Best of One: My Thoughts

This is a companion piece (but not necessarily a rebuttal) to the post here. A lot of my opinions are reflected in this piece by SaffronOlive, and expressed better than I can. I will cover some more deep thinking or nuanced points that I haven't seen or heard mentioned yet.

What is Winning?

A fun question I like to pose to people sometimes is "What is the purpose of a Magic tournament?" There are prizes to be won and invites to be handed out, but these exist outside of the game and tournament structure for the most part. No player can reach a winning percentage high enough to guarantee victory, so it isn't a very accurate measure of skill. The only true purpose of a Magic tournament is somewhat obvious and reductive, though I find it fascinating to think about:

The purpose of a Magic tournament is to determine the winner of the tournament.

Similarly, the purpose of a match is to determine the winner of the match. The purpose of the game is to determine the winner of the game. Much of the way we do things in competitive Magic is because that is the way it has always been done. I find it fun to think about possible alternatives, and with MTGA the Best of One Match has actually been put into practice.

Ninety-seven Percent

WotC claims 97% of games on MTGA are played best of one. This does not surprise me. I'd image a similar number could be stated for paper MTG if you could somehow obtain the data. If there are ten million MTG players and only ~100,000 competitive players, you can see how that might be so. People playing on their kitchen table aren't trying to do anything more than find out who wins the game. If they play more than one game, they don't have much reason to combine them into matches. Sideboards are more of a hassle and can be seen as unsporting. So to me the 97% number makes sense.

Skin in the Game

The shift in thinking happens once something is on the line. Playing for a prize or reward that is only available to the winner creates a structure outside of the game being played. I'll call this the "event structure". Unlike a tournament which is trying to determine a winner, the MTGA event structure is trying to allocate rewards.

I tried to ballpark what I think my lifetime percentages of games played where there was something on the line. I'm guessing something around 50% of games. I've probably played close to a thousand sanctioned events with some type of prize on the line. I've also done several hundred unsanctioned team drafts with cards, packs, cash, or a combination of all three on the line. On the other hand, I spent many years as a casual player while in middle school and high school. Even the tournaments we played were the purest of the form: they were only to determine a winner. No prizes. I've also spent many hundreds of hours playtesting either in real life or online with MTGO or Magic Workstation. I've even played quite a bit of casual constructed on MTGO before the 2-man queues were available, or just for fun. So I feel like 50% is accurate representation (though the number of games with nothing on the line isn't going to be increasing as much as those with something on the line going forward). 

Who Benefits?

The math is pretty simple: if your game win percentage is greater than 50%, you will have a higher match win percentage by playing best of three. Conversely, a winning percentage below 50% will result in an overall lower match win percentage in best of three. The further from 50% your game win percentage is the larger difference you will see. My paper match win percentage is around 64%, which is a 60% game win percentage. Given the skill gap in sideboarding, the percentage difference might be greater.

 On MTGA, daily and weekly win rewards are tied to games, so there is no incentive to play best of three to achieve these rewards any quicker if you are a winning player. The best of three modes require the harder to obtain gem currency and don't offer any substantial change in prizes. Most people are going to choose best of one without a significant outside factor. Having the rewards be focused for best of one makes a lot of sense. When you most want the rewards while building collection, you might not have the cards to be prepared to play best of three (or even competitive tier decks).

Breaking with Precedents, and Setting New Ones

For over twenty-five years, Magic matches have been best of three for competitive play. To time the announcement of a ten million dollar Magic Pro League on MTGA with a focus on best of one matches doesn't seem to make sense.A focus on best of one will make it harder for casual players to make the jump to competitive paper play (where Wizards makes most of their money in card sales).

There is also setting a new precedent with regards to the mulligan system. MTGA uses an algorithm when choosing your opening hand in a best of one match. It deals itself two hands and picks the one with mana ratio closest to the true percentage of the deck. If a player becomes accustomed to this, and move to true random opening hands will lead to more mulligans. A player with a weak understanding may get unnecessarily discouraged by their perceived bad luck. Or worse, they could conclude that there is more cheating going on at the higher levels. 

New Opportunities

I wrote much of the above sections thinking I supported a best of three focus. I've since done some more brainstorming and can see some cool new ways to take the game with best of one that I'd like to see tried out if that is the direction chosen. I still think overall I lean towards best of three, especially because the strategic depth of sideboards, but I'm also always hoping they try more new stuff.

