I think the matchup is only slightly in favor of infect to be honest and it's because bogles can win just as fast as infect can, but it takes less cards and less turns for infect to win the game. Even with the mono green version, apostles blessing makes the infect creature basically unblockable and that is a real problem, but out of the sideboard, bogles has access to standard bearer and fog like cards, which can be back breaking for infect to handle. I would say pre board is 55/45 in infects favor but after sideboard, its 50/50.
I am particularly interested in the Bogles vs Infect matchup, which accounts for most of the battles I have played against Infect. The Bogles deck won most of the games, however I attribute that mainly to variance because I am not convinced that it is a good matchup for Bogles. This is because Infect just needs to draw OK (not amazingly, just OK) to combo kill, and Bogles has few answers to a buffed creature with Infect, and overall Bogles is at least a turn slower to achieve the kill. Unblockability from the Infect player is huge in the matchup and punishes Bogles trying to go on defence. Plus the life gain aspect of Armadillo Cloak (which is usually one of Bogles' main weapons to win a race) is a hot pile of useless garbage in the matchup.
Siding in answers against Infect is possible for Bogles (in particular fog cards because they avoid blowouts from Vines of Vastwood and Apostle's Blessing and can overcome the main benefit of Distortion Strike which is the unblockability), but Infect decks also have ways to blowout Bogles from the sideboard too (for example the card which destroys all auras). So I don't feel that the matchup post-board changes the win percentage by much.
Dark Depths also goes into Cloudpost Ramp, because they can run Thespian's Stage for value anyway, and usually have expedition maps to tutor it. I'm fine with it being taken off the table, or if you want to be clever, restrict it to its relevant tribe. Good luck cheating it out in Avatar.
Thinking about it, you are right about the card being mostly win more with Titan. First off, Titan predominantly enters the play via Natural Order or GSZ, so just this initial play (Natural Order or GSZ for 6) will win you the game most of the time regardless which high-mana threat you fetch. And secondly, it is true that Primeval Titan into whatever 2 lands is such a powerful play that your opp will lose almost always unless you are behind a lot (and then you don't fetch the Titan, but a creature that stabilizes the situation, like Pelakka Wurm or Hornet Queen). So yeah, I think the percentage of games won by the sole virtue of Dark Depths+Thespian Stage fetch instead of 2 other good lands is not high, but it still warrants the inclusion in the Titan decks.
In other decks, you have to actually assemble the combo by searching for both lands, which is kind of clunky.
It's also true that SotP and Path to Exile are relatively widely played answers (as opposed to some other combos that don't have good answers in Tribal).
I don't know, I still wouldn't protest the ban, but thinking about it more, I also think the ban is not really needed.
I'd like to keep it around. Granted, I'm perhaps biased. It's being reprinted soon, so that increased access might help data. Miha will probably admit that in Titan games it's usually win-more anyways as Titan was already doing its thing. Dark Depths combo is a check to some decks/strategies and its removal wouldn't necessarily help control much as Control has more prevalent matters to worry about. StP keeps DD combo largely under wraps. It has already been Purified, and I wouldn't holler against an Underdog ban, but I think it should stay in Regular. Unlike some other combos, it at least uses the attack step.
I don't mind banning Dark Depths - it is indeed very powerful - though I disagree with the statement that it gives "a too powerful, too tempting non-tribal endgame strategy to any deck". Dark Depths/Thespian stage combo is definitely not suitable for any deck (as evidenced by real Legacy where it sees play only in dedicated builds that can support it). For example, it is a very good target for Primeval Titan, it's powerful with Vampire Hexmage, it can work in specific slower decks that center around assembling certain mana base and thus have cards that search for lands, but I would guess about 90% of the Tribal decks are not the right fit.
But as said, it is powerful enough in appropriate builds that I won't disagree with it's ban.
Two-headed giant is a fun form of multiplayer that doesn't have the problems you mentioned, but I take your points re: multiplayer (though I don't feel the same way).
That red burn deck looks fun, but when Exquisite Firecraft rotates it'll lose a lot.
I disagree about F6. If I have out a creature that can tap to give something haste, F8 will not do anything. I just got annoyed with playing against decks that didn't once play an instant, but still had to pass priority.
