The Meta Report Classic Ed. #2
Another great week for the Classic enthusiast, our Sunday PE launched with thirty three participants and was crash free. What more could we want how about a diversified field of play. No archetype had more than four entries, that may not seem like a big deal but it makes for a great tourney. The largest showings where of course RDW, Landstill, and Thresh; rightfully so with the numbers they continuously put up week to week. I feel the staying power of RDW will not stop until we get duals, but that is not really a bad thing. It has allowed for many new players to get involved in Classic events relatively cheap. I will go over a few rouge deck that did very well this past Sunday, an I feel could possibly take the format by surprise.
If your looking to place in the Top 8 you have to be able to take these top decks. There is no way to get around them, so you have to be prepared for them. As it is RDW, Landstill, Thresh, and Flash make up almost 50% of the decks represented in Sundays event. So what can be done? Sometimes its all a matter of tweaking your sideboard to fit the current meta game. A good example of that would be the current Meta has not seen an Affinity deck in two weeks. This would tell me it may be ok to remove Hurkyl’s Recall from my sideboard, and replace it with something to help me with the top decks right now. Although some one will likely run an Affinity deck thinking there is no hate for it.
Now I will not get into detail of what improves certain match ups I feel Walkerdog has done a great job of defining which cards help in those match ups. You many want to read “The Doubtless Apple Series” to understand what you may need to work into your deck. I am more concerned with the overall Meta Game and the match ups. Below I have an updated chart to show what I consider the top contenders in the format right now and how they pair up.
|
Things are really starting to fill in and we can see which deck have some of the best match ups. I have included my rouge deck this week so there can be a comparison to the top decks. RG Aggro has some very good match ups to date. Now this may change as more games will make the numbers for RG Aggro more accurate. How ever I do feel it is a strong deck and will see quite a bit of play. It is not as cheap as RDW, but the added cost puts some heavy hitters on the board. Those heavy hitters will more often than not win games for you.
The numbers for Thresh and Landstill seem to have the best all around performance. No doubt if you wish to get anywhere you better be geared toward beating these monsters next Sunday.
| | | RG AGGRO | THRESH | FLASH | DREDGE | RDW | LANDSTILL | | FLASH | 100% | 67% | 50% | 100% | 31% | 54% | | DREDGE | 20% | 75% | 0% | 50% | 33% | 60% | | RDW | 0% | 54% | 69% | 67% | 50% | 61% | | ZOO | NA | 100% | NA | NA | NA | 100% | | LANDSTILL | 60% | 42% | 46% | 40% | 39% | 50% | | TUTORSTILL | NA | 67% | NA | 0% | 33% | 67% | | COUNTERTOP | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | | ROCK | NA | 67% | NA | NA | 60% | 67% | | POX | NA | NA | 50% | NA | 0% | NA | | SENSEI SENSEI | 67% | 100% | 80% | 0% | NA | 100% | | ISLAND GO | 100% | NA | NA | NA | 100% | NA | | THRESH | 60% | 55% | 33% | 100% | 46% | 58% | | RG AGGRO | 50% | 40% | 0% | 80% | 80% | 57% | | BWG AGGRO | NA | 67% | NA | NA | NA | 67% | | PALE ALE | NA | 67% | 0% | NA | NA | NA | | FRIGGORID | NA | NA | NA | 67% | NA | NA | | SLIDE RIFT | NA | 67% | NA | 33% | NA | 67% | | MONO B BURN | 100% | NA | NA | NA | 0% | NA | | GROW | NA | 33% | NA | 67% | NA | 33% | | GOBLINS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | | STIFLENOUGHT | NA | 67% | 0% | NA | NA | NA | | ZOO | 0% | 80% | NA | NA | NA | 80% | | DESIRE | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | All cells with NA that match up has not happened in the two weeks of my keeping tract of match ups. Over time I really hope to fill in all these numbers as I keep tract of every deck entered in the events. |
Every week I plan to put the spotlight on a rouge deck or build, I feel could make a splash in the format. I chose this deck after suffering a humiliating loss to it in the sixth round (costing me an 8th place finish) in Sunday’s event. This deck uses efficient creatures riding the back of the best burn in the format. With control so strong in this format I can see this deck giving them quite a hard time when piloted by an experienced player. When I first noticed this deck a week ago I dismissed it, especially after a poor performance and its similarity with RDW. The deck has blossomed and separated its self from the RDW family. The most notable difference is RG Aggro relies more on its efficient creatures to chisel opponent’s life totals down. Of course finishing them off with a bar ash of direct damage. I decided to interview the player who piloted this deck to a 4th place finish in Sunday’s event. Ace of Drafts, a skilled player in many formats, and now he has joined the classic community as well.
