Yeah, I can't really comment on how people learn. Obviously in many different ways because skills I have many players don't...and they don't even need them in order to be good.
I suppose it depends also on what we consider a shell of a deck (for me a same shell works cross formats...ok maybe not in Standard where the cards are starting to be way too different from Magic I know). I know that for me and you what we come up with will be equally solid and focused but for some people this is far from being clear (this doesn't mean the player themselves isn't a good one). That's the reason why some people have difficulties understanding what deck wants to run 4 Dig Through Times and which ones want to run 4 Treasure Cruise. For people that understand a shell of a deck and what they want to do with it won't have a problem deciding and that's what I'm talking about. Some people naturally know how to build a deck, some will learn it on the way and some won't ever want to think about that at all. We also have the knowledge of how metagame works and we experienced this over and over and know the tendencies. It is easy for us to put together a deck that can attack a certain metagame and we also will know when to switch. Those are things that some players still need to learn (if they want to learn something more) and I hope that CSM 4.12 taught that lesson. In the end it all comes down to context and I wish I would manage to somehow finish my article about power level. It's probably not going to happen though :-(
(I often came to LGS and produced a deck out of Vintage Cube. it would be a nice experiment to see what other players would come up with. I'd be interested in their creativity and understanding of the game as they see it. If you've never done that, try it one day^_^)
It's funny you mention shell or untuned decks...think it depends a lot on how each player as a person learns really...it's very difficult for me to remember not understanding the game how I do now, although I know at one point I was likely a 12 year old kid trying to put Island Fish Jasconious (and anyone can correct my horrible spelling) and Force of Natures in decks, but as long as I can remember, for me most of my building is theoretical or conceptual in nature...ie the general theme of how I want to win and what I'll need to beat tends to frame the strategic underpinnings of individual card choices and mana bases etc, etc. I think for some it might be different, and perhaps these shells allow a player to take a more empirical approach to building in this format or any format really. But I'd say at the end of the day if the player is truly interested in building, not just tuning (which is also valuable), a more theoretical and diligent process is required of them as a student of the game...it's not to say that players cannot be successful in the game otherwise by picking up best decks in any given format and learning them very well; but I think they'll always be a step behind once the meta stagnates and an equally skilled player but greater builder brings the statistically best deck in a given meta as opposed to the theoretically best deck.
I bring it up because in CSM 4.12, I brought what I considered to be the rawest deck (very low tuning and frankly sloppy building that required more than the 15 minutes I took to do it) that I've played in that tournament. Normally, I'm more diligent in my work, but I think what I did get right is that RG Ramp was the strategically most well positioned build given what I could expect to play against at the highest rate. So even if a deck is an untuned shell, given that a player has chosen it well given the nature of the meta, his known opponents, and his or her own play capability (and we have to be honest here with ourselves sometimes, we're not Jon Finkels here) it can certainly win.
Lowman already replied instead of me but Creeping Tar Pit is actually one of the key cards in the deck. I call it the 'Jace killer' but well it is a card that you need to deal with mainly planeswalkers and also is often able to deal 3-6 damage to actually win the game with your finisher. In many games it's just Tar Pit that wins the games.
In all decks there are cards that have a certain kind of priority and I'd have to comment on each of them. Tar Pit has a very high priority though. For example I'd cut one of the win conditions first. I put more of them in the deck than it needs them. Mostly because if by a chance someone would want to play with it, they will have to figure out how the deck works and what it needs. It actually needs a very few win conditions and the player needs to figure out how to play the game well and how to deal with certain kind of permanents. Muddle the Mixture if for example a card that I'd put in next.
UB control is not that dependent on its colors as UW control for example. So you should be fine with less mana fixing. This deck can easily play Back to Basics. Anyway it comes down to what lowman said. You find a shell of a deck you want to play and improvise to achieve what you need. (which though requires a knowledge you already need to have or start playing a lot)
Thank you lowman for the comment (hope people read them!).
