Wow that scenerio you posted is bugging me, I really don't think there's any possible way to do it, but maybe that's the beauty of the exercise. The trouble is you only really have a total of like 5 power that can get through. Since damage no longer uses the stack, and since duelists have shroud, there's absolutely no way to keep your duelists alive. I can't see a way to keep more than 5 power of creatures on the field as valid attackers, so it doesn't really matter what you do to his blockers... what a puzzle :D
Thanks for the feedback. Other perspectives are always useful and appreciated.
I honestly haven't tried out the thickets, and I can't comment on them until I do. I'll get back to you on it. As I said last time, I didn't like the werebear since you're not hitting threshold in a timely manner, and some matches never.
I think I see an issue here though. Dead Dog is absolutely an aggro deck, and tweaking it for a more controlling slant will only set yourself up for disappointment. This is why cards like Mulch, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Civic Wayfinder, and the like all don't end up as good card inclusions. They're not bad cards, but they fit the more traditional control TE decks. If you want a controlling TE deck then ditch the aggro shell, add alot of land ramp / deck trimming with Greenseeker and the like, and throw in some finishers like Krosan Tusker / Twisted Abomination and Crypt Rats. That's a perfectly viable option as well.
The thing about Dead Dog is that it isn't a TE deck (otherwise I would just call it TE :P). It's an aggro deck that has some GY manipulation to give it more steam. Dredging / GY manipulation is not the main theme, but rather just another tool.
All that rambling basically is why I would not run the Imp maindeck. Over here, the brownscale serves two purposes: 1) lifegain vs. aggro 2) dredge so you always "topdeck" a creature to pitch if you have TE. It really doesn't matter that he's Dredge 2 or Dredge 5, you'll have a target to pick up anyway. I use the Imp purely as a way to combat flyers.
I can't say I've had an issue with storm. I almost always lose the first game, and then second/third game I hit them with 2-3 discard, they panic and fizzle.
Unfortunate to hear about the queue results though. What were your matchups? From my own playtesting I can confidently say this deck is very favorable at beating MBCu and goblins. I'll give it more playtesting, but storm has good too. I would NOT run this deck if there was a surge of UWcontrol, faeries, or heavy-flyer decks. I'll try my hardest to approach this with queue results instead of any bias, so expect another "off to the queues" section next article to deny/confirm my claims. The last thing I want to do is influence people to play a deck that isn't up to par. I could just ramble on the (proven) awesomeness of other decks like Teachings instead.
Next deck spotlight could be WW. I don't think it's a good meta call at the moment, but I could explain why.
I didn't mention Searing Blaze because it's not 1cc. It's certainly playable though.
Good stuff, glad to see this is not only still running, but continues to bring about creative ideas
i think gettin rid of bagdad is the right move, often with BnR lists they dont want to destroy the deck totally but slow it to a point where it can be dealt with.. at least thats the way I've always interpreted it
A very clearly written article, and very useful if you need to know how to tune mbc to perfect tournament pitch... but haven't we done mbc to death by now? I'd like to be reading about one of those breakthrough archetypes you mentioned in passing. Oh, and the word is intersect.
Goblin Lackey was banned pre-emptively. It proved to be a powerhouse in other formats, and once it gets online via urza's...it will be everywhere. people get mad about goblins now.
And as far as dredge goes, I see no need to nuke the deck. Bridge from Below is easily handled with many different creatures. Bazaar however is one of the main reasons it was always winning on turn 2 or 3.
Flash Woodfall is a great play but not broken imho. For one thing persist is a different animal entirely than the hulk's ability. For another a good plow/path in response stops that nonsense, not so with Hulk.
"Also Flash isn't broken without Hulk imho but it is already banned."
Woodfall Primus begs to differ with that opinion...
