I also want to thank Peter for mentioning the PPC again. I didn't see mtgostrat.com mentioned as one of the organizers (together with team DBC), though, even if the link goes to our site. So I just want to mention that: mtgostrat.com is hosting the Pauper Players' Championship for August 2013.
Thank you Peter for again mentioning the Pauper Players Leaderboard. I also appreciate you mentioning the Temporal Fissure problem. Hopefully in the next month or so, you will have the satisfaction of mentioning that the card is finally banned. Once that happens, and only if, there will be a second season of the Pauper Players Leaderboard. JSiri84 or myself will be sure to keep you updated.
I agree that my matchup with Atuan is pretty unfavorable, although I'm not terribly worried about Jitte, since I have Arbiter/Mindcensor to turn off his search and Stony to turn it off, as well as Relic-Warder, Revoker, etc. I'm mostly worried about giant Goyfs and Knights and Exalted triggers running over my puny creatures.
As for the community build, I think Thalia is an auto-include, Mindcensor is good, Heretics and Canonist are sideboard possibilities. I think Wayfarer could be interesting, although it's definitely a non-bo with Arbiter, who I feel is weaker without stuff like Ghost Quarter to exploit his ability. The others I think are a bit overcosted. I'm surprised Kataki isn't included, however. I think Thalia is an auto-include a la Strip/Waste for lands, so I'll vote for Mindcensor. I just think he's the next best creature for this type of build, shutting off fetches and tutors is pretty big.
The second deck was created here a long time ago: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=312302
I'd appreciate more depth about it, since it is my favourite deck concept, and cheap. Sadly it isn't developing now, so someone giving it a spin would show a fun, cheap, maybe competitive deck. It inspired my Pauper creation Meltdown (http://deck.tk/5XDH69j1) which might inspire someone to pursue the non Affinity artifact decks route further.
kcd
Unless I can somehow turn my phantom points into tickets, either by winning non-phantom prizes or direct trade, I'm not into the idea. I don't mind having phantom points as PART of the prize, but I dislike them being the ONLY prize. (And I don't mean 64+ player events which only pay out non-phantom prizes to 1st or a 500+ person phantom PTQ paying top 8).
With tickets, I can trade them easily for cards I want, or even sell them to other players on a third party site. With phantom points, I can play in more phantom events someday and get nothing but phantom points (if that)? That doesn't appeal to me. If I want that type of competition, I'll go play in the 'tournament practice' room or in a player-run event. That lets me play for free as much as I want with decent competition with about the same return.
You can argue 'but phantom points allow limited-draft-cube events' that can't be replicated for free. You'd be right, and I like cube (a lot). However unless I can earn something in cube that isn't a phantom point, (or for that matter 1/15th of an entry ticket for later phantom event in the month, i.e. one QP) then I'm unlikely to play cube just to play. I mean I don't like cube substantially more than modern, or reading a great book, or whatever video game I'm into. And if I have to choose between similar experiences I like, the I'll pick the one I believe I get the most out of, and phantom points only give phantom value.
If I could turn in phantom points for trophies or certain avatars (that I could trade) or promo cards, then I'd be more interested.
I'm pretty sure there will be other oversights (I mainly listened to miha's suggestions, so it's all his fault! :P), but I'm okay with people going and finding less known cards, more than if they could just put 8 Shatterstorms in there and call it a day. (You shouldn't tell everyone your secret finds, though, maybe you'll end up playing Machines all the time! :P)
Devout Witness is slow enough and with a built-in card consumption, so it's not too worrying. Aura Shards is strong but also not immediately effective. I'd suggest not to forget to include noncreature removal in the Machine decks, anyway.
I could Not agree more - a tiny Card making whole pauper unfun: Not because of dominance but by producing One of the Most boring & painful ways to waste ones lifetime ...