One thing they could try is an increase in the number of rounds. Instead of a fifteen round best of three Grand Prix, you could have a thirty round best of one. The additional rounds would eliminate a need for a top eight playoff. It would also let you play against a larger number of opponents, increasing the social aspect.

There are many other ideas you could try out with a best of one setup. Having a lineup of decks that you play best of one with (as was tried in the player of the year playoff) is another possible wrinkle. 

The Takeaway

Magic is still Magic, regardless of the stakes or setup. I'm sure I'll still be playing regardless of what the focus will be. Even having the option to mix it up like this shows how much depth that is still being discovered in the game.

I'll be back in the New Year to talk about Standard for the next RPTQ. 

-Ty

Guest Blog: Examining Best of One

A few weeks ago, I mentioned some thoughts I had about single game matches in MTG Arena. Since then, WotC has revamped the rewards for many of the best of one modes leading to some debate about the nature of the game. After some breakdown in Twitter discourse, I invited my good friend José Pineda to write his perspective for a guest blog post. I had planned on doing some editing, but I ran out of time. I'll have my follow up posted later this week.

The Best Best Of

I have no idea how I heard about Magic: The Gathering. I am fairly certain that it was an ad of some sort because the first time I walked into a game shop to buy MTG products I had to find the store on my own, and I went alone, and I needed the guy at the register to help me. I had no friends that played. I made two decks to play with my then girlfriend. She and I played chess and scrabble regularly so I figured another game would be fun. Little did I know that I stumbled onto the most interesting game I have ever come across. Aside from many other issues, she and I would eventually break up, in part, due to my obsession with MTG. It did not take long for me to get the fever and have the drive to play magic at the highest competitive level I could muster. This is how I met Ty. I joined a message board for Texas magic players (RIP TMZ you were the worst). Ty and I would first have a friendship on TMZ and later we'd chat on Magic Online, so it feels quite appropriate that we would be here talking about another online magic offering: MTG Arena. Specifically, the current focus on single game matches over best of three matches. I like taking the scenic route when I am making a point so strap in.

In my heyday I played magic about 15-20 hours a week. I would test constructed with my team on Magic Workstation (the software that basically pirated MTG) and I would do in person drafts and testing every weekend on both Friday nights and Saturdays. I was 100% in the semi-pro camp of magic players. In those days it was quite irritating to have the DCI or Wizards make changes to the game that, in the view of most competitive magic players, was "dumbing down" the game. Every time the DCI changed a rule or banned a card or that time Wizards said they didn't want combos that could win prior to turn 4 or when pro tour coverage during Lorwyn talked so much about how the new focus on good creatures makes Pro magic look like kitchen table magic, and many other times I was with the hoard decrying "the end of magic!" Magic grinders have declared the death of magic so often that I am pretty sure we're in a Halloween film.

These days my life has changed. I no longer can devote 15-20 hours to this game I still very much love. I work longer hours, I have a wife, we have a daughter and being able to carve out 1 or 2 hours a day or even just finding any random 1-2 hours I have nothing going on is pretty difficult. My time as a competitive magic player is pretty much over. Then I heard about MTG Arena. It was supposed to use the free to play but buy extra stuff if you want it model. I personally really like this model of gaming. I am grinder and always have been so ya, I will grind out the free mode with pleasure. The issue with grinding like this is finding the time to do it, but MTG Arena has solved this problem for me by having single game matches that provide prize support and thus support for a grinder with little time such as myself. More often then not when I play MTG Arena it is literally one game at a time. My playing currently looks like this:

I might have 30 extra mins to spare before work. Play Arena
Take a coffee break for 20 min. Play an arena match
Go to lunch for an hour: Play an arena match (maybe a best of three if I am feeling it, but more likely best of ones so I can grind out more prizes in the same about of time)
Waiting for my wife not sure how long it will be: Join a draft. PAUSE THE DRAFT when my wife is back and ready for the whatever. Finish the draft later.

This is all while MTG Arena is still only on PC. If/When MTG Arena is a phone app I suspect I will play even more. Waiting in line? Start a draft! Taking the 20-30 min train ride to a soccer match, play a match. Bored at Jury duty but not sure exactly how long it will be? Play single game matches because they are so quick!