As for WW. I look at this deck in a similar way the way I look at Delver being a good introductory deck in Vintage. While I understand your point of view with Delver not being well suited for this because it is way trickier to play and pilot well it gives the player all the means to win a game of magic in a fair way and teaches them how not to terribly die to a combo deck. If a player learns to board out Delver of Secrets they certainly learned a thing. WW while it is not the same kind of a deck allows for a similar experience because it can go from very aggressive to prison if one chooses to and it wins games even if you can't figure out the relation between tempo of the game and tempo of your deck.
It gives room for learning and improvement and it also shows the tendencies you have as a player. I tend to go control so from a Delver deck I'd move to a PW Control and from WW I'd go to D&T.
The reason why I put this article up is also because many players can't figure out what a shell of a deck is and what cards are important. This is certainly the way to go, but that requires the player to already have a good knowledge of some formats (the older ones. does not necessarily need to be Legacy or Vintage, but rather older Standard, Extended for example). And yes, the lands are the most important (for those reading my comment I suggest to browse my articles and read the Show and Tell series).
(I started with Naya Zoo which you can probably understand that wasn't 'good enough' for me^_^ I needed more flexibility which led me to 4c)
Really appreciate the article Stsung, I think it's always challenging to find varied archetypes beyond simple monochromatic aggro decks that tend to rely on very few chase cards; even more difficult to build multicolor builds in this format without the flexibility of possibly having the availability of all the fetchlands or duals. I think one of the best things a player can do is chose what deck or decks depending on their individual budget they think they'd enjoy and building the shell of it and slowly growing it from that point. Eventually each of these decks would want to have the full flexibility and consistency that fetchlands provide (even the aggro builds, for opening hand consistency)--for better or worse the format does play out at closer to an eternal pace, and inconsistent draws or poor early mana development can often just turn a game--take wasteland for instance given different context. At the end, I think the most important thing any player can invest in for this format or the game, is its lands, they are after all the economic system of the game (sure there's moxen a plenty but this format is more naturally aspirated in that regard).
Rob, I think that the U/B deck actually really needs that man land, she's built it with a few ways of dealing with early, resolved PWs, but not enough for the one time an opponent slips one through and you've got to wait until turn 5-6 to cast a fatty into the opposition's potential wall of fat and find a way to stop recursive value each turn. Plus deck's like U/B and this one in particular, have very few win cons. Creeping Tizzle is a shockingly faster clock than you'd expect and a few chips here and there can knock out a PW or take away 6 vital life to make a resolved threat a 2 turn clock over a 3 turn clock, etc.
Anyway, I'm still partial to WW as a good starting point, but I also began my 100c journey with that deck, and shaped it into more of a D&T build to suit different metas once I understood them and my collection had grown. Keep up the great writings.
I would imagine that the hands of Thoughtseize/Tarmogoyf/Liliana give the Abzan deck a good shot at winning, but it's a tricky matchup since Emrakul is almost game over and you still have to beat Blood Moon to even play the game. There's also the fact that Abzan doesn't play the aggro role as well as Jund does.
I suspect the matchup is not in Abzan's favor overall, with a better chance on the play. Game 1 is likely horrible given the hands that don't do anything against the deck, and the low chance of playing around Blood Moon.
Emrakul is what what makes the matchup bad since you don't have time to play a normal game, you have to win quickly but also try and beat Blood Moon at the same time. Makes it hard to tap out if you have Abrupt Decay but no basics. You can't stop the topdecks after all.
As you say, it has few horrible matchups. As far as I know, Tron, Titanshift and Dredge are the three decks it most fears (amongst the most popular Tier 1 decks running around).
Marcos, can I ask you: Do you believe that Abzan is favored against Blue Moon (Through the Breach version)? I suspect that Abzan is favored because its hand disruption would usually prevent a Moon lock and the opponent's first Through the Breach can also be Thoughtseized, buying enough time for the Goyfs and Souls to beat down for the win. Interested to know your view.