I'm not sure I would agree that Gideon Jura is stronger in the UWR Control mirror. I haven't played the match in Modern, but I played some UWr Control/Superfriends mirrors during the end of ALA-ZEN standard, and this deck is *extremely* similar to those lists (minus JTMS, sadly!) I usually boarded Gideon out entirely or down to one in the Superfriends mirror. His +2 wasn't that great and they had Path to Exile if I tried to attack with him (plus they weren't leaving in DoJ against me post-board so his natural evasion of sweepers wasn't super-relevant.) When they printed Mana Leak in M11 those decks stopped being "tapout" control decks, and Gideon got even worse in the mirror. So from that experience, I would have to say I'm skeptical of him being good here, and you don't have any UWR Control mirrors in the artice -- was there some particular reason you liked Gideon against other control decks?
Regarding olaw's point-- From the experience I got in my recent Legacy Slivers article trying to do live audio commentary over my own matchplay, I think you have to go to AT LEAST the TP room to have anything approaching reasonable, but if 2-man's are firing for your format then there's no reason not to just go there. The opponents in 2-man's usually won't scoop for no reason, usually play "real" decks, and you can take the time you need to explain your moves. I had to throw out most of the stuff I recorded in the TP room, and I always felt like I needed to play faster to avoid having them just say "screw it" and quit the match, since nothing was at stake.
I also agree that having both decklists in the article would have helped.
Thanks for correction, by the way did you skip to ban "Aura Shards" or (maybe) "Devout Witness" (just asking this one, as I didn't even think to add it).
Yeah, it's fixed now (were a residual from the T9 being banned in Pure, whose filter I copied when I created this one).
Update, though: Artifact Mutation is banned for Human, as it says in the TribAp main page and the newsletter message. Last week's list didn't include it and I forgot to remind of it in the article.
Phantom Points are an expansion of the concept of Cube Tickets but I think the change from tickets to points is significant. It implies a model similar to arcade credits and tickets such as what is found at Dave and Busters, Chuckie Cheese, etc.
At the moment I'm not all that excited about Phantom Points, but the possibilities in the future excite me. They could be used in many fun and interesting ways such as the free real life promotions you mentioned. Here are some other possibilities
1) Phantom Constructed Tournaments (IE, you can play with cards you don't own) - for example - 1 phantom point entry fee 2-man phantom constructed tournaments, 2 points go to the winner. It would be a great way to test out decks.
2) Redeeming phantom points for the promos and prizes - Builds incentive to keep playing and keep collecting phantom points.
3) 1-2 Phantom Points awarded for participating in non-Phantom events - This could be used as an incentive to get players to try new things.
I called them Rounds because I thought of the game as a fight. Early on I think I started all my actual play-by-plays by using the heading "The Game: Fight!" I dunno, just sounded cooler.
I think your method of benching decks is good. As you note, the decks that won weren't completely dominating. But encouraging diversity is always nice. Good job!
I question why you are calling this deck American Midrange. This deck is almost certainly a Control deck and I'm not sure what definition of Midrange the deck falls into. I have seen UWR decks that run Geist of Saint Traft and Thundermaw Hellkite called Midrange as they have aggressive and controlling elements but the decks you are showcasing doesn't share these characteristics.
I feel like some of your Metagame Analysis is a bit shallow as it seems to indicate that more is better, which isn't strictly true. In relation to burn spells I think there's a big question over how much you want burn in the Mirror Match. Shahar's burn spells are almost all going to the face as Ben just doesn't have many threats to use them against. Ben's burn is probably slightly better thanks to Shahar having more viable threats to use it against. Electrolyse seems like it would be better for Ben than Shahar as Ben can kill Snapcasters and Cliques whereas Shahar will probably just be hitting Ben for 2. Then again it is possible to burn out your opponent so there are a lot of different factors at play in considering how many burn spells you want in the mirror, however, generally I think counterspells are more valuable.
I found your videos to be quite enjoyable but I question why you are playing in the Just for Fun room when you are playing a Tier 1 deck and discussing the metagame of tournament-level magic. Surely playing in the Tournament Practice room will have you run up against more prominent decks in the metagame. The matches you played were interesting but only the Loam deck really came close to looking like a Tier deck and even then I don't recognise it as such. Also, it seems very odd that there isn't a UWR Control mirror match video when the majority of your article seemed to be based on analysing that particular matchup.