The time commitment of best of three matches is by far the biggest deterrent for me to play. I gave you all my personal history and experience specifically to demonstrate that I do love best of three magic. I am a competitive grinder at heart even if life isn't allowing me to commit to that right now. I like deck design the most of magic and sideboards are one of the most challenging part of deck design so I do truly love best of three magic. I miss going to GPs and grinding the PTQ scene (ya I have literally never played an RPTQ because I simply cannot commit the time to play a qualifier that does nothing but give me an invite to ANOTHER QUALIFIER! God the DCI really killed magic with that change...).

Best of one matches with a decent prize support are tailored made for me. They are also better for the casual player. Other than reducing the time commitment single game matches also reduce the number of cards needed to win stuff. When I first started playing Arena I looked up decks to see which ones would be easiest to assemble using my wild cards and small collection. I could not build a single 75 card deck. Not one. I could build a 60 card deck though. It is a real bummer for a semi-grinder to have to spend wildcards are some random SB cards that I use in one matchup. When I realized I couldn't build the SB for my deck I thought I was stuck until I earned more wilds. But then I realized that I could play constructed in a best of one format and suddenly I am grinding for gold so I can draft to earn gems and earn wilds and buy more packs etc. I can do all of this in small increments of time.

I remember any time I felt like drafting in the way way back days I would have to wait until the weekend or call up a bunch of folks and try to make a team draft happen. Then MTGO made it so that I could draft whenever, but I had to have at least 3-4 hours free in case I played all three rounds. The worst was if I lose in round 1 after like an hour and a half. I now have to find something else do to for the other 1.5 hours because joining another draft is not an option. Then draft leagues became a thing and suddenly I could draft and then play games when I had the chance. Again though I definitely need 45ish min free to complete the draft portion. Then if I wanted to play a match I had to be sure I had 50-60 minutes in case the match went long (I am a slow player so it always goes long).

Now? Now I have Arena. I can instantly start a draft whenever I want and pause it if I have to, and not having to wait for other players makes the draft go so fast. On the opposite side of this, I love being able to take as long as I want to make a pick. It is a great way for someone very familiar with magic, but not familiar with a set to learn the cards while drafting. I literally read and reread cards every pick until I have an understanding of the pool. Once the draft is done all I need to do is find 15-20 min to run a single game. Often the games are less than 15 min. It's freaking great!

From my perspective, there is a place for best of three competitive magic. If ever my life affords me the time to play competitively again I will certainly look for best of three magic. It is far superior to best of one with regard to skills testing. It takes away some of the variance and allows the skillful deck builder to improve their winning percentage by giving them sideboard games to tweak their build and also allows the more skillful player to take advantage of knowing what they are against. There is no doubt that best of three is the better format to determine who is the king of all these nerds. The thing is not everyone wants to be the king of the nerds, and even some that do (like me) simply don't have the time to do that. For people like me or other casual types, best of one is perfect.

This whole blog post was brought about when Ty and I discussed the stat recently released by the developers: 97% of games played on MTG arena are best of one matches. Ty talked about how the app design encourages best of one play. I definitely agree with this notion. The question at hand though is how much of an impact is app design making? It is certainly much easier to find best of one matches. It's the default offering after all. I can easily concede that the design has an impact. The thing is those that prefer best of three either a) are a small percentage or b) of those that prefer best of three a big portion of them don't prefer it enough to take make even the smallest of efforts to find best of three. That is pretty clear in the data. It becomes even more clear when you realize that the stat is talking about *games*. This means for any bests of three match the stats count at least two games. To have an even game count those playing best of one need to play twice as many *matches* as those playing best of three because again each best of three counts as two games at least. What this says to me is that the number of players satisfied with best of one is far greater than the number of player dissatisfied. In our discussion, Ty argued that since best of one players likely don't have a preference Arena designers should listen to the best of three players because they do have a preference and are expressing that preference. This is actually a common misconception about how customer satisfaction works. Having worked in customer service management for several years now it has become apparent to me that those that are having their preferences met by a company do not do anything to say thank you to that company or pressure them to maintain the status quo. They just keep using the products as always without comment. Those that are dissatisfied, however, are always very vocal. If companies guide themselves by their complaints they will certainly fail because complaints will never stop no matter what you do. It is the reason that "you can't please everybody" is a well known concept. It is important then that companies guide themselves by more than their complaints. In this case, I think Arena is making a smart business decision. They see the data that shows their user base is satisfied with their offering so they are just going to keep on trucking even in the face of criticism. If their user base begins to decrease then I am sure they will review comments to try to figure out why, but for now, they seem to be doing what they think will keep them in business. They aren't non-profit or a charity after all. They are a business and if we want to keep getting new cards and services from Wizard's of the coast then I think it is important to trust their business decisions. Definitely keep voicing your concerns because it will possibly guide them (in fact they decided not to change prize structure after the backlash), but don't expect that your comments alone will drive their decision making. Magic has existed for a quarter century not just as a game, but as a business. Lasting even a decade as business is hard. I mean who is still playing VS System? Is anyone still slanging Star Wars CCG cards? It seems to me Wizard's and Hasbro are interested in keeping their game alive. Part of that is providing offerings that best fit their users' needs.

