edaptmtg-blog

[edaptmtg-blog]

EMS Finals Playtesting Log - Entry 1

July 9th

I’ve been reflecting on yesterday’s MH1 draft. Whilst I like the archetype of RU ‘spells matter’, this draft had some significant weaknesses. It went 0-2, 1-2, 2-1, beating a poor 4 colour sliver deck and losing to a pretty average ninja deck in round 1, then in a close game to a UW fliers deck that was again rather medium overall, but included a Serra the Benevolent which ultimately decided game 3.

The biggest problems this deck had were the speed of it and lack of quality 2 drops. I passed up a Pyrophobia for a cycle land in pack 2, which turned out to be a big mistake as the removal spell would have brough valuable protection against my opponents’ early plays. Two Grizzly Bears was not enough and, often, Minotaur was my first addition to the board. As a result, I was usually behind and it gave my opponent ample time to set up a blow out against the Fists of Flame or other ways to trigger the Minotaur.

The deck wasn’t bad, per se, but it really needed Eyekites or Watchers (I didn’t see either in the draft). Orcish Hellraiser clogs up mana too much and stops you from playing Minotaur on 3, so it’s not a great option unless deployed as an immediate blocker. Looking at the set, there are not a lot of good 2 drops to chose from in this archetype and that, in itself, is perhaps one reason to avoid it in future. If UR does present itself in drafts to come, it’s important to prioritise good 2 drops and Pyrophobia to ensure the mid-game play can be rolled out without being too far behind.

[edaptmtg-blog]

Constructed Magic: the bigger picture & minutia

I’ve been reflecting on my MTG a lot this last week or so. After my spectacular fall from grace in the chase for a coveted Mythic Invitational slot, including a 0-7 morning session which completely wiped out my chances, I know I have some significant improvements to make in my constructed game if I am to progress to the level I want to be at. I’ve almost always disliked constructed magic, compared to limited. That goes hand in hand with results, too, as I’ve been a much stronger limited player over the years. It’s time to restore the balance here. In limited I think I do better as a more holistic and general ���one size fits all’ strategy is more applicable. I understand card advantage, mana curve, tempo, land/creature/sell ratios and other basic tenets of the game. I use my cards as effectively as I can to leverage advantages on these pillars. After a while in limited, I am aware of the archetypes, speed of the format, combat tricks and other important aspects of a specific limited environment. I can play around those more effectively. In constructed, however, I think I need to have a much more focused approach to specific match-ups (strategy) and how specific cards interact with one another from deck to deck. A holistic approach, which relies on the basic tenets of good MTG, is not enough; I need to understand how the match up plays out in much more depth, decipher what the key cards are and decide what really matters. For example, in recent matches using the Sultai midrange deck, I have been left wondering if I had squandered resources to gain short term benefits which were, ultimately. not relevant to the match up. I would, for instance, use removal to press home an advantage on board only to be overwhelmed by more powerful cards in the mid to late game (bloody planeswalkers). Yesterday, an opponent of mine used a Thought Erasure to take my Vraska’s Contempt rather than a Jadelight Ranger when I was stuck on mana. It confused me a little at the time, but when I eventually drew into mana but couldn’t deal with their Teferi it was clear that their knowledge of the match up exceeded my own and their decision was based on what really mattered as the game progressed. How those specific cards line up and interact is really important, too. I believe, at present, my approach to matches is siloed somewhat. If I’m making generally sound plays and affecting the board, that’s good enough. However, it clearly isn’t. I need to play around my opponent’s cards much more effectively than I currently do so. It’s in me, for sure, and I have made plays with the mono blue deck which indicate this. When Autumn made their amazing play in the final game of MC Cleveland, by not casting Curious Obsession in order to leave up a counter for Thief of Sanity, I saw it all the way. I had made similar plays to prevent an opponent overwhelming me with the Wilgrowth Walker and Jadelight combo at the RPTQ a few weeks before. I knew those match-ups well enough to make the most out of those early turn decisions which are so vital to the blue deck’s chances of winning.  It’s in me, for sure - but it needs to be more consistently applied to my games and my knowledge of specific interactions needs to widen considerably. I need to evaluate matches I play and spend more time on them, rather than queuing up for match after match with little to no time for reflection.

[edaptmtg-blog]

Decision Trees, Variables & The Bigger Picture

I’ve just finished listening to a fantastic podcast by Limited Resources, which is an edited piece asking Huey Jensen and Ben Stark what it takes to be a top level MTG player.

There are lots of good discussion points in there about concepts I’m familiar with; the importance of intelligence, emotional control, avoiding a results orientated approach, what makes good practice, etc.

