Arguably, the first fringe format to be brought into official existence to help sell a set was Tribal during Onslaught Block, at about the time Legions, the all-creature set, was coming out. The parallels are uncanny, even if Tribal has a smidgen more longevity.
Thanks Luke, glad you are enjoying the podcast and articles.
Your play is an option, and it comes down to whether or not you want to trade life for a Cliff Threader, essentially. In your scenario you take no damage but lose the torch and a Cliff Threader. In my "what I should have done" scenario, I take 3 damage but don't lose anything beyond the torch.
At 16 life, I feel comfortable taking 3 damage to preserve my Cliff Threader, as having two active threaders and an adventuring gear puts Villain on a very short clock.
I don't think you can use the "extra" land drop first, at least not on MTGO. MTGO does not ask you to specify which land drop to use, it just assumes you use the regular one first and the extra one second.
now you are allowed to specify which ability you are playing the land for, at least in paper you are i believe. Though I know it does not work that way online. So online you would have to previously played the first valakut before summoning the oracle.
yeah, i didn't even finish reading and i stopped immediately, if he wants to terminate he should be allowed to since landfall triggers on khalni heart expedition.
You are right in that both forms of analysis (regular pick orders and quantitative studies) have flaws in them. However, my methodology is crystal clear here--I don't make any hidden assumptions here that frequently find their way into qualitative approaches.
Pick orders fail for three reasons. One, they are often written before the person has had any more than a weekend or two to get adjusted to the format, which makes them pure speculation (helpful, but not exactly what we ideally want). Second, even after the player has gotten in ten or more events, they are still dealing with a very small sample size. If I only played Steppe Lynx in three of my decks, and I only drew it in 40% of the games I played, then I might not be able to detect that it is, in fact, a great card. Finally, even after getting a ton of experience with the format, you are going to get an extremely biased sample simply because the same player played in all of the games. A statistician would have an absolute fit over something like that.
I think the above at 14:52 is incorrect. The Oracle allows you to play an extra land each turn, meaning you would have already had to play one. The Landfall trigger would've hit the stack and the Terminate would hit the Oracle legally before using his ability, no?
I'm not sure how I'm vastly underestimating your results.
You've used a very detailed time-consuming statistical analysis to come up with a card ranking system for Zendikar. You have then written in detail how there could be serious flaws in your rankings based on the limits of your analysis techniques.
How is that more useful than a reasonably good player writing up a set review based on their personal experiences and opinions on cards? Sure, those kind of reviews get things wrong, but you've admitted that your analysis may get things wrong as well.
As to the idea that players don't know which cards are good. Well, that mostly depends on where you go. Most of the players that are interested enough in the game to find online articles about drafting (ie, your audience) are probably knowledgeable enough to put together a reasonably good drafting pick order. (Especially if they've read a decent amount of drafting articles from this website)
Basically the point of my original article is that the complexity of your methods don't match the complexity of your goal.
In sealed deck there are just too many extraneous factors to consider, and boiling it all down to pick ranking is not all that informative.
Standard and Block Constructed are different stories. There you have a lot of decks in which 80% to 90% of the cards are the same. Thus, you have a much more controlled environment to look at certain cards that make splash appearances in certain decks. It's still far from a perfect situation, but it's certainly a better place to analyze the importance of playing specific cards in Magic.
A fantastic read. The effort you put into this and the quality of the work that comes out is incredible. Please keep up the good work and enjoy the holidays.
You could also play the first Valakut, specifying that you're using the special ability of the Oracle to put your "extra" land into play. Then it doesn't matter if he Terminates your Oracle, as you still have your regular land drop.
Playing 43-lands in Legacy got me in the habit of *always* saying I'm using my extra land drops, as there's no downside to using it, and a huge downside to not doing so and having the ability go away later in the turn.
Ok this article while very very well written, just makes me very very angry. Ive tried the valakut deck many many times. And i cant win against anything for some reason. Maybe this is a different style of combo than im used to but the deck looks great, it just ticks me off that other people win with it, meanwhile i lose to everything. Though i will say good job pete. Even if i cant play a deck it was still a good read. I wish i could get the 4x nighthawk draft pool.
Back to your double Valakut win..