I think it was really interesting to get that stat. I wish they offered more. It would be super interesting if they released all their data so players could comb throw it looking for things that interest them. We could, for example, look into the match choices of players after they have acquired all new player experience decks. I suspect a significant portion of the 97% comes from new players trying to accomplish the quests to get new decks. This I assume could possibly reduce that 97% figure and give a more accurate picture of what is happening. I would also be interested in looking for anyone that played at least one best of three match. Of that group, I would want to know the percentage of best of one play versus best of three play. Basically, I would want to answer the question "of those that are aware of best of three how often do they choose each format." We could even go deeper and review those that played constructed best of three. Constructed best of three was the hardest to find (though I don't think it was that hard). I would be interested in knowing what percentage of each format did any player that played best of three in constructed plays. I suspect that even those that found best of three still play best of one more often.

I feel that those specific reviews of the data would help us determine how much players care about best of three matches. Without that data analysis, it is hard to truly understand why that 97% figure exists. That said 97% is incredibly high, and with only that I figure would also feel pretty confident in supporting any format with that kind of track record.

I have no idea what Ty will say about this topic, but I am certain I will agree with much it. Best of three is the superior skills testing format. It may also be the more fun format, though honestly, I enjoy both them about the same. If I were deck designing more then maybe I would want to think about sideboards. What I am also certain of is that Wizard's decision to focus on best of one seems reasonable given the data they decided to share. Even in the face of the obvious design decisions that could inflate that stat, it still to me seems like a stat that is pretty hard to ignore. I personally have a great use for best of one. I am quite grateful for it, and I suspect I am not unique in this regard. I very literally cannot play magic otherwise.

Thanks for reading my first foray into blogging about MTG. I hope it was as interesting to read as it was to write.
-José



P.S. Ya I love reading my own writing or hearing myself talk. As a deck designer, I also like how best of one changes the deck design. Combo decks that have silver bullet weaknesses suddenly are more appealing. Often silver bullets are SB cards with a singular focus. Your opponents can either play those singular focus cards in the main and weaken themselves against everyone else, or just try to dodge your combo. Decks that rely on graveyards comes to mind and that UR phoenix deck is the first to come to mind of active decks in standard. That deck is not unbeatable without hate cards but it is tough. That said, I cannot see how it has a chance at all in games 2 and 3 against decks with some semblance of a game one plan and also graveyard hate in their SBs. To me, UR phoenix decks are simply unplayable in best of three, but much more appealing in best of one. I like that this quirk exists.

RPTQ Report

(See preparation here, here, and here)

The first thing to talk about is not playing Path to Exile.

In the testing I had done, it was becoming more and more uncommon that drawing a single Path wasn't as good as it used to be. This is a fundamentally different deck than GW Value Town, and you don't really have much interest in the game going long. Many games you have to just start attacking and hoping your opponent can't kill you. The decks where you absolutely need Path to beat just weren't common (Devoted Druid and Infect). Reflector Mage did a much better job at buying the time while still being a reasonable threat and a hit off Collected Company.