Should they take action? Possibly. Is the fact that they have not yet hypocritical? Possibly. Does this have anything to do with the banned player getting banned? Not particularly.
Be very wary of falling into the Tu quoque logical fallacy, the appeal to hypocrisy.
Just because some other people have not been banned does not invalidate banning the person who was banned.
Saying 'What about the X?' such as 'What about the people threatening the banned person?' does not address anything relevant to the person who was banned. Not only are we going into logical fallacy territory here, we're veering off into active misinformation:
I strongly, strongly advise keeping the two issues ('People have made threats and should face consequences' and 'this guy was banned') entirely separate: Linking them massively weakens both arguments to the point of getting lumped in with gamergaters and other online hostile swarms and not getting through at all to the people you would wish to listen.
1. I see evidence that there were serious offences committed against a person whom WotC has now banned indefinitely with no opportunity for appeal.
2. I see evidence that WotC have been informed of this.
3. I see no evidence that any actions were taken by WotC in relation to all those who committed serious offences against Jeremy.
4. I am happy to wait a couple of months to see if WotC will take any action (noting that this has already been going on for months, but let's be generous).
5. People can draw their own conclusions, either now or at the relevant time in the future.
As far as I can tell the "alt-right" got their start in #gamergate or paralleled them so closely as to be no different. So not surprising that the tactics are the same.
I respond as follows: Is it fair to say that if I, whose views of the far left are more than kind, made a death threat against a deplorable in the community whom WotC does not like, and threaten and intimidate his wife, would the door slam shut on my backside (quickly or even at all)?
We have actual evidence that WotC has taken no action in such cases despite this having gone on for months.
You have to realize that there is a significant difference between personal opinions and slander. Let us be real here, you are not just saying that death threats should lead to bannings. You are making accusations against WotC for which the only support are your personal opinions and interpretations.
You also have to realize that no one in here has dissgreed that death threats are a serious offense. So that issue is not really what the debate is about.
I don't buy that and here's why. Let's apply your same reasoning to other people's opinions on the issue, and see if the result still stands:
1. Person X believes that the ban against Jeremy is justified, and that his conduct constituted serial harassment.
2. Person X doesn't have all the information which WotC had when performing the investigation.
3. WotC's decision-making is not transparent.
4. Person X "cannot possibly know" if WotC was justified in making the decision.
The above does not hold. Person X is entitled to an opinion based on the evidence which he/she has. The fact that the decision-making process by WotC is not completely transparent does not disentitle or invalidate that person's opinion.
This is why I would not use such an argument against others, and why such an argument does not hold true when used against me.
Let's also be real here and have a sanity check for a moment. I am asking for bans to be issued to people in our MTG community who issue death threats against those they disapprove of. This should not be controversial.
It's fair to say that if I, whose views of the far right are less than kind, made a youtube video alleging child molestation by WOTC personnel, the door would slam shut on my backside before I could say 'Let me sell off my collection first'.
Please don't straw-woman me. You know that I neither suggested that random conservatives at local game stores would be targeted by WotC, nor that Jeremy's political leaning was the exclusive factor involved here. I suggested only that it was a relevant factor (which was my opinion), and the fact that you were the one who mentioned the 'alt-right' in this thread reinforced to me that it has some significance (otherwise why mention this at all?). I presume you raised his political leanings for a reason?
Yeah, I can't really comment on how people learn. Obviously in many different ways because skills I have many players don't...and they don't even need them in order to be good.
