Nice job on keeping the deck budget as well as fun. I already had most of the cards, so building it was really budget for me. It was satisfying whenever I got a soft lock on an opponent and a win was inevitable.
I can't wait for the next article.
I had tons of fun with a Vanguard deck that used Paradox Haze + Braid of Fire and Jaya Ballard as the vanguard I build and played a few years ago. Things were even getting more ridiculous when I had multiple Braid of Fires on table. It was definately a lot of fun.
nice reasonning & observations.
That being said, the recent set available in standard are changing this un-interaction point : esper recurrence engine is pretty nice (read : sharuum/gargoyle/canonist/transmuter/sphinx...) and the cascade ability is also a source of comboish build... for sur far from the classic interactions, but in progress :)
intersting approach. The next exercice might be the paradox of "skip your upkeep" (Eon Hub + glacier ...) or maybe a larger view about "how to abuse of some cards in order to skip some phase"...
The last large Pauper Daily Event was won by an Affinity deck. Affinity is one of the few pauper strategies I've found that has a clear way to win a game in each of the three outlined stages. It can get busted draws that play a 2/2 and a 4/4 on turn 1 and simply beat the opponent before they setup. It can draw cards via Thoughtcast and Rush of Knowledge to attrition the opponent out in the mid-game. It can setup Disciple of the Vault + Krark-Clan Shaman to combo kill in the late game. I really like the deck and continue to endorse it for those looking to break into the format.
Pauper is a great format, but it would be nice to see an article on a deck that is somewhat original. Affinity may be good in some matchups but in a pauper tourney dont expect to have a chance with it. Even my very casual pauper decks have at least a 40% matchup vs affinity, and most decent pauper decks will destroy it nowadays. Affinity has low threat density and relies on getting good hands. and 4 rush of knowledge is too many imo. Its a very easy card to play around for the opp, and since everyone who plays pauper has played vs affinity way too much, there isnt any surprise factor.
well written article though.
Im actually quite happy with the article even if it didnt get too much attention because of Gp Barcelona. I kind of dragged it a little because of other projects.But I'll have a nice GP round-up ready tomorrow!
Once again , u r doing great stuff.
We all hope u continue doing this great job, we all apreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for ur test and knowledge
I love the charts. I think if I had to pick one as a favorite, I'd go with the middle bar graph. I also really enjoy the card price tables showing the notable changes in value. Ebb and flow of card value continues to amaze me and is my favorite part of the game.
Once again, as usual, a thorought (spelling) review of T2 meta-game. It'll be interesting to see if you're right about it on the now almost over GP-Barcelona
Nice article, I'm glad to see some top quality writing from you on a regular basis, you do seem to know what you're talking about ;)
In the deck construction it says "This format will follow the normal constructed rules with an optional 15 card sideboard" I'm confused. For submissions do you want no sidebard at all, or is it optional?
I was noticing too that red was cut, and as I often end up with strong green/blue drafts that wouldn't have been bad to explore. Still, 3 red removal + some creatures is a more than adequate backup for green.
I totally agree that the Hill Giant and Stalking Tiger should have been in there - preferably 2-3 Stalking Tigers if you had drafted more. Against most of the creatures in the format a 3/3 is strong, and you got 3 out of the 4 wurms you saw, so 3/3s have even less enemies that overpower them. Plus the Tiger isn't vulnerable to a gang block from a pair of 2/2s. And you were only running 11 creatures, running two "mini-fatties" brings you to 13, if they aren't beating down they're keeping the door shut until you get Craw Wurms out, etc. They give more upside to the Llanowar Elf too, now you have a potential 3/3 a turn early as well. I would have considered running the Bloodrock Cyclops too. Occasionally you might get him on turn 2, but that's not why to run him. It's because he's an undercosted Hill Giant, 3/3s are strong in the format, and his drawback isn't so bad when you'll usually at LEAST trade him. They aren't going to have Craw Wurms to block him since you took them all. And if someone has that Composite Golem or something, you have THREE giant growth to keep Bloodrock out of a bad trade or even get a surprise 2 for 1.
I don't have much problem running 2 or 3 Giant Growth. Game one it means odds of you having one when in hand when the "combat trick would be good here" turn arrives are maximized. Game 2, if it's a strong player, you can just play them after blockers are declared for extra damage in any racing situation. Lightning Bolt you. You could have an attack where you're six points short of a kill and surprise them with a double-growth blowout, if you read them as not having an unsummon or terror available, or if they're tapped out or have an empty hand & are in topdeck mode. And of course when you're playing mediocre players, they WILL walk into combat tricks games 2 and 3 even after you showed it to them game 1. Even a strong player might, after seeing just one of them game 1, think "In this situation I have to gamble he doesn't have it to catch up, and hey, with only 1 in his deck the odds are in my favor."