The second card to talk about is, once again, Aether Vial. There is a weird tension where Vial wants you to play more two drops, but cards like Rattlechains and Remorseful Cleric just weren't very good. However, once you cut Aether Vial you really want to play Rattlechains to give back the added playability on your opponent's turn. Playing Reflector Mage means you want some additional mana acceleration if possible (likely Birds of Paradise). That lead me to trying out the following list:

This was a modification of a brew I had with 4x Lingering Souls instead of the Reflector Mages. Lingering Souls is a powerful card but completely unnecessary. The Birds of Paradise made casting Collected Company easier. However, the biggest takeaway was how great Gavony Township was. This card was winning mirrors, setting up very hard to deal with board states against control, and letting Supreme Phantom block a Arclight Phoenix without any worries.

In the end, Collin and I decided that Vial was too important in the mirrors to cut entirely, but we were on board with Township and Reflector Mage. The list we played at the RPTQ looked like this:

The Deck

4 Noble Hierarch

4 Mausaleum Wanderer

2 Rattlechains

3 Selfless Spirit

4 Supreme Phantom

4 Drogskol Captain

4 Spell Queller

2 Phantasmal Image

3 Reflector Mage

1 Birds of Paradise

1 Kira, Great Glass-spinner

4 Collected Company

3 Aether vial 

2 Horizon Canopy

1 Gavony Township

4 Botanical Sanctum

2 Misty Rainforest

4 Flooded Strand

1 Cavern of Souls

2 Hallowed Fountain

1 Temple Garden

1 Breeding Pool

1 Island

1 Plains

1 Forest

Sideboard

2 Damping Sphere

4 Rest in Peace

4 Stony Silence

3 Unified Will

2 Knight of Autumn

I convinced Collin to play the Kira over the 4th Reflector Mage, and he convinced me to not play a Path over the one Birds of Paradise. Both cards were probably mistakes and should be 4th Mage and 4th Aether Vial. The 3rd Canopy was cut for the Cavern to help with Township since you are actually interested in getting to five mana now. The sideboard is the way it is because there just aren't very many cards you want to bring in or cut against a large portion of the metagame, and the times you do bring in cards you want them to be the best ones.

The Games

I went 1-2 drop. Collin was 4-0 but ended up 5-2 after losing round five and six. I did have some interesting spots in my three matches I'd like to share.

Round 1 against UW control:

Game 1 I mulligan to six on the draw and keep fetchland, Noble, Noble, 3x Company. With the scry of land on top this hand easily got there for the win. 

Game 2 I develop slowish but he doesn't have any planeswalkers and I'm able to hold up Unified Will pretty much the whole game. I end up attacking him down to 6 life but before damage he casts Settle the Wreckage. I have six mana and three cards in hand: Spell Queller, Unified Will, and Collected Company. I use my Aether Vial to put in Queller and counter the Settle. He's now at 5 life. On his turn he casts Supreme Verdict with three untapped mana. I have 43 cards left in my library and 8 of them will answer the Verdict if I hit off Collected Company. This is 71% to work. However, I could wait and just Company after Verdict to redevelop. This line is very bad against a Dispel because my Unified Will will no longer be available. Because of this, I decide to fire off the CoCo. He has the Dispel which I counter with Mausoleum Wanderer, but then do not find any card I need. I still have a window to draw some threats, but I draw additional lands and lose to a Teferi. 

Game 3 he mulligans to six. I lead with a dual land, and he plays basic plains. I play another land and he plays a second plains. Given that he is most likely missing lands, I deploy a 4/3 Knight of Autumn and he untaps and plays Island Search for Azcanta. This is awkard. He then Paths my Knight and my Spell Queller and 3x Unified Will aren't enough pressure to prevent him from running away with the game from the Search. It's possible I should have held up Spell Queller on turn three since I had a feeling he had the Search in his hand. I could have played Queller and the used Knight to kill the Search later on. I'm still not certain about this play.

0-1

Round 2 against Jund:

Not much to say here. He missed a Bob trigger one game, and I resolved a Company both games and easily won.

1-1

Round 3 against Enduring Ideal (!?)

Game 1 I lead with Noble Hierarch, he plays a Porphory Nodes. I decline to add to the board and the cards trade. He plays some scry lands including New Benalia. I Spell Queller a Suppresion Field just to get a threat on the board. I then have to Queller a Ghostly Prison, and then I must Queller the Runed Halo. I'm still not certain what he's playing. It looks like a RW Prison deck. I attack him down to 8 life and hold up Company instead of playing a Drogskol Captain. He plays a Ghostly Prison and I play Company but can't get enough power in play to kill him the next turn. I instead elect to protect myself from sweepers I haven't seen and put two Selfless Spirits into play. His next turn he plays Phyrexian Unlife and now I'm much further away from killing him. I manage an attack down to 4 life, but his follow up Form of the Dragon locks me out of the game. 