One aspect of the podcast focused on variables and decision trees, with Jensen stating that a top level player is simply one who is able to consider more variables than an average player when making their ‘educated guesses’. It’s ultimately about the scope of someone’s analytical ability. 

It resonated strongly with my blog post earlier this week, when reflecting on Sam Black’s SCG article. One of the reasons for that was the way in which they (Stark, in particular) explained how the considerations they give to variables are based on ‘the bigger picture’ which was, effectively, how ‘tactics’ and specific plays need to be placed within the broader framework of ‘strategy’.

I think I need to go back and review games I play with a fine tooth comb. That way I can try and recollect my thought processes and what variables I was considering. More importantly, it will hopefully allow me to understand what I’m not considering, too. I might take a recent game or two and map out my thoughts using an approach similar to Thick Description (I knew it wouldn’t take long before my academic past intruded into MTG!).

The games I’m currently playing with Pip in the mornings will help, here, as I get to review both sides of the same game and with a deck/match I’m pretty familiar with.

http://lrcast.com/lr-special-edition-inside-the-elite-magic-mind-with-william-huey-jensen-and-ben-stark/

[edaptmtg-blog]

Tactics v Strategy Article by Sam Black

I was really intrigued by the title of Black’s recent article on SCG (http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/37296_When-And-How-To-Use-Tactical-Versus-Strategic-Thinking.html) as I tend to like the focused and indepth analysis of the game’s mechanics and the approaches players can take.

I’m not sure Black ever really provides a strong distinction between the two - he is, of course, at pains to say how they overlap as thought processes - but my take on it was thus; there is a more immediate and reactive reading of the cards, board state and their interactions (tactics) and a longer term planning of how the game will map out (strategy). 

What was interesting for me is that I have come to understand the former as a strength, but perhaps the latter is a weakness. I think I tend to be better as a limited player and a control player in constructed, as I am more reactive in my thinking and analyse board states well to make my decisions. Perhaps, however, I would suck at Chess because I’m not thinking ‘enough moves ahead! In MTG, I think this is something I need to consider a lot more in my playtesting and preparation for constructed events, although it is applicable to limited formats with well defined archetypes. 

I should be entering events not just with experience of the match ups, but a clearly defined picture of how the games go over many turns and what cause the swings in favour of me or my opponent. That said, I don’t want to get back into playing constructed MTG ‘by numbers’; an almost robotic and pre-programmed notion of ‘what the best play is’.

I’ve obviously had this on my mind as I’ve watched recent MTG coverage. As I watched BBD in a match during the swiss portion of this year’s US Nationals, I was surprised at two consecutive turns where he settled the wreckage to take down a single creature. He was at a reasonably high life total (13) and the cards were not the usual troublesome suspects, such as Bomat or Scrapheap Scrounger. *I* would definitely have taken a hit or two from a Chainwhirler to maximise my chances of getting a 2-for-1 with a Settle the Wreckage on a later turn, or leave me less vulnerable to whatever was top of my opponent’s deck. I’m still not sure which was the best course of action either, if you forgive my arrogance to question a player as accomplished as BBD is. 

Either way, what I could appreciate was that BBD had a clearly defined strategy here. The immediate ‘tactic’ of using life as a resource and potentially gaining card advantage was secondary to his ‘strategy’, which was clearly to preserve life totals as much as possible and give himself more time to react to the haymakers his opponent could draw.

Another interesting facet of Black’s article was the distinction between the early and late game in determining whether tactical or strategic thinking is predominant. To Black, tactical approaches and tempo/card advantage plays are more relevant in the formative stages of a game, whilst strategy gradually supersedes the decreasingly influential minutia on which our early sequences focus on.

I’ll end this with a verbatim quote from Black as it’s so good and such a great reminder to myself here, at times, that it’s not just good enough to be a smart arse but to actually be more strategic with my ‘reads’. “A tactical player may be good at figuring what trick their opponent is representing in combat and how likely they are to have it. A strategic player will be able to figure out how much that trick matters and whether it's worth running into. Basically, I think a lot of mid-level players - players who have gotten good enough to identify when their opponent has something and narrow down what it could be - may be too prone to "play around" the trick by not blocking a smaller creature with a larger creature; a worse player might just block because they don't understand why their opponent would make such an attack that looks so good for them on the surface, and a better player might also block because, despite knowing that the opponent has a trick, they recognize that the trick is a card that has value and they might be happy to trade their creature for the trick now to make their opponent spend the mana and the card and not have to worry about it for the rest of the game" When I think back to some of my games of Ixalan/Rivals of Ixalan limited, which were both quick and tempo based formats, I made many good reads regarding the combat tricks which were so good at the time. However, my strategic evaluation of whether to block/attack could have been better I think, had I considered some of the points Black made above consciously and more consistently. 