You have to have more creatures in there, though. Or someday the shuffler gods will punish you with your first two creatures removed, no more in hand, and you're sitting there with three giant growth and nothing to do with them! Even without that worry though, I'd want 13+ creatures unless I had drafted 10 removal spells and was having trouble cutting them to get all my creatures in. Which is the kind of "problem" you don't mind getting stuck with. Think of that game where you got him down to 2 with a Craw Wurm though, but he killed you faster with evasive guys. Now think what happens to the math if one of your "waiting for a wurm" turns, you're playing a Stalking Tiger or a Hill Giant. One hit snuck in from that puts him at -1 instead of two. If he has to trade or chumpblock the giant, you probably bought the Craw Wurm an extra turn. Even if he blocks the giant and throws giant growth, that's one less giant growth to your dome, which might be worth an extra turn. Now imagine turn 3 Bloodrock Cyclops and turn 4 Stalking Tiger into your eventual Craw Wurm... It's good to be a threat or at least have pressure that makes him hold back blockers starting at 3-4 mana, not just when you get to 6-7 mana.
I did regret seeing that Spined Wurm go by too, as they're awesome, but hey, sometimes you gotta pass a great card for an even better card.
I also thought the Regeneration P3/P1 was tempting, though I probably overvalue it, and Shock or even the Kavu Climber are generally better. The thought of it on the Platinum Angel is amusing, though most removal in the format can't get him anyway... More relevant is Regneration on Craw Wurm, which will let him charge into a swarm of 5 defenders with impunity, take somebody out, and do it again next turn. Or if someone's trying to force through attackers with Ballista Squad backup, you block them and regenerate instead of letting the damage come through. Overall a good creature or removal is better because sometimes they don't present the kinds of problems regeneration solves, and you're down one in the "threats and answers" total in your deck. Threats and answers are almost ALWAYS relevant. But it's sometimes good - I don't know how good because I usually pass it for the "real" card, but I think it's a little undervalued. Certainly not first pick quality, of course!
what is the email i should send the deck puremtgocontest@gmail.com
? please type it down i would not like to miss it i think i really created something inventive:)
Food for thought: LLanowar Elf does not accelerate you to Craw Wurm unless you also hit your first 5 land drops. That's not easy to do without some cantrips, Civic Wayfinder, or other mana boosting effects. It's not impossible. I'm just saying it's not that likely, and you talk about it as if Elves + Craw Wurm is a combo. Overgrowth is much better at achieving something noteworthy with regard to Craw Wurm. However, I don't like Overgrowth unless i'm UG with Sifts to make up for the lost card.
I think you vastly overvalue Giant Growth. I'm always happy to play one copy, but you lose so much value on the 2nd and 3rd copies because your opponent now knows you have one, and more importantly because there are only so many times during one game that a blowout situation will present itself. It's excellent when your opponent gang-blocks, but most of the time casting Giant Growth is identical to casting a new copy of your creature for G. That's an efficient creature, but it's still only a creature. You don't win a special prize for emerging victorious from combat. At least Aggressive Urge has the decency to replace itself, which seems extremely important in a non-blue non-black deck.
Sylvan Scrying is terrible. Quicksand and Treetop Village are good because they provide a spell without taking up a slot in your deck (or your hand). You don't get any of that advantage with Scrying. Commune With Nature is almost as bad with so few creatures, none of which are too important to find, since they are all redundant.
Your biggest mistake in drafting, in my opinion, was hanging onto Red. It was clearly cut from the right, so you should have explored other options before settling on GR. As you pointed out numerous times, Blue was wide open. Blue also happens to maximize your first pick (if you managed to stay Red and drop Green) by letting you redraw the Beacon multiple times via Sift and Merfolk Looter.
You are doing a great great work....the t2 analysis is very nice!!!
Nice job on keeping the deck budget as well as fun. I already had most of the cards, so building it was really budget for me. It was satisfying whenever I got a soft lock on an opponent and a win was inevitable.
I can't wait for the next article.
Charts look great! Keep up the great work here and on the podcast.
I had tons of fun with a Vanguard deck that used Paradox Haze + Braid of Fire and Jaya Ballard as the vanguard I build and played a few years ago. Things were even getting more ridiculous when I had multiple Braid of Fires on table. It was definately a lot of fun.