I used to play in a player run 1v1 tournament, it was quite enjoyable.
You are quite possibly right there Paul. It's quite possible if the group I was playing with was different it would be a different story. Maybe multiplayer over a few drinks (and not in a store environment) I would enjoy.
F6 is almost always a mistake in any action on mtgo. F8 however afforded a way to signal that you were following the protocal by tapping out. Once people saw that happening they picked up the custom themselves and it spread rather quickly among multiplayer games I played. As to 1v1 I rarely play in the wild but sometimes AJ and I spar abit and I am certain we would enjoy your joining in some round robin 1v1 fun.
While I miss them, I don't think I would play them again unless they became much more streamlined. Playing a 4 (god forbid 6) player EDH game where 2 players either don't know or refuse to F6 through turns got unbearable (which introduced me into 1 on 1 commander, something I quite enjoy...)
I suspect that your opinion is based solidly on your playing style and how you enjoy/don't enjoy socializing with other players. For those of us who do enjoy socializing, Multiplayer gives us an outlet to do so while playing a complex and sometimes mind boggling (for some) game. Thus the synergy of the two activities together brings great joy. However, if you are of the spiky not too timmy, variety of magic player you may find socialization in multiplayer to be not your kind of fun. Not enjoying that aspect probably makes the whole thing rather boring. My theory anyway.
I have at times found Multiplayer to be at turns edifying, enjoyable, boring, exciting, stupefying (long ass solitaire turns? nah Ill go play Parcheesi...) and occasionally winning over other types of formats. But the useless functionality in the current client for Multiplayer makes it loathsome indeed.
See, I have tried multiplayer. A lot. I have played the game for 20 years. In my opinion, multiplayer is quite boring (that's why it was filed under the "Opinion" section) :)
Multiplayer is boring? I understand what you are saying but, really, #firstworldproblems. You should give it a try, multiplayer rocks #bringbacktwoheadedgiantanddropdraftleagues.
I hate to break it to you but any magic related problem is a #firstworldproblem. Magic is a #firstworldgame.
I am not in the same camp as your room mate. I am somewhere in between. I use both math and intuition. Perhaps not the heavily analyzed math you refer to but it is definitely in there.
Interesting you bring up shops as that is a very easy to grok deck for me. Well at least some versions of it. The problem is it tends towards an aggro strategy which I usually abhor. Though I like the prison aspects, it is generally not that much fun imho to play against so I never bring those kind of decks to casual play (because not fun and super efficient. I don't mind bringing slow to develop prisons because they are hard to play.) Not that there are a lot of Vintage players, playing casually these days.
In my humble opinion, not while playing but just brewing and relaxing is the best time to crack open the insides of how things work and really apply the hard math so I approve of your choice though I am no fan of Baxter (purely from an opposition to some his shadier text.) Figuring out exactly what mana is required and how to deliver it seems like the perfect place for a by the numbers approach.
My own problems with magic arise from being an entirely impatient person.
I still have my copy of that book! So many old notebooks were filled with deck lists using that pocket structure. It completely changed how the players in my high school built decks (60 cards main, not 80+) and was clearly a "level up" point for us as players.
I discussed how I plan out mana bases in my Brain in a Jar article. It starts out in a similar fashion, but you add in some additional steps that provide more data to pull from. I was curious how others went about it, so this article was a useful read!
Don't worry about whether an article seems too math heavy our not. Like you said, different folks approach Magic in different ways. If you are inspired to write it, then your passion for the subject might "sell it" even to folks that normally don't think about the math aspects of the game. If a single player stops to consider this article and then goes on to improve their game, I would call that a win.
Thx for reading and the comment. I actually tried to avoid maths as much as I could. Magic is a game of variance and such has to be accepted. This variance is something we can influence to some extent. Deckbuilding is one of the ways how to do that. To achieve the best results we need to assess how much a certain situation is probable and use this knowledge to our advantage both while deckbuilding and playing. Those that are good at understanding how probability works, and understand zero-sum and non-zero sum games will be able to meet what people call 'luck' with more success.