In terms of the layout of your article, I feel it would have been helpful if you had put Ben and Shahar's decklists into the article. Considering a major part of the article is comparing the two lists it would nice to have them on hand. Yes, I can look them up myself but I shouldn't really have to. Additionally, at the end you present us with a tweaked decklist without actually pointing out what the changes are or why you made them. What were your 'revisions based on testing'? What about your testing made you make those changes? Also, I'd suggest a bit more proof reading could have helped avoid a few simple mistakes that were present in the article.
I hope these comments don't come across as overly critical as I found your article interesting, hence why I felt the desire to comment on it. I just felt like there were some clear areas that could be improved upon. Not a bad effort for your first article here.
Thank you!
I realized while trying to mimic your play by play write ups (that are very fun to do!) that you used to call them "rounds" rather than "turns". Is it because you put together different players' turns?
You have to take into account that those first four decks are the ones that got the closest to dominate - and yet they still didn't because they won just 3 times out of 30 or so, sometimes attempting it 10-12 times. They're strong, but they weren't spared a good beating themselves on occasion. On the other hand, we never saw Sasaya nor Uril, and only rarely Rafiq. Of course, it's all about what the people who actually showed up to play like the most.
And I really don't like to ban stuff in Commander. It has to be the format where you use anything and everything. I prefer to have extremely successful decklists to be "benched" for 6 months or so, so they won't create stale environments, and to give players incentives to try different things.
I also want to thank Peter for mentioning the PPC again. I didn't see mtgostrat.com mentioned as one of the organizers (together with team DBC), though, even if the link goes to our site. So I just want to mention that: mtgostrat.com is hosting the Pauper Players' Championship for August 2013.
Thank you Peter for again mentioning the Pauper Players Leaderboard. I also appreciate you mentioning the Temporal Fissure problem. Hopefully in the next month or so, you will have the satisfaction of mentioning that the card is finally banned. Once that happens, and only if, there will be a second season of the Pauper Players Leaderboard. JSiri84 or myself will be sure to keep you updated.
I agree that my matchup with Atuan is pretty unfavorable, although I'm not terribly worried about Jitte, since I have Arbiter/Mindcensor to turn off his search and Stony to turn it off, as well as Relic-Warder, Revoker, etc. I'm mostly worried about giant Goyfs and Knights and Exalted triggers running over my puny creatures.
As for the community build, I think Thalia is an auto-include, Mindcensor is good, Heretics and Canonist are sideboard possibilities. I think Wayfarer could be interesting, although it's definitely a non-bo with Arbiter, who I feel is weaker without stuff like Ghost Quarter to exploit his ability. The others I think are a bit overcosted. I'm surprised Kataki isn't included, however. I think Thalia is an auto-include a la Strip/Waste for lands, so I'll vote for Mindcensor. I just think he's the next best creature for this type of build, shutting off fetches and tutors is pretty big.
They are really the best. Good thing I saw this one. I hope i am as good as them. - Michael Courouleau
This is exciting. This is something to look forward to. I want to learn more on this. - Michael Courouleau
Underdog Prize, What is that? I have not been here for a while.
The rites should have a standard. Never has it been standarized before. - James Stuckey
The cartoons are really great. Good job putting it up. - James Stuckey
The soap opera is really good. It is not that great, but we can still bear with it. - YORHealth
The second deck was created here a long time ago:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=312302
I'd appreciate more depth about it, since it is my favourite deck concept, and cheap. Sadly it isn't developing now, so someone giving it a spin would show a fun, cheap, maybe competitive deck. It inspired my Pauper creation Meltdown (http://deck.tk/5XDH69j1) which might inspire someone to pursue the non Affinity artifact decks route further.
kcd
Unless I can somehow turn my phantom points into tickets, either by winning non-phantom prizes or direct trade, I'm not into the idea. I don't mind having phantom points as PART of the prize, but I dislike them being the ONLY prize. (And I don't mean 64+ player events which only pay out non-phantom prizes to 1st or a 500+ person phantom PTQ paying top 8).