This article reminded me of that deck.
LE
nice reasonning & observations.
That being said, the recent set available in standard are changing this un-interaction point : esper recurrence engine is pretty nice (read : sharuum/gargoyle/canonist/transmuter/sphinx...) and the cascade ability is also a source of comboish build... for sur far from the classic interactions, but in progress :)
intersting approach. The next exercice might be the paradox of "skip your upkeep" (Eon Hub + glacier ...) or maybe a larger view about "how to abuse of some cards in order to skip some phase"...
nice deck. could almost be multiplayer, if you added in the board wipe :)
The last large Pauper Daily Event was won by an Affinity deck. Affinity is one of the few pauper strategies I've found that has a clear way to win a game in each of the three outlined stages. It can get busted draws that play a 2/2 and a 4/4 on turn 1 and simply beat the opponent before they setup. It can draw cards via Thoughtcast and Rush of Knowledge to attrition the opponent out in the mid-game. It can setup Disciple of the Vault + Krark-Clan Shaman to combo kill in the late game. I really like the deck and continue to endorse it for those looking to break into the format.
Pauper is a great format, but it would be nice to see an article on a deck that is somewhat original. Affinity may be good in some matchups but in a pauper tourney dont expect to have a chance with it. Even my very casual pauper decks have at least a 40% matchup vs affinity, and most decent pauper decks will destroy it nowadays. Affinity has low threat density and relies on getting good hands. and 4 rush of knowledge is too many imo. Its a very easy card to play around for the opp, and since everyone who plays pauper has played vs affinity way too much, there isnt any surprise factor.
well written article though.
Im actually quite happy with the article even if it didnt get too much attention because of Gp Barcelona. I kind of dragged it a little because of other projects.But I'll have a nice GP round-up ready tomorrow!
The spam bots can have it, we will not be using this email again until the next contest runs :)
No harm no foul :)
Pretty good review. That's a clever T2 analysis. ;)
Once again , u r doing great stuff.
We all hope u continue doing this great job, we all apreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for ur test and knowledge
Nnow the spambots will be able to find it. Why do you think they didn't post as a link in the first place?
I love the charts. I think if I had to pick one as a favorite, I'd go with the middle bar graph. I also really enjoy the card price tables showing the notable changes in value. Ebb and flow of card value continues to amaze me and is my favorite part of the game.
It's optional because it's not going to get graded with the deck.
another great article. What can i say? I'm waiting the next one.
I enjoy the video, don't have anything relatad with the article but it's always good.
Once again, as usual, a thorought (spelling) review of T2 meta-game. It'll be interesting to see if you're right about it on the now almost over GP-Barcelona
Nice article, I'm glad to see some top quality writing from you on a regular basis, you do seem to know what you're talking about ;)
In the deck construction it says "This format will follow the normal constructed rules with an optional 15 card sideboard" I'm confused. For submissions do you want no sidebard at all, or is it optional?
yes that is the email you send it to
I was noticing too that red was cut, and as I often end up with strong green/blue drafts that wouldn't have been bad to explore. Still, 3 red removal + some creatures is a more than adequate backup for green.
I totally agree that the Hill Giant and Stalking Tiger should have been in there - preferably 2-3 Stalking Tigers if you had drafted more. Against most of the creatures in the format a 3/3 is strong, and you got 3 out of the 4 wurms you saw, so 3/3s have even less enemies that overpower them. Plus the Tiger isn't vulnerable to a gang block from a pair of 2/2s. And you were only running 11 creatures, running two "mini-fatties" brings you to 13, if they aren't beating down they're keeping the door shut until you get Craw Wurms out, etc. They give more upside to the Llanowar Elf too, now you have a potential 3/3 a turn early as well. I would have considered running the Bloodrock Cyclops too. Occasionally you might get him on turn 2, but that's not why to run him. It's because he's an undercosted Hill Giant, 3/3s are strong in the format, and his drawback isn't so bad when you'll usually at LEAST trade him. They aren't going to have Craw Wurms to block him since you took them all. And if someone has that Composite Golem or something, you have THREE giant growth to keep Bloodrock out of a bad trade or even get a surprise 2 for 1.