Even though I have degree in Fine Arts I was always digital and analytical person. What I do not see in numbers I do not really understand much, or I do, but I cannot interpret it. That is the reason why I was reluctant to write this article. This is how I approach Magic. It is a topic I never really talked about with other players. Game theory and probability is what I see. But I do not know how common this approach is. To me it seems to be the only one. On the other hand I realized that not all players see a great decision tree while playing but rather decide based on intuition. I decide based on free information, hidden information and probabilities involved and whether my opponent is wont to bluff or not etc. I analyse. But my flatmate who happens to be also a Magic player plays intuitively. I couldn't understand how such a person can play a game that is rigorously mathematical well without actually using maths to assess the game. But I can clearly see that he can play well and understands the game. I can also see that he does not understand the struggles I face when playing with a deck. So it is possible that you are in the same camp as my flatmate. There's nothing wrong with that. Knowing this I tried to avoid maths as much as possible.
I learned this when trying to play Shops. My flatmate usually plays some kind of MUD staxx deck while I'm more of the blue player and would never touch Shops. We switched decks and we were both quite lost. I ended up with Shops deck in my hands having no clue what the deck can do. But I saw the cards in my hand and I knew what the cards do. But what is the right play now, what is the right strategy? I wondered about several scenarios trying to figure out if playing Lodestone Golem first is better than playing Thorn of Amethyst and then playing the Golem. This is an easy decision and scenario considering it is turn 1 but what I saw where too many possibilities that could lead to different situations even though all I had available and thought about was my seven cards. I knew what the game looks like from the blue deck's perspective and decided based on that at first. We both came to the conclusion what the optimal play is at certain point in a game but we arrived to that conclusion in a very different fashion.
As always, thank you for the insight Michelle!
I think the matchup is only slightly in favor of infect to be honest and it's because bogles can win just as fast as infect can, but it takes less cards and less turns for infect to win the game. Even with the mono green version, apostles blessing makes the infect creature basically unblockable and that is a real problem, but out of the sideboard, bogles has access to standard bearer and fog like cards, which can be back breaking for infect to handle. I would say pre board is 55/45 in infects favor but after sideboard, its 50/50.
Nice article.
I am particularly interested in the Bogles vs Infect matchup, which accounts for most of the battles I have played against Infect. The Bogles deck won most of the games, however I attribute that mainly to variance because I am not convinced that it is a good matchup for Bogles. This is because Infect just needs to draw OK (not amazingly, just OK) to combo kill, and Bogles has few answers to a buffed creature with Infect, and overall Bogles is at least a turn slower to achieve the kill. Unblockability from the Infect player is huge in the matchup and punishes Bogles trying to go on defence. Plus the life gain aspect of Armadillo Cloak (which is usually one of Bogles' main weapons to win a race) is a hot pile of useless garbage in the matchup.
Siding in answers against Infect is possible for Bogles (in particular fog cards because they avoid blowouts from Vines of Vastwood and Apostle's Blessing and can overcome the main benefit of Distortion Strike which is the unblockability), but Infect decks also have ways to blowout Bogles from the sideboard too (for example the card which destroys all auras). So I don't feel that the matchup post-board changes the win percentage by much.
Dark Depths also goes into Cloudpost Ramp, because they can run Thespian's Stage for value anyway, and usually have expedition maps to tutor it. I'm fine with it being taken off the table, or if you want to be clever, restrict it to its relevant tribe. Good luck cheating it out in Avatar.
Thinking about it, you are right about the card being mostly win more with Titan. First off, Titan predominantly enters the play via Natural Order or GSZ, so just this initial play (Natural Order or GSZ for 6) will win you the game most of the time regardless which high-mana threat you fetch. And secondly, it is true that Primeval Titan into whatever 2 lands is such a powerful play that your opp will lose almost always unless you are behind a lot (and then you don't fetch the Titan, but a creature that stabilizes the situation, like Pelakka Wurm or Hornet Queen). So yeah, I think the percentage of games won by the sole virtue of Dark Depths+Thespian Stage fetch instead of 2 other good lands is not high, but it still warrants the inclusion in the Titan decks.