Game 2 he starts by suspending two Lotus Bloom. I have a turn three Kira that is answered by Porphory Nodes. I can kill the Nodes with Knight and play Mausoluem Wanderer, or try to hold up Unified Will with his two Lotus coming off suspend. I still hadn't seen Enduring Ideal so I messed this one up and didn't hold up Will. He resolved Ideal and put Overwhelming Splendor into play, and I was pretty much unable to win on the spot. A Dovescape and Form of the Dragon followed and I was done.

I think I could have won both games against Ideal though perhaps game two would have been tricky still. I think I got a bit unlucky against UW control but I was in good positions. Overall I'm still happy with the deck.

What's Next

Going forward I would play 4 Reflector Mage 4 Aether Vial and no Path to Exile. I'd also cut the Knight of Autumns from the sideboard. They really don't do enough for me. I'm not sure what the last two cards in the SB would be, maybe a Dispel and a Ceremonious Rejection. The fourth Unified Will is also an option.

As for Magic, I haven't been playing much outside of Arena anyway so I have no idea what I'll do. I'm qualified for the next (last) RPTQ and after that I'm not sure how much I'll be on the weekend grind. I do plan on attending some Grand Prix (Magic Fest) next year. I'll still play when I'm interested but I have no need to play when I'm not.

Thanks for reading,

Ty

RPTQ Prep Week 3 and 4: Sideboarding

When playing MTG Arena, there are game modes that are single game matches. Playing these modes and seeing my results has shown how much better I am at playing games two and three of a match. Part of this is knowing what is in your opponent's deck. This makes mulligans easier in constructed, and informs which tricks to play around in limited. Another part could be a tendancy to play decks that are less powerful but more flexible. A bigger part is probably my strength at sideboarding (and playing decks with stronger sideboards).

I think sideboarding is the main skill that separates pro level players from the players stuggling to make it. This is most apparent at comments on articles and mentions on Twitter from players asking the pros for sideboarding guides. As the saying goes, give a man a SB guide and he'll have some success with that deck, but teach a man how to sideboard and he'll have success with all decks in the future.

Sideboarding and Preparation

With my limited time to actually play games these days, developing a coherent sideboard and sideboarding plan is one of the best ways to prepare. You can do it in small increments and spend idle time thinking about it. My success has almost always come when I've been very well prepared in my sideboard strategy. In this way, I'm much more Caruana than Carlsen (perhaps the delusion that I could do what Fabiano does but could never do what Magnus does made me root for the Norwegian).

One tool to do this is something called the Elephant Method (I have no idea where this originated or why it's called this.) Since Modern has so many possible sideboard cards and possible matchups, this can be quite more involved that a block constructed deck. I use it to get an idea of how many cards I could realistically cut and bring in for each matchup I'm concerned about, choosing cards with multiple use cases when appropriate. The last few times I've done this in Modern I've ended up with about 90 cards that I would like to have access to. The hard part is narrowing down to the final 75.

The most important part of this process is knowing which cards are good and which cards are bad in a certain matchup. To do this I like to think of a ranked list of cards I want to have most often to cards I'd rather not see. It's easy to cut the dead cards, but a majority of the sideboard cuts won't be dead cards, just whatever is at the bottom of the list.

For example, when thinking about Bant Spirits vs UW control decks, coming up with cards you don't want starts easy. Path to Exile and / or Reflector Mage are both largely dead in the matchup. But the next cards down are somewhat harder to figure out. Working in reverse from cards we want most, you want to see Collected Company, Mausoleum Wanderer, Spell Queller, Drogskol Captain, Selfless Spirit, Rattlechains, Aether Vial and Noble Hierarch in some numbers. What you then see is that Supreme Phantom and Phantasmal Image are not that important in this particular matchup. While still being useful, they don't do much on their own and will largely be win-more type cards. If I had more cards to bring in that just removing dead cards, I would look to cut some of these.