The way you have it written, he could terminate your Oracle.
You played Oracle, then played Valakut #1.
It's true that your lands don't use the stack, but your triggers do.
The landfall trigger will go on the stack, and he can terminate in response to the trigger.
Making it so you can't play Valakut #2, and you wouldn't be able to go nuts.
You needed to play Valakut #1. Then play your Oracle, and then play Valakut #2.
That way there are no priority changes on the triggers, where it matters.
Started replies to comments but then failed to post before my new article went up. Better late than never.
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, all.
@ beer: The real relevance of the "bounce the cartographer" play is in making the eel a 6/6, as a 4/5 lynx will just be chumped. So, the question is, does making the eel a 6/6 for a turn ever increase the clock? My quick assessment says it keeps the clock the same, so abstractly it doesn't make a difference and is a totally viable option. Not knowing what else is coming, though, I like the idea of tapping down sphinx over extra-buffing the eel more, but maybe that's because it's what I chose to do. :)
@ Boogie: re: leaving chaff for looting fodder: it is absolutely worth it to do that, you just have to be certain it's chaff, which in this case, it wasn't. If you have a looter out and some dork in hand that will truly have no impact on the board other than possibly chumping, then you should be thinking of it like you would think of extra land in that spot: don't play it, cycle it with the looter at some point.
re: gomazoa/hatchling: I try not to draw firm conclusions from the results of a few games, they both obviously have their pros and cons, but I am leaning Gomazoa now. The ability to actually remove an attacker from the board and deal with flyers feels like it trumps the cheaper cost and additional point of toughness. Ultimately that pick in the future will depend on my pile to that point.
@Shaterri: Yeah, good call, that's the slightly better EV play. I do love the skyfisher: it creates a ton of intensely skill-testing moments without being at all complicated.
@StealthBadger: The machete on the blademaster is so powerful that I went for it, but it was riskier, you are right. I was more concerned about Vines of Vastwood than Disfigure since I had passed several, but either way, it's the same result. I'm usually more conservative in those spots, preferring to upgrade my worst creature with equipment instead of making my best creature even better. The allure of the super blademaster led me to take the risk, but your line is more in step with fundamentals of equipment use.
Yes, I did just ask you to lobby Wizards on my behalf, and no I have not already asked them about it. But if you want to get better data--and another person has already commented that he does--then that would be the best way to do it.
I actually think the exact opposite is true. One of the flaws this system has is the inability to pick up on synergy--that is, Umara Raptor is okay by itself but great when two more allies hit play. Thus, half the time it is biased towards being okay, and the other half of the time it looks really amazing. Thus, it lands somewhere in between the two, even though it should have a bimodal distribution. Constructed allows you to exploit this kind of synergy, which is bad news for this kind of modeling.
Meanwhile, I think you are vastly underestimating this system's importance. While you are certainly stuck with the pool you get, you have a lot of options in choosing which colors to play. If you have a lot of cards at the top of one of these lists in one color, then you should probably be running that color. The "blue is bad" philosophy isn't universal--you should play it when your pool had a ton of flyers.
The other notable thing is that players do not have a great grasp over what is good, at least if you buy into my methods. Although sealed and draft are different formats, TCGplayer's pick rankings (which come from how the public drafts) place Steppe Lynx as number eight in the white commons--ahead of Kor Hookmaster, Kor Sanctifiers, Kor Cartographer, Cliff Threader, and Narrow Escape. I think that is a little silly.
As I alluded to in the article, you'd have to ask Wizards why they aren't doing this themselves. They have the ability to collect so much data that you would be able to filter out luck and skill for every card. And, personally, I feel that is the only way to see what is actually good.
Spell pierce works in ub control builds, protects your evaders from most removal..people tend to kill those fliers asap...hittinh harroqw with pierce on turn three is usually gg...kraken isn't too bad either...scorpion will be top black common
I thought about this. THe all foil packs are supposed to run $15 or so in paper. That would mean an all-foil draft would cost $47 per player. It would never fire.
Arguably, the first fringe format to be brought into official existence to help sell a set was Tribal during Onslaught Block, at about the time Legions, the all-creature set, was coming out. The parallels are uncanny, even if Tribal has a smidgen more longevity.