With tickets, I can trade them easily for cards I want, or even sell them to other players on a third party site. With phantom points, I can play in more phantom events someday and get nothing but phantom points (if that)? That doesn't appeal to me. If I want that type of competition, I'll go play in the 'tournament practice' room or in a player-run event. That lets me play for free as much as I want with decent competition with about the same return.
You can argue 'but phantom points allow limited-draft-cube events' that can't be replicated for free. You'd be right, and I like cube (a lot). However unless I can earn something in cube that isn't a phantom point, (or for that matter 1/15th of an entry ticket for later phantom event in the month, i.e. one QP) then I'm unlikely to play cube just to play. I mean I don't like cube substantially more than modern, or reading a great book, or whatever video game I'm into. And if I have to choose between similar experiences I like, the I'll pick the one I believe I get the most out of, and phantom points only give phantom value.
If I could turn in phantom points for trophies or certain avatars (that I could trade) or promo cards, then I'd be more interested.
I'm pretty sure there will be other oversights (I mainly listened to miha's suggestions, so it's all his fault! :P), but I'm okay with people going and finding less known cards, more than if they could just put 8 Shatterstorms in there and call it a day. (You shouldn't tell everyone your secret finds, though, maybe you'll end up playing Machines all the time! :P)
Devout Witness is slow enough and with a built-in card consumption, so it's not too worrying. Aura Shards is strong but also not immediately effective. I'd suggest not to forget to include noncreature removal in the Machine decks, anyway.
Definitely Thalia. I also like the Leon Arbitor
I could Not agree more - a tiny Card making whole pauper unfun: Not because of dominance but by producing One of the Most boring & painful ways to waste ones lifetime ...
I'm not sure I would agree that Gideon Jura is stronger in the UWR Control mirror. I haven't played the match in Modern, but I played some UWr Control/Superfriends mirrors during the end of ALA-ZEN standard, and this deck is *extremely* similar to those lists (minus JTMS, sadly!) I usually boarded Gideon out entirely or down to one in the Superfriends mirror. His +2 wasn't that great and they had Path to Exile if I tried to attack with him (plus they weren't leaving in DoJ against me post-board so his natural evasion of sweepers wasn't super-relevant.) When they printed Mana Leak in M11 those decks stopped being "tapout" control decks, and Gideon got even worse in the mirror. So from that experience, I would have to say I'm skeptical of him being good here, and you don't have any UWR Control mirrors in the artice -- was there some particular reason you liked Gideon against other control decks?
Regarding olaw's point-- From the experience I got in my recent Legacy Slivers article trying to do live audio commentary over my own matchplay, I think you have to go to AT LEAST the TP room to have anything approaching reasonable, but if 2-man's are firing for your format then there's no reason not to just go there. The opponents in 2-man's usually won't scoop for no reason, usually play "real" decks, and you can take the time you need to explain your moves. I had to throw out most of the stuff I recorded in the TP room, and I always felt like I needed to play faster to avoid having them just say "screw it" and quit the match, since nothing was at stake.
I also agree that having both decklists in the article would have helped.
Thanks for correction, by the way did you skip to ban "Aura Shards" or (maybe) "Devout Witness" (just asking this one, as I didn't even think to add it).
Yeah, it's fixed now (were a residual from the T9 being banned in Pure, whose filter I copied when I created this one).
Update, though: Artifact Mutation is banned for Human, as it says in the TribAp main page and the newsletter message. Last week's list didn't include it and I forgot to remind of it in the article.
Phantom Points are an expansion of the concept of Cube Tickets but I think the change from tickets to points is significant. It implies a model similar to arcade credits and tickets such as what is found at Dave and Busters, Chuckie Cheese, etc.