I suppose it depends also on what we consider a shell of a deck (for me a same shell works cross formats...ok maybe not in Standard where the cards are starting to be way too different from Magic I know). I know that for me and you what we come up with will be equally solid and focused but for some people this is far from being clear (this doesn't mean the player themselves isn't a good one). That's the reason why some people have difficulties understanding what deck wants to run 4 Dig Through Times and which ones want to run 4 Treasure Cruise. For people that understand a shell of a deck and what they want to do with it won't have a problem deciding and that's what I'm talking about. Some people naturally know how to build a deck, some will learn it on the way and some won't ever want to think about that at all. We also have the knowledge of how metagame works and we experienced this over and over and know the tendencies. It is easy for us to put together a deck that can attack a certain metagame and we also will know when to switch. Those are things that some players still need to learn (if they want to learn something more) and I hope that CSM 4.12 taught that lesson. In the end it all comes down to context and I wish I would manage to somehow finish my article about power level. It's probably not going to happen though :-(
(I often came to LGS and produced a deck out of Vintage Cube. it would be a nice experiment to see what other players would come up with. I'd be interested in their creativity and understanding of the game as they see it. If you've never done that, try it one day^_^)
It's funny you mention shell or untuned decks...think it depends a lot on how each player as a person learns really...it's very difficult for me to remember not understanding the game how I do now, although I know at one point I was likely a 12 year old kid trying to put Island Fish Jasconious (and anyone can correct my horrible spelling) and Force of Natures in decks, but as long as I can remember, for me most of my building is theoretical or conceptual in nature...ie the general theme of how I want to win and what I'll need to beat tends to frame the strategic underpinnings of individual card choices and mana bases etc, etc. I think for some it might be different, and perhaps these shells allow a player to take a more empirical approach to building in this format or any format really. But I'd say at the end of the day if the player is truly interested in building, not just tuning (which is also valuable), a more theoretical and diligent process is required of them as a student of the game...it's not to say that players cannot be successful in the game otherwise by picking up best decks in any given format and learning them very well; but I think they'll always be a step behind once the meta stagnates and an equally skilled player but greater builder brings the statistically best deck in a given meta as opposed to the theoretically best deck.
I bring it up because in CSM 4.12, I brought what I considered to be the rawest deck (very low tuning and frankly sloppy building that required more than the 15 minutes I took to do it) that I've played in that tournament. Normally, I'm more diligent in my work, but I think what I did get right is that RG Ramp was the strategically most well positioned build given what I could expect to play against at the highest rate. So even if a deck is an untuned shell, given that a player has chosen it well given the nature of the meta, his known opponents, and his or her own play capability (and we have to be honest here with ourselves sometimes, we're not Jon Finkels here) it can certainly win.
Lowman already replied instead of me but Creeping Tar Pit is actually one of the key cards in the deck. I call it the 'Jace killer' but well it is a card that you need to deal with mainly planeswalkers and also is often able to deal 3-6 damage to actually win the game with your finisher. In many games it's just Tar Pit that wins the games.
In all decks there are cards that have a certain kind of priority and I'd have to comment on each of them. Tar Pit has a very high priority though. For example I'd cut one of the win conditions first. I put more of them in the deck than it needs them. Mostly because if by a chance someone would want to play with it, they will have to figure out how the deck works and what it needs. It actually needs a very few win conditions and the player needs to figure out how to play the game well and how to deal with certain kind of permanents. Muddle the Mixture if for example a card that I'd put in next.
UB control is not that dependent on its colors as UW control for example. So you should be fine with less mana fixing. This deck can easily play Back to Basics. Anyway it comes down to what lowman said. You find a shell of a deck you want to play and improvise to achieve what you need. (which though requires a knowledge you already need to have or start playing a lot)
Thank you lowman for the comment (hope people read them!).
As for WW. I look at this deck in a similar way the way I look at Delver being a good introductory deck in Vintage. While I understand your point of view with Delver not being well suited for this because it is way trickier to play and pilot well it gives the player all the means to win a game of magic in a fair way and teaches them how not to terribly die to a combo deck. If a player learns to board out Delver of Secrets they certainly learned a thing. WW while it is not the same kind of a deck allows for a similar experience because it can go from very aggressive to prison if one chooses to and it wins games even if you can't figure out the relation between tempo of the game and tempo of your deck.
