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!
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.
I am now gathering my data from Magic Online daily and premier events--it's a pain, but it works. Definitely no FNMs.
I've talked about how there might be some selection bias in my last Extended Power Rankings article (on TCGplayer) in regard to Red Deck Wins. It's frustrating, but it's life.
Sorry for my english. Some notes:
- Events: which event you considered? Comparable size and audience (or 5k and FNMs)?
- Pilots: sadly, not only pilots can change the outcomes of a certain deck, but i'm also fairly certain that people playing RDW, Vampires or Turbo Fog are statistically different from those playing Grixis Control or UWR Control. I know, this can't be analyzed or helped easily, but let's keep it in mind.
To be fair, Vampires can be a good meta call. If you expect alot of UWR control, go Vampires. UWR control have a haaard time beating vamps. But otherwise, the deck is not that great. WW crushes it despite the Bloodwitch, Jund beats it most of the time for what I've seen and Valakut does as well as far as I know.
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.
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.
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!
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?
If I had to replace 1x Baneslayer Angel with something else, my first choice would be 1x Malfegor without doubt. Save your late game useless cards and then kill their TWO Sphinx of Jwar Isles for example out of nowhere... this would be nice.
The average mana cost of the main deck is 2,80. After this sideboarding it becomes 2,61 and playing 24 lands is perfectly playable.
And StealthBadger, actually Sphinx of Jwar Isle isn't the problem as I can kill it with either Vampire Nighthawk or with Baneslayer Angel. The real problem is the deck that plays it; Grixis Control. It seems like that deck has endless removal. If I can kill my opponent's hand before he can kill my creatures, then dealing with the Sphinx becomes much easier. Otherwise they just Terminate my vampire and move on.
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.
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.
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.
If you only had two Baneslayer Angels to play in the deck, what would you put in as the replacement for the third Baneslayer? Also, I was hoping you would play Jund so I could see your sideboard strategy but since you didn't, how would you sideboard against Jund?
That is one darned expensive deck! It does look impressive though. You seem to have a bit of troube with Sphinx of Jwarr Isle. Would a couple of fleshbag marauders or something in the board help perhaps? bit of a niche card, but I thought i'd suggest it.
Wasn't that a block deck? In standard, I thought heights was almost always played in B/W or G/W token builds, and that weird R/W "boat brew" thing which I never really understood.
Then again, I was taking a magic-break at the time, so I might be wrong!
"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. "
Thanks for the comments. The deck is really working well against almost everything but let me warn you that Grixis is a headache. An early Thought Hemorrhage removing Cruel Ultimatum changes everything but otherwise it can cause serious problems.
The other two problematic decks are Spread'Em and Cascade. One stops you from playing basically anything and the other never loses card advantage.
There is this new card called Ricochet Trap in WWK. For 3R or a mere R if the opponent has just played a Blue spell, you change the target of target spell with a new target. This will be a great sideboard card against Control decks. Until then, 12 discard cards plus a timely Thought Hemorrhage is the best weapon against Grixis.
Thanks again for the comments.
LE
PS: Paul no, I didn't take this final version to a bigger arena. Just 2mans and TP Room.
"Trust me, Vampires is a terrible deck for standard"
Ugh. It may not be tier 1 right now, but it certainly gives jund a hard time with tendrils and duress added to their non-block group of cards. Vampire Nocturnus is a huge game swinger. And with jund being a huge percentage of the field compared to the rest of the decks, a good game vs jund is probably necessary. Terrible? No. Not tier 1? Maybe. Competitive? Yes.
"I have absolutely no idea when the last time a purely white aggro deck was any good."
Hm I guess you don't play Magic that long. Actually WW is always a nice deck, last time it won many tourneys when it played Kithkin and Windbrisk Height's.
I've started reading your articles when you talked about TSE Block, and I have to say they are one of the better ones on pure. Content is always interesting and I like your style in writing.
The reason why I post, though, is because I pretty much like your deck. I didnt played any standard in the last weeks because it was a bit boring then, but I will try your deck these days until Worldwake releases. Looks pretty solid, especially since the Meta changed from all Jund to a more controlish one. Good call. Let's see how I will do with it.
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!
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.
I am now gathering my data from Magic Online daily and premier events--it's a pain, but it works. Definitely no FNMs.
I've talked about how there might be some selection bias in my last Extended Power Rankings article (on TCGplayer) in regard to Red Deck Wins. It's frustrating, but it's life.
Sorry for my english. Some notes:
- Events: which event you considered? Comparable size and audience (or 5k and FNMs)?