Also I would say that Goblin Recruiter is a bigger offender than Goblin Lackey. (Of course they work together and separately very well, so it's kind of hard to say which one is strictly better)
As I told you in MTGO, I've been heavily running Dead Dog. I like it a lot. I made the following tweaks:
- Up to 24 lands. I'm not comfortable with 22. Instead I switched in 4 Tranquil Thicket, and evened out swamps and forests. As you noted, you only ever want 1-2 forest, but swamps don't go unused. I experimented with removing the Root Farms to lower the CIPT lands, but they're back in. Tranquil Thicket helps with Werebear, although I experimented with and eventually dropped it.
- I run 2 Imps. I like the Dredge 5, and I lean more toward control than aggro.
You were right about goblins...looking at the lists I feel I ought to lose to them, but I keep winning.
I'm having a lot less luck against combo. I've had a lot of bad luck with Thrull Surgeon being too slow, and I see you've removed them. Mostly I've been beating them (when I do) not with discard but by pressuring them to go off early and fizzle.
So I initially went 2-0 in 2-mans, then had an unfortunately 0-5 night. I realized after that I'd been on tilt and definitely should have won at least 1 of those, though. My overall impression is that it might not be the 100% best choice deck right now, but it is for me when I multiply "good deck" with "fun to play". And I play better when I play a deck I enjoy.
You should write something up about WW. You talk all about red today without mentioning that Searing Blaze is pretty sick. Maybe it'll make Pauper Boros not suck.
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
Imho the powerhouse behind dredge is Bridge from Below, not Bazaar. Without the Bridge...no explosion, without Bazaar its just slightly slower. So far Goblin lackey hasn't shown its face but several other speedy goblins have. Also Flash isn't broken without Hulk imho but it is already banned. (FMiaLC pointed this out as his main reason for playing dredge last week even though he apparently didn't test his deck before playing it, in the format.)
Stealthy Badger yes we have corrupted AJ who while being a fairminded individual does enjoy winning. Come play :D
I love how AJ impy was the original guy who was saying how competitive play was going to ruin tribal's "fun factor" as a format, and is now the guy who auto-runs 4 moats each week!
I'm still pretty irked that I can never get to these events. I have a couple of pretty decent looking tribal decks (plus a pile of carp giants list) which are dying for some play!
I play a lot of rogue decks as well irl and on mtgo because i feel like copying the last event winning deck and playing it isn't real magic (even tho thats 99%of it now-a-days) so i appreciate that people play rogue decks, and win apparently.
Interested in seeing, since i have just started reading this site, if you've rogue'd with bloodchief ascension. I've been messing around with it at my local FNM and its fun but doesnt win on a consistant basis. Here's the decklist - test anything like this? I feel like ascension is just breakable but not sure how to protect it in standard or the right combo to break it in half in extended -
4x Bloodchief Ascension 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Burst Lightning
4x Terminate 4x Countersquall 4x Sign In Blood
4x Blightning 4x Mind Funeral 3x Volcanic Fallout
2x Cruel Ultimatum
1x Earthquake
4x Dragonskull Summit 4x Crumbling Necropolis 2x Scalding Tarn 1x Island 3x Drowned Catacombs 3x Mountain 5x Swamp
Sides: 4x Negate, 3x Pithing, 4x Vampire Hexmage, 1x Cruel Ultimatum, 3x Flashfreeze
Ive won turn 4 plenty of times. This deck ravages the casual room (as any thought wins there) and gets there about 60-70% in tournament rooms. Any ideas?
We can choose between writing formal and informal articles. Right now, informal articles are the standard (or null hypothesis, if you will). I'm providing an alternative hypothesis. The question should not be whether statistical inference is perfect (it's not), but rather is it better than what we have already? That is, should we throw out the null hypothesis (informal is better) and replace it with something superior (formal stuff).
You and others have mentioned a bunch of problems with statistical inference. For the most part, you all have been spot on. However, informal research suffers from the same problems. People might think that their playtesting with Nighthawks in the maindeck and Bloodwitches in the sideboard provides enough information to make a decision, but they are dead wrong. I'd say 75% of articles around the internet involve a writer making a hasty conclusion out of dreadfully small and horrendously biased amounts of data.