In other decks, you have to actually assemble the combo by searching for both lands, which is kind of clunky.
It's also true that SotP and Path to Exile are relatively widely played answers (as opposed to some other combos that don't have good answers in Tribal).
I don't know, I still wouldn't protest the ban, but thinking about it more, I also think the ban is not really needed.
Unless you fling it :p
I'd like to keep it around. Granted, I'm perhaps biased. It's being reprinted soon, so that increased access might help data. Miha will probably admit that in Titan games it's usually win-more anyways as Titan was already doing its thing. Dark Depths combo is a check to some decks/strategies and its removal wouldn't necessarily help control much as Control has more prevalent matters to worry about. StP keeps DD combo largely under wraps. It has already been Purified, and I wouldn't holler against an Underdog ban, but I think it should stay in Regular. Unlike some other combos, it at least uses the attack step.
I don't mind banning Dark Depths - it is indeed very powerful - though I disagree with the statement that it gives "a too powerful, too tempting non-tribal endgame strategy to any deck". Dark Depths/Thespian stage combo is definitely not suitable for any deck (as evidenced by real Legacy where it sees play only in dedicated builds that can support it). For example, it is a very good target for Primeval Titan, it's powerful with Vampire Hexmage, it can work in specific slower decks that center around assembling certain mana base and thus have cards that search for lands, but I would guess about 90% of the Tribal decks are not the right fit.
But as said, it is powerful enough in appropriate builds that I won't disagree with it's ban.
I would LOVE this to happen.
1on1 Commander is amazing, but it would be even more amazing if wotc would add the french commander rules to the client.
Got a lot of disconnects with a t1 sol ring :/
It seems the author is basing his opinion regarding multiplayer on experience from a "store environment". In that context 2HG could still be relevant.
Two Headed giant was removed from MTGO with Magic Origins, so it's not really relevant given that you can't play it any more.
Two-headed giant is a fun form of multiplayer that doesn't have the problems you mentioned, but I take your points re: multiplayer (though I don't feel the same way).
That red burn deck looks fun, but when Exquisite Firecraft rotates it'll lose a lot.
I disagree about F6. If I have out a creature that can tap to give something haste, F8 will not do anything. I just got annoyed with playing against decks that didn't once play an instant, but still had to pass priority.
I used to play in a player run 1v1 tournament, it was quite enjoyable.
You are quite possibly right there Paul. It's quite possible if the group I was playing with was different it would be a different story. Maybe multiplayer over a few drinks (and not in a store environment) I would enjoy.
F6 is almost always a mistake in any action on mtgo. F8 however afforded a way to signal that you were following the protocal by tapping out. Once people saw that happening they picked up the custom themselves and it spread rather quickly among multiplayer games I played. As to 1v1 I rarely play in the wild but sometimes AJ and I spar abit and I am certain we would enjoy your joining in some round robin 1v1 fun.
While I miss them, I don't think I would play them again unless they became much more streamlined. Playing a 4 (god forbid 6) player EDH game where 2 players either don't know or refuse to F6 through turns got unbearable (which introduced me into 1 on 1 commander, something I quite enjoy...)
I suspect that your opinion is based solidly on your playing style and how you enjoy/don't enjoy socializing with other players. For those of us who do enjoy socializing, Multiplayer gives us an outlet to do so while playing a complex and sometimes mind boggling (for some) game. Thus the synergy of the two activities together brings great joy. However, if you are of the spiky not too timmy, variety of magic player you may find socialization in multiplayer to be not your kind of fun. Not enjoying that aspect probably makes the whole thing rather boring. My theory anyway.
I have at times found Multiplayer to be at turns edifying, enjoyable, boring, exciting, stupefying (long ass solitaire turns? nah Ill go play Parcheesi...) and occasionally winning over other types of formats. But the useless functionality in the current client for Multiplayer makes it loathsome indeed.
I miss the robust multiplayer options on mtgo :/
See, I have tried multiplayer. A lot. I have played the game for 20 years. In my opinion, multiplayer is quite boring (that's why it was filed under the "Opinion" section) :)
Multiplayer is boring? I understand what you are saying but, really, #firstworldproblems. You should give it a try, multiplayer rocks #bringbacktwoheadedgiantanddropdraftleagues.