Sideboarding in Modern

As I said before, sideboarding in Modern has way more possibilities than other formats. There are many cards that when played in the right matchup will effectively win you the game on the spot. If you can afford to play these cards, you probably should. This is one of the stregnths of Bant Spirits.

Since a deck can be thought of as 75 cards that is "pre-boarded" vs a specific matchup or archetype, what do you choose to pre-board against? Modern has so many possible opponents, so you want to play cards that have the most utility across all matchups (they are dead less often than narrower cards). An additional incentive to play the most flexible cards in the main deck comes from the nature of the way many games play out. Against most of the combo decks in the format, having the correct card is more important than having more card advantage. You can win while still drawing a dead card or two, as long as the cards that do something do it well. However in a matchup like a midrange mirror, drawing a dead card in the mid to late game will have an outsized negative effect than drawing the dead card vs combo (or control). This is why you should be mainly preboarded for matchups that will come down to attrition. Including a large number of Good Cards in your main deck is one good way to do this.

The Spirits Sideboard

Spirits is the first deck in a long time where I felt that the different maindeck configurations could have drastically different sideboards. It truly has been a whole-75 process. I think this is because so many of the cards in the maindeck are filler-type cards.

I haven't quite finalized my list, but I will be playing 3-4 Rest in Peace, 3-4 Stony Silence, and 2-3 Damping Sphere. I will also most likely have 2-4 Unified Will and probably a couple of Knight of Autumn. The exact numbers will depend on how many Path to Exile and Reflector Mage are played in the maindeck, as well as how many dead cards I perceive for the matchups I am expecting. The metagame I'm expecting will consist of KCI, Storm, Hardened Scales, Humans, Spirits, UWx control, Tron, Dredge, and BGx decks. There may be some new Phoenix decks that people will play, but the information I have makes me think the deck isn't quite good enough yet.

The Final Push

I have two days to get the deck locked down to something I'm happy with. I feel further away than I'd like to be, but I also feel like I have some good ideas I'm leaning toward that could be an advantage. I promise to write regardless of the result, at least to share my decklist.

Until then,

Ty

RPTQ Prep Week 1 and 2: Bad Cards and Good Cards

Building decks in formats like Modern and Legacy is different than Standard. When building for Standard, it is mainly about trying to figure out which cards are actually Good Cards, and then play as many of them as possible. In the older formats, there are so many Good Cards that it is fairly simple to play a deck full of them. Jund and Jeskai Midrange would be examples of decks entirely made of Good Cards.

Having a deck full of Good Cards in the older formats isn't good enough. It is advantageous in certain games, especially midrange mirrors, but you can do better. The opportunities for incredible synergy are almost infinite. Just compare Jund Midrange with Jund Death's Shadow. By replacing some Good Cards with some Bad Cards with synergy, your deck becomes more than a pile of good cards, but a machine with a goal. Street Wraith and Death's Shadow aren't exactly Good Cards. Opt and Terminus are also not Good Cards, but the UWx control decks began winning much more often when they added that package.

Hopefully this illustrates my point about what a Good Card is. It's somewhat hard to define, and probably just my arbitrary opinion. A Good Card is something that has a proven pedigree as one of the pillars of the format. A good card is consistently powerful and doesn't require other cards to perform. A Good Card goes in multiple decks with different strategies.

The general deckbuilding process is something like this:

• Identify a synergy or strategy to exploit
• Include enough sufficiently synergistic cards to acheive a critical mass for your strategy
• Fill the deck with Good Cards to ensure a baseline power level and the ability to play games when things aren't going according to plan

It's the third point that many decks skip on. They go all-in on plan A and leave themselves vulnerable to disruption. They have to backup plan for when things go wrong. This is a legitimate strategy, but one I prefer to avoid when possible.

Bad Cards in Spirits

Most of the cards with Spirit type are probably Bad Cards. They do very little on their own (but a lot more that other tribes like Merfolk). The best two are Spell Queller and Mausoleum Wanderer. Once you include those in your deck you probably want to play the Supreme Phantom and Drogskol Captain. Selfless Spirit helps protect your army. The synergy is building. You add Rattlechains for more protection, Phantasmal Image for rendundancy. You could fill out the list with even more spirits. Nebelgast Herald is reasonable, as are Remorseful Cleric, Geist of Saint Traft, Kira, Great Glass-spinner, etc. 