Will the data be unbiased here? Not entirely. Will it be better than if you and Jimmy spend the next twelve hours playtesting. You'd better believe it.
I just want you to know that these are some of my favorite articles nowadays. I know how much work goes into them, and it is appreciated. As a bonus, you put me on to an inexpensive Standard option that I'm winning incredible numbers of matches with right now.
I was never a math major, more of the artsy type. That being said, I see the same holes in this analysis. Not enough samples, not enough comparison with the same players piloting decks (also with the same experience having piloted it in the past.) Of course I am biased as a RDW and turbofog player. Jund loses to both piloted by me as they have too many things gunning for them and too many sideboard needs.
Does this take into account the sideboards and varients? Grixis Jund w Sedraxis Spectre? Nighthawks mainboard with Bloodwithes in the side? Exotic Orchards in the board for the mirror? Thought Hemorage to look for Sphynx of Jwar Isle and Sorin/Baneslayer/DoJ?
Or Turbofog with Wall of Denial...?
I'll concede that this reflects prior results applied to expectations over time. But it uses very few variables to make this analysis. Then again I could be wrong....
So you removed 1x Baneslayer Angel and 1x Malakir Bloodwitch and added 2x BR Borderpost. Hmm... I should try this too. As you say, sometimes I get stuck on 4 lands with a hand full of 5 cost cards and 2 borderposts might solve the problem.
Thanks for the comment. And I'm glad you liked the deck.
Harsh, bro. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. It's not like you're paying for it and I personally think he's doing a great service as he tries to pin hard data on what has been intangible in the past.
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...
Wow that scenerio you posted is bugging me, I really don't think there's any possible way to do it, but maybe that's the beauty of the exercise. The trouble is you only really have a total of like 5 power that can get through. Since damage no longer uses the stack, and since duelists have shroud, there's absolutely no way to keep your duelists alive. I can't see a way to keep more than 5 power of creatures on the field as valid attackers, so it doesn't really matter what you do to his blockers... what a puzzle :D
Thanks for the feedback. Other perspectives are always useful and appreciated.
I honestly haven't tried out the thickets, and I can't comment on them until I do. I'll get back to you on it. As I said last time, I didn't like the werebear since you're not hitting threshold in a timely manner, and some matches never.
I think I see an issue here though. Dead Dog is absolutely an aggro deck, and tweaking it for a more controlling slant will only set yourself up for disappointment. This is why cards like Mulch, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Civic Wayfinder, and the like all don't end up as good card inclusions. They're not bad cards, but they fit the more traditional control TE decks. If you want a controlling TE deck then ditch the aggro shell, add alot of land ramp / deck trimming with Greenseeker and the like, and throw in some finishers like Krosan Tusker / Twisted Abomination and Crypt Rats. That's a perfectly viable option as well.
The thing about Dead Dog is that it isn't a TE deck (otherwise I would just call it TE :P). It's an aggro deck that has some GY manipulation to give it more steam. Dredging / GY manipulation is not the main theme, but rather just another tool.
All that rambling basically is why I would not run the Imp maindeck. Over here, the brownscale serves two purposes: 1) lifegain vs. aggro 2) dredge so you always "topdeck" a creature to pitch if you have TE. It really doesn't matter that he's Dredge 2 or Dredge 5, you'll have a target to pick up anyway. I use the Imp purely as a way to combat flyers.
I can't say I've had an issue with storm. I almost always lose the first game, and then second/third game I hit them with 2-3 discard, they panic and fizzle.
Unfortunate to hear about the queue results though. What were your matchups? From my own playtesting I can confidently say this deck is very favorable at beating MBCu and goblins. I'll give it more playtesting, but storm has good too. I would NOT run this deck if there was a surge of UWcontrol, faeries, or heavy-flyer decks. I'll try my hardest to approach this with queue results instead of any bias, so expect another "off to the queues" section next article to deny/confirm my claims. The last thing I want to do is influence people to play a deck that isn't up to par. I could just ramble on the (proven) awesomeness of other decks like Teachings instead.