Thanks Luke, glad you are enjoying the podcast and articles.
Your play is an option, and it comes down to whether or not you want to trade life for a Cliff Threader, essentially. In your scenario you take no damage but lose the torch and a Cliff Threader. In my "what I should have done" scenario, I take 3 damage but don't lose anything beyond the torch.
At 16 life, I feel comfortable taking 3 damage to preserve my Cliff Threader, as having two active threaders and an adventuring gear puts Villain on a very short clock.
I don't think you can use the "extra" land drop first, at least not on MTGO. MTGO does not ask you to specify which land drop to use, it just assumes you use the regular one first and the extra one second.
Extended zoo, I'd wager.
now you are allowed to specify which ability you are playing the land for, at least in paper you are i believe. Though I know it does not work that way online. So online you would have to previously played the first valakut before summoning the oracle.
As usual a great read. I am really curious why Stomping Ground is shooting up suddenly. Especially in the wake of Me2 duals taking major hits.
oops apparently everyone already made that clear.
yeah, i didn't even finish reading and i stopped immediately, if he wants to terminate he should be allowed to since landfall triggers on khalni heart expedition.
You are right in that both forms of analysis (regular pick orders and quantitative studies) have flaws in them. However, my methodology is crystal clear here--I don't make any hidden assumptions here that frequently find their way into qualitative approaches.
Pick orders fail for three reasons. One, they are often written before the person has had any more than a weekend or two to get adjusted to the format, which makes them pure speculation (helpful, but not exactly what we ideally want). Second, even after the player has gotten in ten or more events, they are still dealing with a very small sample size. If I only played Steppe Lynx in three of my decks, and I only drew it in 40% of the games I played, then I might not be able to detect that it is, in fact, a great card. Finally, even after getting a ton of experience with the format, you are going to get an extremely biased sample simply because the same player played in all of the games. A statistician would have an absolute fit over something like that.
I think the above at 14:52 is incorrect. The Oracle allows you to play an extra land each turn, meaning you would have already had to play one. The Landfall trigger would've hit the stack and the Terminate would hit the Oracle legally before using his ability, no?
I'm not sure how I'm vastly underestimating your results.
You've used a very detailed time-consuming statistical analysis to come up with a card ranking system for Zendikar. You have then written in detail how there could be serious flaws in your rankings based on the limits of your analysis techniques.
How is that more useful than a reasonably good player writing up a set review based on their personal experiences and opinions on cards? Sure, those kind of reviews get things wrong, but you've admitted that your analysis may get things wrong as well.
As to the idea that players don't know which cards are good. Well, that mostly depends on where you go. Most of the players that are interested enough in the game to find online articles about drafting (ie, your audience) are probably knowledgeable enough to put together a reasonably good drafting pick order. (Especially if they've read a decent amount of drafting articles from this website)
Basically the point of my original article is that the complexity of your methods don't match the complexity of your goal.
In sealed deck there are just too many extraneous factors to consider, and boiling it all down to pick ranking is not all that informative.
Standard and Block Constructed are different stories. There you have a lot of decks in which 80% to 90% of the cards are the same. Thus, you have a much more controlled environment to look at certain cards that make splash appearances in certain decks. It's still far from a perfect situation, but it's certainly a better place to analyze the importance of playing specific cards in Magic.
A fantastic read. The effort you put into this and the quality of the work that comes out is incredible. Please keep up the good work and enjoy the holidays.
You could also play the first Valakut, specifying that you're using the special ability of the Oracle to put your "extra" land into play. Then it doesn't matter if he Terminates your Oracle, as you still have your regular land drop.
Playing 43-lands in Legacy got me in the habit of *always* saying I'm using my extra land drops, as there's no downside to using it, and a huge downside to not doing so and having the ability go away later in the turn.
Ok this article while very very well written, just makes me very very angry. Ive tried the valakut deck many many times. And i cant win against anything for some reason. Maybe this is a different style of combo than im used to but the deck looks great, it just ticks me off that other people win with it, meanwhile i lose to everything. Though i will say good job pete. Even if i cant play a deck it was still a good read. I wish i could get the 4x nighthawk draft pool.
Back to your double Valakut win..
The way you have it written, he could terminate your Oracle.