[edaptmtg-blog]

I’ve not drafted for a while as I’ve played more standard, but managed to go 3-0 (6-1) with this beaut. Great tempo/racing deck, some great synergies and a few bombs/long game cards to round it off. Only dropped a game to mana screw, the rest were really quite easy. Even managed to get River’s Rebuke back from Galleon and cast it for a second time!

[edaptmtg-blog]

Playtesting in Person

Had a great weekend playtesting standard with the teammates for the forthcoming RPTQ in June. I’ve really missed those intense sessions where we are discussing specific plays, approaches to match-ups, mistakes, deck/card choices, etc.  I learnt a ton this weekend and we played almost 100 games between the 3 of us; my grasp of standard is far stronger right now than it was before we started!

Onwards and upwards,

[edaptmtg-blog]

All the memories! #siganturespellbook

[edaptmtg-blog]

Play the game how you want it to be played...

An interesting example that came up from a meeting at work, in my actual job as a university lecturer.

When talking about the future of our department, one of my colleagues brought in the example of a rugby team whose manager asked them would they like to play a cautious game to stifle the strengths of the opposition, or play their usual expansive and exciting kicking game.

The team chose the latter, unanimously. 

I think this can be true of deck selection for constructed events in MTG. Whilst the percentages can be marginal in Magic and picking ‘the best deck’ can be seen as a way to gain a slight advantage over the field, less is said about picking the best deck for you and the benefits that are gained from a higher level of satisfaction that brings.

[edaptmtg-blog]

Using Time Wisely

I have been reflecting on the amount of online content I consume. I watch almost all draft videos and a lot of standard stuff too. Whenever there’s premier event coverage on, I’m there! I think, perhaps, I’m watching too much and I need to do two things differently going forward.

Firstly, I need to focus on watching videos from content producers that are analytical, insightful and explain their thought processes clearly. For example, whilst some people don’t like Ben Stark’s videos for Channel Fireball, I think the depth of his explanations are invaluable; they give me a great insight into the thinking processes of a pro player. Reid Duke is great for that too.

Whilst I really like high profile streamers such as Gaby and Kenji, because they are very entertaining people, I’m not sure the level of analysis in their videos is of the same level and the latter is more important.

Secondly, I think I need to watch premier event coverage with a pen and paper more often. I think I can use the time spent watching those videos more effectively by making notes on certain plays, interactions and aspects of the pro game which spike my curiosity.

I’ve always been a strong learner. It’s time I used that more effectively when it comes to MTG.

[edaptmtg-blog]

Discussion is key: Discuss.

It’s been a few days without updating now, but not for a want of effort! The store (Alpha Games - which I own) had its first PPTQ at the weekend, so I’ve been busy preparing for that. It went smoothly and we got a high turnout despite some atrocious weather conditions in the week leading up to the event.

So, I’ve been playing some standard games lately and discussing it a lot to help out the guys in the store to prepare for the said PPTQ. That has been great. I learnt more about certain match-ups through discussion than I did from quite a lot of videos and event coverage.

Although it’s not exactly new to me, something about learning and improving as an MTG player was definitely reinforced as the week went on. Discussing certain plays, card choices, matchups, etc. is the most valuable aspect of play testing. It’s the biggest problem with MTGO; although the online client is fantastic because you can play multiple matches very conveniently, it rarely allows for in-depth discussion and a fruitful learning process.

Likewise, when I got better at MTG in my teens, it owed a lot to paying with people who were better than me. I yearn for a group of players that I can play with on a regular basis, like we had at Hampton Court all those years ago. If only I was closer (geographically) to my own store!

[edaptmtg-blog]

3-0 (6-3) with this rather disgusting deck.

That said, I really had to work hard in some games to get wins and came back from losing he first game in both rounds 1 and 2. Captain’s Hook was excellent and I drew it a lot. Tendershoot was cast twice, made two Saprolings and died with summoning sickness still intact both times! MVP was definitely Deeproot Elite. That card was disgusting with the 3 x Shaper Apprentice. I think I perhaps lost game 1 of match 1 by keeping a clunky hand on the draw, when a more aggressive mulligan would have been optimal. I really struggle with this at times and, if any aspect of my game suffers from lingerings experiences, it is this. When I draw a 5-land hand in limited, I really agonise over it even with aggressive decks like the one above. Too many times I’ve thrown a 5-land hand back only to draw a 1-land or no-land hand right after it. We all know how hard it is to win when starting with just 5 cards too, so sometimes I think I keep dodgy 7-card opening hands because I fear the second mulligan more than I am worried about the first. Definitely something I need to alleviate and consider a bit more when it comes to my #mentalmana