Next deck spotlight could be WW. I don't think it's a good meta call at the moment, but I could explain why.
I didn't mention Searing Blaze because it's not 1cc. It's certainly playable though.
Good stuff, glad to see this is not only still running, but continues to bring about creative ideas
i think gettin rid of bagdad is the right move, often with BnR lists they dont want to destroy the deck totally but slow it to a point where it can be dealt with.. at least thats the way I've always interpreted it
A very clearly written article, and very useful if you need to know how to tune mbc to perfect tournament pitch... but haven't we done mbc to death by now? I'd like to be reading about one of those breakthrough archetypes you mentioned in passing. Oh, and the word is intersect.
Goblin Lackey was banned pre-emptively. It proved to be a powerhouse in other formats, and once it gets online via urza's...it will be everywhere. people get mad about goblins now.
And as far as dredge goes, I see no need to nuke the deck. Bridge from Below is easily handled with many different creatures. Bazaar however is one of the main reasons it was always winning on turn 2 or 3.
Well crafted puzzle. I for one would like to see more of these.
Flash Woodfall is a great play but not broken imho. For one thing persist is a different animal entirely than the hulk's ability. For another a good plow/path in response stops that nonsense, not so with Hulk.
"Also Flash isn't broken without Hulk imho but it is already banned."
Woodfall Primus begs to differ with that opinion...
Also I would say that Goblin Recruiter is a bigger offender than Goblin Lackey. (Of course they work together and separately very well, so it's kind of hard to say which one is strictly better)
Dr Anime,
As I told you in MTGO, I've been heavily running Dead Dog. I like it a lot. I made the following tweaks:
- Up to 24 lands. I'm not comfortable with 22. Instead I switched in 4 Tranquil Thicket, and evened out swamps and forests. As you noted, you only ever want 1-2 forest, but swamps don't go unused. I experimented with removing the Root Farms to lower the CIPT lands, but they're back in. Tranquil Thicket helps with Werebear, although I experimented with and eventually dropped it.
- I run 2 Imps. I like the Dredge 5, and I lean more toward control than aggro.
You were right about goblins...looking at the lists I feel I ought to lose to them, but I keep winning.
I'm having a lot less luck against combo. I've had a lot of bad luck with Thrull Surgeon being too slow, and I see you've removed them. Mostly I've been beating them (when I do) not with discard but by pressuring them to go off early and fizzle.
So I initially went 2-0 in 2-mans, then had an unfortunately 0-5 night. I realized after that I'd been on tilt and definitely should have won at least 1 of those, though. My overall impression is that it might not be the 100% best choice deck right now, but it is for me when I multiply "good deck" with "fun to play". And I play better when I play a deck I enjoy.
You should write something up about WW. You talk all about red today without mentioning that Searing Blaze is pretty sick. Maybe it'll make Pauper Boros not suck.
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
Imho the powerhouse behind dredge is Bridge from Below, not Bazaar. Without the Bridge...no explosion, without Bazaar its just slightly slower. So far Goblin lackey hasn't shown its face but several other speedy goblins have. Also Flash isn't broken without Hulk imho but it is already banned. (FMiaLC pointed this out as his main reason for playing dredge last week even though he apparently didn't test his deck before playing it, in the format.)
Stealthy Badger yes we have corrupted AJ who while being a fairminded individual does enjoy winning. Come play :D
I love how AJ impy was the original guy who was saying how competitive play was going to ruin tribal's "fun factor" as a format, and is now the guy who auto-runs 4 moats each week!
I'm still pretty irked that I can never get to these events. I have a couple of pretty decent looking tribal decks (plus a pile of carp giants list) which are dying for some play!