It gives room for learning and improvement and it also shows the tendencies you have as a player. I tend to go control so from a Delver deck I'd move to a PW Control and from WW I'd go to D&T.
The reason why I put this article up is also because many players can't figure out what a shell of a deck is and what cards are important. This is certainly the way to go, but that requires the player to already have a good knowledge of some formats (the older ones. does not necessarily need to be Legacy or Vintage, but rather older Standard, Extended for example). And yes, the lands are the most important (for those reading my comment I suggest to browse my articles and read the Show and Tell series).
(I started with Naya Zoo which you can probably understand that wasn't 'good enough' for me^_^ I needed more flexibility which led me to 4c)
All noted Marcos, makes sense. You have convinced me that this matchup is an uphill battle for Abzan.
Really appreciate the article Stsung, I think it's always challenging to find varied archetypes beyond simple monochromatic aggro decks that tend to rely on very few chase cards; even more difficult to build multicolor builds in this format without the flexibility of possibly having the availability of all the fetchlands or duals. I think one of the best things a player can do is chose what deck or decks depending on their individual budget they think they'd enjoy and building the shell of it and slowly growing it from that point. Eventually each of these decks would want to have the full flexibility and consistency that fetchlands provide (even the aggro builds, for opening hand consistency)--for better or worse the format does play out at closer to an eternal pace, and inconsistent draws or poor early mana development can often just turn a game--take wasteland for instance given different context. At the end, I think the most important thing any player can invest in for this format or the game, is its lands, they are after all the economic system of the game (sure there's moxen a plenty but this format is more naturally aspirated in that regard).
Rob, I think that the U/B deck actually really needs that man land, she's built it with a few ways of dealing with early, resolved PWs, but not enough for the one time an opponent slips one through and you've got to wait until turn 5-6 to cast a fatty into the opposition's potential wall of fat and find a way to stop recursive value each turn. Plus deck's like U/B and this one in particular, have very few win cons. Creeping Tizzle is a shockingly faster clock than you'd expect and a few chips here and there can knock out a PW or take away 6 vital life to make a resolved threat a 2 turn clock over a 3 turn clock, etc.
Anyway, I'm still partial to WW as a good starting point, but I also began my 100c journey with that deck, and shaped it into more of a D&T build to suit different metas once I understood them and my collection had grown. Keep up the great writings.
For the price of C Tar Pits you can instead run River of Tears + Fetid Pools + Darkwater catacombs + Dismal backwater.
I think I'd also run Dimir Aqueducts and Bad River since it can fetch Grave/Hollow
I would imagine that the hands of Thoughtseize/Tarmogoyf/Liliana give the Abzan deck a good shot at winning, but it's a tricky matchup since Emrakul is almost game over and you still have to beat Blood Moon to even play the game. There's also the fact that Abzan doesn't play the aggro role as well as Jund does.
I suspect the matchup is not in Abzan's favor overall, with a better chance on the play. Game 1 is likely horrible given the hands that don't do anything against the deck, and the low chance of playing around Blood Moon.
Emrakul is what what makes the matchup bad since you don't have time to play a normal game, you have to win quickly but also try and beat Blood Moon at the same time. Makes it hard to tap out if you have Abrupt Decay but no basics. You can't stop the topdecks after all.
For this winter only, the event starts at 3PM EST
Unglued not unstable?
Great article, thanks for posting.
As you say, it has few horrible matchups. As far as I know, Tron, Titanshift and Dredge are the three decks it most fears (amongst the most popular Tier 1 decks running around).
Marcos, can I ask you: Do you believe that Abzan is favored against Blue Moon (Through the Breach version)? I suspect that Abzan is favored because its hand disruption would usually prevent a Moon lock and the opponent's first Through the Breach can also be Thoughtseized, buying enough time for the Goyfs and Souls to beat down for the win. Interested to know your view.
Kindly noted.