I hate to break it to you but any magic related problem is a #firstworldproblem. Magic is a #firstworldgame.
I am not in the same camp as your room mate. I am somewhere in between. I use both math and intuition. Perhaps not the heavily analyzed math you refer to but it is definitely in there.
Interesting you bring up shops as that is a very easy to grok deck for me. Well at least some versions of it. The problem is it tends towards an aggro strategy which I usually abhor. Though I like the prison aspects, it is generally not that much fun imho to play against so I never bring those kind of decks to casual play (because not fun and super efficient. I don't mind bringing slow to develop prisons because they are hard to play.) Not that there are a lot of Vintage players, playing casually these days.
In my humble opinion, not while playing but just brewing and relaxing is the best time to crack open the insides of how things work and really apply the hard math so I approve of your choice though I am no fan of Baxter (purely from an opposition to some his shadier text.) Figuring out exactly what mana is required and how to deliver it seems like the perfect place for a by the numbers approach.
My own problems with magic arise from being an entirely impatient person.
I have since realized that decklists are exportable from the draft deckbuilding interface. I'll include the decklist a usual in my next article.
I still have my copy of that book! So many old notebooks were filled with deck lists using that pocket structure. It completely changed how the players in my high school built decks (60 cards main, not 80+) and was clearly a "level up" point for us as players.
I discussed how I plan out mana bases in my Brain in a Jar article. It starts out in a similar fashion, but you add in some additional steps that provide more data to pull from. I was curious how others went about it, so this article was a useful read!
Don't worry about whether an article seems too math heavy our not. Like you said, different folks approach Magic in different ways. If you are inspired to write it, then your passion for the subject might "sell it" even to folks that normally don't think about the math aspects of the game. If a single player stops to consider this article and then goes on to improve their game, I would call that a win.
Thx for reading and the comment. I actually tried to avoid maths as much as I could. Magic is a game of variance and such has to be accepted. This variance is something we can influence to some extent. Deckbuilding is one of the ways how to do that. To achieve the best results we need to assess how much a certain situation is probable and use this knowledge to our advantage both while deckbuilding and playing. Those that are good at understanding how probability works, and understand zero-sum and non-zero sum games will be able to meet what people call 'luck' with more success.
Even though I have degree in Fine Arts I was always digital and analytical person. What I do not see in numbers I do not really understand much, or I do, but I cannot interpret it. That is the reason why I was reluctant to write this article. This is how I approach Magic. It is a topic I never really talked about with other players. Game theory and probability is what I see. But I do not know how common this approach is. To me it seems to be the only one. On the other hand I realized that not all players see a great decision tree while playing but rather decide based on intuition. I decide based on free information, hidden information and probabilities involved and whether my opponent is wont to bluff or not etc. I analyse. But my flatmate who happens to be also a Magic player plays intuitively. I couldn't understand how such a person can play a game that is rigorously mathematical well without actually using maths to assess the game. But I can clearly see that he can play well and understands the game. I can also see that he does not understand the struggles I face when playing with a deck. So it is possible that you are in the same camp as my flatmate. There's nothing wrong with that. Knowing this I tried to avoid maths as much as possible.
I learned this when trying to play Shops. My flatmate usually plays some kind of MUD staxx deck while I'm more of the blue player and would never touch Shops. We switched decks and we were both quite lost. I ended up with Shops deck in my hands having no clue what the deck can do. But I saw the cards in my hand and I knew what the cards do. But what is the right play now, what is the right strategy? I wondered about several scenarios trying to figure out if playing Lodestone Golem first is better than playing Thorn of Amethyst and then playing the Golem. This is an easy decision and scenario considering it is turn 1 but what I saw where too many possibilities that could lead to different situations even though all I had available and thought about was my seven cards. I knew what the game looks like from the blue deck's perspective and decided based on that at first. We both came to the conclusion what the optimal play is at certain point in a game but we arrived to that conclusion in a very different fashion.
Lots of numbers heavy advice. Lots to chew on. Interesting article, thanks. :)