| RG AGGRO (as suggested by Ace of Drafts) |
| DRAGONDUNG: First off I was wondering what attracted you to the classic format? Ace of Drafts: The low number of people in the Premier Events. DRAGONDUNG: I have seen you in two events so far I can tell what are your impressions so far of the Classic Meta Game? Ace of Drafts: Well, without replays it is pretty hard to gauge, but there seems to be a lot of combo, mostly storm based. Also a lot of mono black decks which RDW (RG Aggro) can’t lose to. DRAGONDUNG: The deck you used did very well last PE. Your deck uses green what where your thoughts or reason behind that? Ace of Drafts: Any deck that can fit in green mana, and plans to win by dealing 20 should play 4 Tarmogoyf. DRAGONDUNG: A true RDW build wins mainly with red burn, but I really thought the Kird Apes and Tarmogoyfs gave your deck an edge. How did you play vs. RDW the true version? Ace of Drafts: I lost a match to a mono red (RDW) deck, but I got some pretty bad draws. I have only played that match up in classic once. In theory, I have a faster clock than strait burn decks unless they get an unreal draw, which seems to happen sometimes. I wouldn’t play the straight burn version, because it seems very draw dependent and erratic. That’s where the Kird Apes, Tarmogoyfs, and Grim Lavamancers come in. DRAGONDUNG: With all the removal in this format have you thought about running Nimble Mongoose? Ace of Drafts: I would rather play Grim Lavamancers, and both seem counterproductive. The thing is, Nimble Mongooses aren’t efficient until late enough in the game that I want the game to be over already. DRAGONDUNG: You are a good sport and I hope we will continue to have you in our Classic Events. Ace of Drafts: Well I will keep playing in them whenever I have a Sunday open.. |
I would like to thank all the people who shared what decks they where playing as well as Ace of Drafts for his time and deck list. I hope any of this helps you prepare for this Sunday. If you have not tryed out classic give it a shot we are always looking for new blood. Sunday a fellow Clan mate of mine will be piloting a rouge deck we designed. I plan on having a walk though with the deck and see how it does and where we could improve it. I am going to also have updated match up data, and with any luck the numbers should start filling in more. So until next week keep it classy.
9 Comments
First of all, I never have, and never will, call any person crap. As humans and fellow magic players, I feel that reducing me to personal attacks would be absolutely degrading myself, and the reputation of this site. I understand you were “trying”. But understand that part of writing involves acknowledging criticism. Don’t get me wrong, unlike a lot of people, I actually read through every article before I comment on them. What I am saying is not that that you as a person is bad, but that the article was terrible. No offense to you as a magic player and classic enthusiast: I’ve been around classic long enough to know you’re not bad in that regard. I’m saying that your article is lacking in a lot of aspects. Let’s address Ace of Drafts. I’ve played with the guy a bunch of times, and I can tell you he’s an amazing player. No doubt there. I’m saying that the decklist he gave you is suboptimal. That too can be contested, but I believe Ace of Drafts may say the same thing. I digress, what does me knowing you have to do with offering criticism? All of my criticism should be taken with a grain of salt. Data or not, the article itself needs have more content as well as more analysis. I know it’s hard trying to write a weekly article, so my advice would be to switch it into a monthly thing if the article comes out too short or lacking information. I believe that although I wasn’t positive, my previous post contained and pointed out all the problems.
And I’m sure many would agree with my analysis.
I will take your thoughts and work with them. As for the color i will find some less aggressive colors and add more analysis of the data. I apreciate criticism and will try and better the aspect of my article that are lacking. Next week should show a huge improvement and I look forward to you thought on it. I do not want to sound like i can not handle criticism but sometime wording can make it more acceptable. I will make things far better next week. Thank you for your thought and if you have anymore suggestions please put them here so i can make this report more usefull for the community.
First of every has an opinon and your welcome to yours. Last week people asked for a rogue deck i did it. So how about some constructive thoughts instead of calling me crap. Im trying to build a useful report. My match up chart is incomplete now because Ill only use what I consider to be relevant data (PE Data). In the two weeks I have been keeping tract the popular decks are in double digits and are starting to show true numbers. As for Ace of Drafts i have seen im in numerous top 8's and he is a very strong limited player. As for my article i am trying to find template that works and i have not used this editor much so just give me a break. The data is what really maters, I have put alot of time into providing the community with data that will help them in deck and sideboard options. Stuff i had thought they would appreciate.
I'd suggest using less aggressive colors for your chart.
And finally get a grip what is RDW and what is simply Burn (hint: the guy you interviewed played an extended based RDW splashed with G).
For the record, I really don't comment unless I have to.
Moreover, it's rarely if ever negative.
However, this case definitely caught my eye, as I was literally struck saying "what the heck is this".
First of all, before I start, I should mention your last article was sorta acceptable. It had a new take, a bunch of new charts, good stuff.
This week was HORRID.
The first section was "hey guys I had an awesome chart last week! and it was right in predicting meta!"
Sure, let's give you this. It's a semi acceptable way to start I suppose...
But then we get to this.
The Second section (dealing with your red and yellow Matchup chart) pretty much said "I know it's pretty bad right now... but you know what... this Chart will get more awesome soon"
The Last section deals with Ace of Drafts, just your average spike who plays in a bunch of PEs (I see him often when I have some time off and grind PEs), who gives a suboptimal list (No offense Ace, but I'm sure you'd agree with this), saying pretty much "hmmm... Tarmogoyf is good, I think storm based combo is relevent" (Cough, by the way... it isn't, at least not until Tempest comes out.).
And then you conclude the article.
How can I possibly keep it classy after reading this article? So I took a look at the word count to see if Joshua was sane.
1400 words... a Respectable count...
That is until you realize 500 of it belongs to "not yet done" matchup chart, a suboptimal decklist, and a MODO player (whose name isn't DRAGONDUNG).
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have the most respect for anyone who writes. I'm a writer myself when the time is write, and I know how hard it is. Please, for your own sake, check yourself before you turn in an article. Don't let PureMTGO suffer from a half-assed article (and trust me, if you searched deep inside yourself, you'd agree this wasn't your best work).
"Rogue" not "rouge". Rouge is french for red.
My bad. Although it fits the deck.
I had wanted to take out the tips on beating top decks as I felt Walkerdog was doing fine with that. Sorry about that.
Honestly, when I edited the article, and saw the rouge, I was pretty sure he was talking about a red deck. :/