picture

Hey Mathu,

Based on your post, I strongly suggest:

* Playing Swiss to ensure three matches, which will give you a lot more feedback on your deck and draft.
* Reading the article about raredrafting I cited above: http://puremtgo.com/articles/ev-raredrafting-and-you
* Not playing Silence in M10 draft. It's basically unplayable, as preventing an opponent from casting spells for a turn just isn't worth the high cost of a card.

Thanks Godot, I read that by Mathu (not verified) at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 17:02
Mathu's picture

Thanks Godot, I read that article and found it very interesting, I think I will try some swiss drafts. I feel like a lot of times I draft a decent deck (silence aside), but run up against a monster in match one. Losing match one a few times in a row frustrated me out of drafting, maybe getting a chance to win a match or two will lift my spirits.

Update by Anonymous (not verified) at Sat, 01/30/2010 - 22:44
Anonymous's picture

Since the article is getting older, I thought that I would give an update on my experience in swiss. I have been playing M10 swiss queues (nix tix) and am having a blast. I still can't seem to win match 1, but I have 2-1'ed a bunch, and usually get one or two cards worth enough value to make up for the pack I lost. I feel like I am getting a lot better at drafting this way too, because I can see different deck configurations and what is successful. Thanks!

I have to admit that I've by Legend_of_Cthulhu (not verified) at Thu, 01/28/2010 - 19:48
Legend_of_Cthulhu's picture

I have to admit that I've done the "sharking the swiss queues" a bunch of times trying to chase down QPs (my limited rating is around 1860).

I've also talked to other players, some, like a couple of my teammates that are even better than me in limited, said they've done the same thing, joining swiss queues to chase down QPs.

So I'm pretty sure it's just not us doing it, but rather, there are more people out there doing it too. So I agree completely that swiss queues are not as easy as people think they are.