I don't have much problem running 2 or 3 Giant Growth. Game one it means odds of you having one when in hand when the "combat trick would be good here" turn arrives are maximized. Game 2, if it's a strong player, you can just play them after blockers are declared for extra damage in any racing situation. Lightning Bolt you. You could have an attack where you're six points short of a kill and surprise them with a double-growth blowout, if you read them as not having an unsummon or terror available, or if they're tapped out or have an empty hand & are in topdeck mode. And of course when you're playing mediocre players, they WILL walk into combat tricks games 2 and 3 even after you showed it to them game 1. Even a strong player might, after seeing just one of them game 1, think "In this situation I have to gamble he doesn't have it to catch up, and hey, with only 1 in his deck the odds are in my favor."
You have to have more creatures in there, though. Or someday the shuffler gods will punish you with your first two creatures removed, no more in hand, and you're sitting there with three giant growth and nothing to do with them! Even without that worry though, I'd want 13+ creatures unless I had drafted 10 removal spells and was having trouble cutting them to get all my creatures in. Which is the kind of "problem" you don't mind getting stuck with. Think of that game where you got him down to 2 with a Craw Wurm though, but he killed you faster with evasive guys. Now think what happens to the math if one of your "waiting for a wurm" turns, you're playing a Stalking Tiger or a Hill Giant. One hit snuck in from that puts him at -1 instead of two. If he has to trade or chumpblock the giant, you probably bought the Craw Wurm an extra turn. Even if he blocks the giant and throws giant growth, that's one less giant growth to your dome, which might be worth an extra turn. Now imagine turn 3 Bloodrock Cyclops and turn 4 Stalking Tiger into your eventual Craw Wurm... It's good to be a threat or at least have pressure that makes him hold back blockers starting at 3-4 mana, not just when you get to 6-7 mana.
I did regret seeing that Spined Wurm go by too, as they're awesome, but hey, sometimes you gotta pass a great card for an even better card.
I also thought the Regeneration P3/P1 was tempting, though I probably overvalue it, and Shock or even the Kavu Climber are generally better. The thought of it on the Platinum Angel is amusing, though most removal in the format can't get him anyway... More relevant is Regneration on Craw Wurm, which will let him charge into a swarm of 5 defenders with impunity, take somebody out, and do it again next turn. Or if someone's trying to force through attackers with Ballista Squad backup, you block them and regenerate instead of letting the damage come through. Overall a good creature or removal is better because sometimes they don't present the kinds of problems regeneration solves, and you're down one in the "threats and answers" total in your deck. Threats and answers are almost ALWAYS relevant. But it's sometimes good - I don't know how good because I usually pass it for the "real" card, but I think it's a little undervalued. Certainly not first pick quality, of course!
what is the email i should send the deck
puremtgocontest@gmail.com
? please type it down i would not like to miss it i think i really created something inventive:)
Informative column as always. Pulses seem to be dropping quite was though, was down to 10ish last I checked.
I'm curious - how do you decide which cards to track other than the big guns?
This contest has been open to entries since April 25th, the last day we are taking entries for the contest is may 25th.
Food for thought: LLanowar Elf does not accelerate you to Craw Wurm unless you also hit your first 5 land drops. That's not easy to do without some cantrips, Civic Wayfinder, or other mana boosting effects. It's not impossible. I'm just saying it's not that likely, and you talk about it as if Elves + Craw Wurm is a combo. Overgrowth is much better at achieving something noteworthy with regard to Craw Wurm. However, I don't like Overgrowth unless i'm UG with Sifts to make up for the lost card.
I think you vastly overvalue Giant Growth. I'm always happy to play one copy, but you lose so much value on the 2nd and 3rd copies because your opponent now knows you have one, and more importantly because there are only so many times during one game that a blowout situation will present itself. It's excellent when your opponent gang-blocks, but most of the time casting Giant Growth is identical to casting a new copy of your creature for G. That's an efficient creature, but it's still only a creature. You don't win a special prize for emerging victorious from combat. At least Aggressive Urge has the decency to replace itself, which seems extremely important in a non-blue non-black deck.
Sylvan Scrying is terrible. Quicksand and Treetop Village are good because they provide a spell without taking up a slot in your deck (or your hand). You don't get any of that advantage with Scrying. Commune With Nature is almost as bad with so few creatures, none of which are too important to find, since they are all redundant.
Your biggest mistake in drafting, in my opinion, was hanging onto Red. It was clearly cut from the right, so you should have explored other options before settling on GR. As you pointed out numerous times, Blue was wide open. Blue also happens to maximize your first pick (if you managed to stay Red and drop Green) by letting you redraw the Beacon multiple times via Sift and Merfolk Looter.