At the moment I'm not all that excited about Phantom Points, but the possibilities in the future excite me. They could be used in many fun and interesting ways such as the free real life promotions you mentioned. Here are some other possibilities
1) Phantom Constructed Tournaments (IE, you can play with cards you don't own) - for example - 1 phantom point entry fee 2-man phantom constructed tournaments, 2 points go to the winner. It would be a great way to test out decks.
2) Redeeming phantom points for the promos and prizes - Builds incentive to keep playing and keep collecting phantom points.
3) 1-2 Phantom Points awarded for participating in non-Phantom events - This could be used as an incentive to get players to try new things.
Path to Exile & Swords to Plowshares gives banned notification at the Gatherling for Man vs. Machine event. Is there an error?
I called them Rounds because I thought of the game as a fight. Early on I think I started all my actual play-by-plays by using the heading "The Game: Fight!" I dunno, just sounded cooler.
I think your method of benching decks is good. As you note, the decks that won weren't completely dominating. But encouraging diversity is always nice. Good job!
Thalia is the obvious choice for creature.
I question why you are calling this deck American Midrange. This deck is almost certainly a Control deck and I'm not sure what definition of Midrange the deck falls into. I have seen UWR decks that run Geist of Saint Traft and Thundermaw Hellkite called Midrange as they have aggressive and controlling elements but the decks you are showcasing doesn't share these characteristics.
I feel like some of your Metagame Analysis is a bit shallow as it seems to indicate that more is better, which isn't strictly true. In relation to burn spells I think there's a big question over how much you want burn in the Mirror Match. Shahar's burn spells are almost all going to the face as Ben just doesn't have many threats to use them against. Ben's burn is probably slightly better thanks to Shahar having more viable threats to use it against. Electrolyse seems like it would be better for Ben than Shahar as Ben can kill Snapcasters and Cliques whereas Shahar will probably just be hitting Ben for 2. Then again it is possible to burn out your opponent so there are a lot of different factors at play in considering how many burn spells you want in the mirror, however, generally I think counterspells are more valuable.
I found your videos to be quite enjoyable but I question why you are playing in the Just for Fun room when you are playing a Tier 1 deck and discussing the metagame of tournament-level magic. Surely playing in the Tournament Practice room will have you run up against more prominent decks in the metagame. The matches you played were interesting but only the Loam deck really came close to looking like a Tier deck and even then I don't recognise it as such. Also, it seems very odd that there isn't a UWR Control mirror match video when the majority of your article seemed to be based on analysing that particular matchup.
In terms of the layout of your article, I feel it would have been helpful if you had put Ben and Shahar's decklists into the article. Considering a major part of the article is comparing the two lists it would nice to have them on hand. Yes, I can look them up myself but I shouldn't really have to. Additionally, at the end you present us with a tweaked decklist without actually pointing out what the changes are or why you made them. What were your 'revisions based on testing'? What about your testing made you make those changes? Also, I'd suggest a bit more proof reading could have helped avoid a few simple mistakes that were present in the article.
I hope these comments don't come across as overly critical as I found your article interesting, hence why I felt the desire to comment on it. I just felt like there were some clear areas that could be improved upon. Not a bad effort for your first article here.
Thank you!
I realized while trying to mimic your play by play write ups (that are very fun to do!) that you used to call them "rounds" rather than "turns". Is it because you put together different players' turns?
You have to take into account that those first four decks are the ones that got the closest to dominate - and yet they still didn't because they won just 3 times out of 30 or so, sometimes attempting it 10-12 times. They're strong, but they weren't spared a good beating themselves on occasion. On the other hand, we never saw Sasaya nor Uril, and only rarely Rafiq. Of course, it's all about what the people who actually showed up to play like the most.
And I really don't like to ban stuff in Commander. It has to be the format where you use anything and everything. I prefer to have extremely successful decklists to be "benched" for 6 months or so, so they won't create stale environments, and to give players incentives to try different things.
I had missed that line. All more reason (and chances) for our point to be taken into consideration, no?
I can only say that this one is Awesome....Health and Fitness | Health care