- Pilots: sadly, not only pilots can change the outcomes of a certain deck, but i'm also fairly certain that people playing RDW, Vampires or Turbo Fog are statistically different from those playing Grixis Control or UWR Control. I know, this can't be analyzed or helped easily, but let's keep it in mind.
To be fair, Vampires can be a good meta call. If you expect alot of UWR control, go Vampires. UWR control have a haaard time beating vamps. But otherwise, the deck is not that great. WW crushes it despite the Bloodwitch, Jund beats it most of the time for what I've seen and Valakut does as well as far as I know.
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.
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.
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!
You shouldn't trust me--you should trust the data. And the data say that it is a way worse choice than some other achetypes.
Also, Jund beats Vampires at a 69% clip, and that statistic is significant waaaaaay past 99%. So, no, Vampires does not give Jund a hard time.
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?
If I had to replace 1x Baneslayer Angel with something else, my first choice would be 1x Malfegor without doubt. Save your late game useless cards and then kill their TWO Sphinx of Jwar Isles for example out of nowhere... this would be nice.
My sideboarding against Jund is this:
-2 Bituminous Blast, -1 Mountain
+3 Celestial Purge
The average mana cost of the main deck is 2,80. After this sideboarding it becomes 2,61 and playing 24 lands is perfectly playable.
And StealthBadger, actually Sphinx of Jwar Isle isn't the problem as I can kill it with either Vampire Nighthawk or with Baneslayer Angel. The real problem is the deck that plays it; Grixis Control. It seems like that deck has endless removal. If I can kill my opponent's hand before he can kill my creatures, then dealing with the Sphinx becomes much easier. Otherwise they just Terminate my vampire and move on.
And thanks for all the comments.
LE
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.
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...
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.
Opening two Vigors is sick!!! What a lucky guy. Also the whole story about Ollie is absolutely precious! I loved it! Write more about him. :)
If you only had two Baneslayer Angels to play in the deck, what would you put in as the replacement for the third Baneslayer? Also, I was hoping you would play Jund so I could see your sideboard strategy but since you didn't, how would you sideboard against Jund?
That is one darned expensive deck! It does look impressive though. You seem to have a bit of troube with Sphinx of Jwarr Isle. Would a couple of fleshbag marauders or something in the board help perhaps? bit of a niche card, but I thought i'd suggest it.
my favorite colors combined. beautiful deck :D
Wasn't that a block deck? In standard, I thought heights was almost always played in B/W or G/W token builds, and that weird R/W "boat brew" thing which I never really understood.
Then again, I was taking a magic-break at the time, so I might be wrong!
"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.
Thanks for the comments. The deck is really working well against almost everything but let me warn you that Grixis is a headache. An early Thought Hemorrhage removing Cruel Ultimatum changes everything but otherwise it can cause serious problems.
The other two problematic decks are Spread'Em and Cascade. One stops you from playing basically anything and the other never loses card advantage.
There is this new card called Ricochet Trap in WWK. For 3R or a mere R if the opponent has just played a Blue spell, you change the target of target spell with a new target. This will be a great sideboard card against Control decks. Until then, 12 discard cards plus a timely Thought Hemorrhage is the best weapon against Grixis.
Thanks again for the comments.
LE
PS: Paul no, I didn't take this final version to a bigger arena. Just 2mans and TP Room.
Congrats on finishing 4-0 on FNM
Moving up with dark depths are ghost quarter and vesuva for obvious reasons.
"Trust me, Vampires is a terrible deck for standard"
Ugh. It may not be tier 1 right now, but it certainly gives jund a hard time with tendrils and duress added to their non-block group of cards. Vampire Nocturnus is a huge game swinger. And with jund being a huge percentage of the field compared to the rest of the decks, a good game vs jund is probably necessary. Terrible? No. Not tier 1? Maybe. Competitive? Yes.
"I have absolutely no idea when the last time a purely white aggro deck was any good."
Hm I guess you don't play Magic that long. Actually WW is always a nice deck, last time it won many tourneys when it played Kithkin and Windbrisk Height's.
Hey,
I've started reading your articles when you talked about TSE Block, and I have to say they are one of the better ones on pure. Content is always interesting and I like your style in writing.
The reason why I post, though, is because I pretty much like your deck. I didnt played any standard in the last weeks because it was a bit boring then, but I will try your deck these days until Worldwake releases. Looks pretty solid, especially since the Meta changed from all Jund to a more controlish one. Good call. Let's see how I will do with it.
Read you later