[edaptmtg-blog]

Solid, if unspectacular WB deck went 2-1 (5-3). Just one card that wasn’t common in the main board. The deck played well and I was unfortunate not to go 3-0 actually, but I got outpowered here. The removal meant I had a solid game against everyone, but the deck lacked a significant source of card advantage or a threat which could cause a significant swing in a single turn. I lost to the Immortal Sun and a deck which, overall, just had a bit more punch than mine (Pirates’ Cutless, etc.). I was also run close by a a very interesting WB ‘go wide’ deck with double Pride of Conquerors and some other team combat tricks.

[edaptmtg-blog]

Mulligan? On the play, game 2, versus UW auras. I kept and didn't lay a second land :(

[edaptmtg-blog]

"Any player can win with perfect hands, when they curve out etc., but great players can find a way to win when the conditions are against them"

Reid Duke, GP Memphis coverage.

[edaptmtg-blog]

FNM Standard

I piloted a UB control deck last night at a local FNM event. It was 4 rounds on standard and I ended up 3-1, losing the final round to a UW auras deck. The first 3 rounds were all 2-0 results, with a match-up against Merfolk probably being the strongest deck I faced and round 3 against pummeler was the one I had to be most careful about. In both instances, neither pummeler or merfolk seemed explosive enough to really threaten the UB control deck in the same way that Ramu-not Red does. Although they can bash your life down quite a bit, they then throw down more creatures rather than threaten you with instant speed damage. The creatures are also nowhere near as imposing or difficult to deal with as Hazoret. From this, and the games I’ve played online with Merfolk, I’ve been really underwhelemed by its performance despite the fact it is posting decent results in UK PPTQs. In the final round I kept a slow hand on the draw, which had all the mana I needed, a land to cycle (Fetid Pools) and two 4 mana spells (Contempt and Glimmer). I kept it and drew a couple more 4 mana spells - but my opponent’s draw was just too fast and he killed me on his turn 5 even against the life gain/removal of a Vraska’s Contempt. I think I should have taken a mulligan here, on reflection, as an early counter or removal spell would have saved me enough life for the more expensive stuff to have an effect. In the final game I kept a 1 land hand; island, two cards I could cycle (Hieroglyphic and Censor), a Vraska’s Contempt and 3 x Moment of Craving. I did agonise about it for a bit, but If I had drawn 1 black mana source from the top 4 cards, this hand would have been amazing against UW auras as it included all 3 copies of my most effective way to deal with Adanto’s Vanguard. Sadly, you know the score, I didn’t lay a second land! Maybe I just shouldn’t have risked this hand here. It’s definitely one to think about. We played a few friendlies afterwards which I won and I’d like to play the match-up a bit more here to get a feel for how close it might be, but I think UB definitely has the tools to win here with some consistency. Overall, I really like the UB deck and would play it (or the red deck) for standard PPTQs right now. There’s an interesting aspect to the build which I think needs to be considered a bit more. There’s a point where you tend to go toe-to-toe with an opponent, trading your answers for their threats, but there aren’t many ways to gain 2-for-1s (or better) until you get to Gearhulk mana. At around turn 4 or 5, if you haven’t drawn a Glimmer of Hieroglyphic, the opponent tends to draw more threats (compared to your answers) as the UB deck runs more land than most of its rivals. I ran 3 x Glimmer, 2 x Hiero and 2 x Search for Azcanta. I wonder if there’s a way to work a 3rd Search in to the deck, as drawing two is rarely a bad thing, it’s good against every deck both early and late game and when you’ve gone toe-to-toe it ensures your chances of matching their threats with answers is significantly better. More musings later...

[edaptmtg-blog]

Picked up the brushes again for the first time in over 6 months to do my first ever MTG card alter.

I'm very rusty and it's a straight up plagiarised version of Magali's own alters, but I love what she does, the art on this card is phenomenal, and it felt great to paint again!

[edaptmtg-blog]

3-0 (6-1) with this beaut. Other than Tetzimoc, it’s pretty average I guess. That said, the format reminds me of old school drafting...where a solid curve, evasion, some removal and a solid ‘tempo’ to the deck was often enough. I think the card advantage and value of Zealot, Recover and Siren here were also key as they, along with Opt, allowed me to dig for Tetzimoc/Tempest Caller to make a difference. I only cast Tetzi once though!