You played Oracle, then played Valakut #1.
It's true that your lands don't use the stack, but your triggers do.
The landfall trigger will go on the stack, and he can terminate in response to the trigger.
Making it so you can't play Valakut #2, and you wouldn't be able to go nuts.
You needed to play Valakut #1. Then play your Oracle, and then play Valakut #2.
That way there are no priority changes on the triggers, where it matters.
Started replies to comments but then failed to post before my new article went up. Better late than never.
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, all.
@ beer: The real relevance of the "bounce the cartographer" play is in making the eel a 6/6, as a 4/5 lynx will just be chumped. So, the question is, does making the eel a 6/6 for a turn ever increase the clock? My quick assessment says it keeps the clock the same, so abstractly it doesn't make a difference and is a totally viable option. Not knowing what else is coming, though, I like the idea of tapping down sphinx over extra-buffing the eel more, but maybe that's because it's what I chose to do. :)
@ Boogie: re: leaving chaff for looting fodder: it is absolutely worth it to do that, you just have to be certain it's chaff, which in this case, it wasn't. If you have a looter out and some dork in hand that will truly have no impact on the board other than possibly chumping, then you should be thinking of it like you would think of extra land in that spot: don't play it, cycle it with the looter at some point.
re: gomazoa/hatchling: I try not to draw firm conclusions from the results of a few games, they both obviously have their pros and cons, but I am leaning Gomazoa now. The ability to actually remove an attacker from the board and deal with flyers feels like it trumps the cheaper cost and additional point of toughness. Ultimately that pick in the future will depend on my pile to that point.
@Shaterri: Yeah, good call, that's the slightly better EV play. I do love the skyfisher: it creates a ton of intensely skill-testing moments without being at all complicated.
@StealthBadger: The machete on the blademaster is so powerful that I went for it, but it was riskier, you are right. I was more concerned about Vines of Vastwood than Disfigure since I had passed several, but either way, it's the same result. I'm usually more conservative in those spots, preferring to upgrade my worst creature with equipment instead of making my best creature even better. The allure of the super blademaster led me to take the risk, but your line is more in step with fundamentals of equipment use.
Yes, I did just ask you to lobby Wizards on my behalf, and no I have not already asked them about it. But if you want to get better data--and another person has already commented that he does--then that would be the best way to do it.
Not to give away too much, but Giant Scorpion ranked #14 with only a 50% mark.
I actually think the exact opposite is true. One of the flaws this system has is the inability to pick up on synergy--that is, Umara Raptor is okay by itself but great when two more allies hit play. Thus, half the time it is biased towards being okay, and the other half of the time it looks really amazing. Thus, it lands somewhere in between the two, even though it should have a bimodal distribution. Constructed allows you to exploit this kind of synergy, which is bad news for this kind of modeling.
Meanwhile, I think you are vastly underestimating this system's importance. While you are certainly stuck with the pool you get, you have a lot of options in choosing which colors to play. If you have a lot of cards at the top of one of these lists in one color, then you should probably be running that color. The "blue is bad" philosophy isn't universal--you should play it when your pool had a ton of flyers.
The other notable thing is that players do not have a great grasp over what is good, at least if you buy into my methods. Although sealed and draft are different formats, TCGplayer's pick rankings (which come from how the public drafts) place Steppe Lynx as number eight in the white commons--ahead of Kor Hookmaster, Kor Sanctifiers, Kor Cartographer, Cliff Threader, and Narrow Escape. I think that is a little silly.
As I alluded to in the article, you'd have to ask Wizards why they aren't doing this themselves. They have the ability to collect so much data that you would be able to filter out luck and skill for every card. And, personally, I feel that is the only way to see what is actually good.
Spell pierce works in ub control builds, protects your evaders from most removal..people tend to kill those fliers asap...hittinh harroqw with pierce on turn three is usually gg...kraken isn't too bad either...scorpion will be top black common
$15 each! Ouch thats very expensive.
you're probably right but ive lost more games to surrakar marauder than soul stair expedition....and won more with giant scorpion
I thought about this. THe all foil packs are supposed to run $15 or so in paper. That would mean an all-foil draft would cost $47 per player. It would never fire.
Unfortunate.