Should they take action? Possibly. Is the fact that they have not yet hypocritical? Possibly. Does this have anything to do with the banned player getting banned? Not particularly.
Be very wary of falling into the Tu quoque logical fallacy, the appeal to hypocrisy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Just because some other people have not been banned does not invalidate banning the person who was banned.
Saying 'What about the X?' such as 'What about the people threatening the banned person?' does not address anything relevant to the person who was banned. Not only are we going into logical fallacy territory here, we're veering off into active misinformation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I strongly, strongly advise keeping the two issues ('People have made threats and should face consequences' and 'this guy was banned') entirely separate: Linking them massively weakens both arguments to the point of getting lumped in with gamergaters and other online hostile swarms and not getting through at all to the people you would wish to listen.
Hi Cauchy, you make a fair point.
I am happy to leave my comments as simply this:
1. I see evidence that there were serious offences committed against a person whom WotC has now banned indefinitely with no opportunity for appeal.
2. I see evidence that WotC have been informed of this.
3. I see no evidence that any actions were taken by WotC in relation to all those who committed serious offences against Jeremy.
4. I am happy to wait a couple of months to see if WotC will take any action (noting that this has already been going on for months, but let's be generous).
5. People can draw their own conclusions, either now or at the relevant time in the future.
Let's hope :D
May all forms of serial harassment in our community come to an end (regardless of who does it, or who is the victim). It has no place.
Let's hope for a healthier community in 2018.
As far as I can tell the "alt-right" got their start in #gamergate or paralleled them so closely as to be no different. So not surprising that the tactics are the same.
Kind of figured that but appreciate the confirmation all the same.
Hi AJ, I see what you did there.
I respond as follows: Is it fair to say that if I, whose views of the far left are more than kind, made a death threat against a deplorable in the community whom WotC does not like, and threaten and intimidate his wife, would the door slam shut on my backside (quickly or even at all)?
We have actual evidence that WotC has taken no action in such cases despite this having gone on for months.
Hi MichelleWong,
You have to realize that there is a significant difference between personal opinions and slander. Let us be real here, you are not just saying that death threats should lead to bannings. You are making accusations against WotC for which the only support are your personal opinions and interpretations.
You also have to realize that no one in here has dissgreed that death threats are a serious offense. So that issue is not really what the debate is about.
as I write this, I troll twitter to see another upstanding member of the community driven away by the actions of him and his followers.
I mention the alt-right because these are the same tactics that gamergate used to try to silence those that didn't agree with them.
Hi Cauchy,
I don't buy that and here's why. Let's apply your same reasoning to other people's opinions on the issue, and see if the result still stands:
1. Person X believes that the ban against Jeremy is justified, and that his conduct constituted serial harassment.
2. Person X doesn't have all the information which WotC had when performing the investigation.
3. WotC's decision-making is not transparent.
4. Person X "cannot possibly know" if WotC was justified in making the decision.
The above does not hold. Person X is entitled to an opinion based on the evidence which he/she has. The fact that the decision-making process by WotC is not completely transparent does not disentitle or invalidate that person's opinion.
This is why I would not use such an argument against others, and why such an argument does not hold true when used against me.
Let's also be real here and have a sanity check for a moment. I am asking for bans to be issued to people in our MTG community who issue death threats against those they disapprove of. This should not be controversial.
It's fair to say that if I, whose views of the far right are less than kind, made a youtube video alleging child molestation by WOTC personnel, the door would slam shut on my backside before I could say 'Let me sell off my collection first'.
Please don't straw-woman me. You know that I neither suggested that random conservatives at local game stores would be targeted by WotC, nor that Jeremy's political leaning was the exclusive factor involved here. I suggested only that it was a relevant factor (which was my opinion), and the fact that you were the one who mentioned the 'alt-right' in this thread reinforced to me that it has some significance (otherwise why mention this at all?). I presume you raised his political leanings for a reason?
Technically you can play an arbitrarily large number of restricted cards in the freeform decks.