Oh, and that artificer deck is sweet.
I play a lot of rogue decks as well irl and on mtgo because i feel like copying the last event winning deck and playing it isn't real magic (even tho thats 99%of it now-a-days) so i appreciate that people play rogue decks, and win apparently.
Interested in seeing, since i have just started reading this site, if you've rogue'd with bloodchief ascension. I've been messing around with it at my local FNM and its fun but doesnt win on a consistant basis. Here's the decklist - test anything like this? I feel like ascension is just breakable but not sure how to protect it in standard or the right combo to break it in half in extended -
4x Bloodchief Ascension 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Burst Lightning
4x Terminate 4x Countersquall 4x Sign In Blood
4x Blightning 4x Mind Funeral 3x Volcanic Fallout
2x Cruel Ultimatum
1x Earthquake
4x Dragonskull Summit 4x Crumbling Necropolis 2x Scalding Tarn 1x Island 3x Drowned Catacombs 3x Mountain 5x Swamp
Sides: 4x Negate, 3x Pithing, 4x Vampire Hexmage, 1x Cruel Ultimatum, 3x Flashfreeze
Ive won turn 4 plenty of times. This deck ravages the casual room (as any thought wins there) and gets there about 60-70% in tournament rooms. Any ideas?
Thanks William!
where do you collect this data from?
Let me frame the article in this light:
We can choose between writing formal and informal articles. Right now, informal articles are the standard (or null hypothesis, if you will). I'm providing an alternative hypothesis. The question should not be whether statistical inference is perfect (it's not), but rather is it better than what we have already? That is, should we throw out the null hypothesis (informal is better) and replace it with something superior (formal stuff).
You and others have mentioned a bunch of problems with statistical inference. For the most part, you all have been spot on. However, informal research suffers from the same problems. People might think that their playtesting with Nighthawks in the maindeck and Bloodwitches in the sideboard provides enough information to make a decision, but they are dead wrong. I'd say 75% of articles around the internet involve a writer making a hasty conclusion out of dreadfully small and horrendously biased amounts of data.
Will the data be unbiased here? Not entirely. Will it be better than if you and Jimmy spend the next twelve hours playtesting. You'd better believe it.
What deck are you referring to?
I just want you to know that these are some of my favorite articles nowadays. I know how much work goes into them, and it is appreciated. As a bonus, you put me on to an inexpensive Standard option that I'm winning incredible numbers of matches with right now.
Give WS credit... he has re-invented himself as an author who is contributing useful and interesting information.
I was never a math major, more of the artsy type. That being said, I see the same holes in this analysis. Not enough samples, not enough comparison with the same players piloting decks (also with the same experience having piloted it in the past.) Of course I am biased as a RDW and turbofog player. Jund loses to both piloted by me as they have too many things gunning for them and too many sideboard needs.
Does this take into account the sideboards and varients? Grixis Jund w Sedraxis Spectre? Nighthawks mainboard with Bloodwithes in the side? Exotic Orchards in the board for the mirror? Thought Hemorage to look for Sphynx of Jwar Isle and Sorin/Baneslayer/DoJ?
Or Turbofog with Wall of Denial...?
I'll concede that this reflects prior results applied to expectations over time. But it uses very few variables to make this analysis. Then again I could be wrong....
Thanks.
So you removed 1x Baneslayer Angel and 1x Malakir Bloodwitch and added 2x BR Borderpost. Hmm... I should try this too. As you say, sometimes I get stuck on 4 lands with a hand full of 5 cost cards and 2 borderposts might solve the problem.
Thanks for the comment. And I'm glad you liked the deck.
LE
not really, i mean its there but its not a good environment for it in my mind
Harsh, bro. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. It's not like you're paying for it and I personally think he's doing a great service as he tries to pin hard data on what has been intangible in the past.
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...
is elves still a deck? (you know, Earthcraft, Glimpse of Nature, Skullclamp, Heritage Druid, plus guys)