But the decks don't play all Bad Cards. You want Aether Vial, a Good Card that syngergizes with your strategy. You want Path to Exile, the cheapest and most flexible removal spell available in your colors. The Bant version plays Noble Hierarch and Collected Company, two cards that scream Good Card when compared with any of the Spirits already in the deck.

I've build lists with different combinations of Bad Cards instead of Good Cards. Here is some feedback:

I tried a UW only list with Curious Obsession. This card was much better than I thought it would be. The same goes with Smuggler's Copter. To enable these cards, I played two Judge's Familiar, which also overperformed. Despite the good results, they still aren't on the Noble Hierarch and Collected Company level. The only advantage to running a UW only list at this point would be to play the Good Card Mutavault, but I believe it to have negative synergy with the cards already in the deck.

Additional Good Cards in Spirits

I also tried a version with a four-color mana base to support Collected Company and Lingering Souls. I played Birds of Paradise instead of Aether Vial, but had to cut Path to Exile to keep enough creatures in the deck for CoCo. Lingering Souls is a Good Card, but it wasn't needed, just nice to have. Whenever I find a card is "just nice to have" in Modern, I always try to replace it with a much more impactful card.

I've also been playing one Jace, the Mind-Sculptor in the sideboard. One of the kings of Good Cards, he definitely performs when he is in play. Whether or not I will have room in the sideboard for him at the end of testing remains to be seen.

Some Metagame Considerations

I really hate Remorseful Cleric. I've lost several games that I would have won if it had been the 3rd or 4th Selfless Spirit. When it has been useful, it's only been fine. Against Snapcaster Mage, Selfless Spirit is often just as good.

However, Dredge is real. I've finally played a few matches and I am worried. I don't think Spirits is favored to win unless it draws a hate card of some kind. I will certainly be playing three Rest in Peace in the sideboard, and probably consider playing the fourth. Perhaps the Cleric makes it's way back into the list to save sideboard space eventually.

Knight of Autumn is probably needed. While Reclamation Sage is a card that I've always found to be "just nice to have", Knight does enough that it can be actually a Good Card. When I cast Collected Company and saw my two Blessed Alliance against Burn, I decided to reconsider Knight. It can't do everything you want it to (I don't think it is very good against Death's Shadow for instance), but if enough situation come up where it is better than "just nice to have" I'll play one or two.

Next Weeks

While I'm not quite locked in, there is a lot of benefit to playing Spirits. It will probably still be good in the metagame. It will be hard to hate out. I have all the cards already. Maybe I'll find more time over Thanksgiving to get some more hours in with anything to finally lock in to something.

RPTQ Prep Week 0

Once again, I'll be attempting to chronicle my preparation process for the upcoming Modern RPTQ. Since I won the PPTQ in early September, I haven't played much Modern at all. I spent a lot of time practicing limited for GP Denver. I've also been messing around on MTG Arena (short review: I like it). Otherwise, I haven't been playing much at all.

I'm calling it Week 0 to go over what little I have done that wasn't focused testing for RPTQ. At this stage, it is most likely I'll be playing Bant Spirit again. I won the PPTQ with it, and it won the most recent GP, so I don't see much reason to switch to something else. However, I'm always willing to try something new, and when I get my brew hat on I can play a bunch of random stuff just for fun.

Kelvin Chew Bant

I put together the Kelvin Chew Bant list in paper to play between rounds at GP Denver. I only played it against UW Control. I could not see how this deck ever wins despite playing a lot of cards I like quite a bit. UW is probably not the best matchup. Voice of Resurgence is unplayable against Terminus. It has similar style to the Todd Stevens style GW deck I had success with last year, but is more tempo oriented without any larger creatures to pressure the opponent. I'm sure it is fine, and the Jaces and Teferis I had in the SB were very strong but it didn't seem like anything special.

One thing I noticed while sleeving this deck though was how good Meddling Mage is, especially with Spell Queller. Meddling Mage is one of the reasons Humans is so strong, and I found in games against UW I was actively looking for all the Mages I could find with this deck. With those lessons in mind, I decided to try something new.

Meddling Mage Spirits

Merfolk master Nikachu has been playing a few copies of Peek in his latest lists. Given the similarities of Merfolk and Spirits, I wondered about including Peek in a straight UW shell. It gives another turn 1 play, and could also allow for playing Meddling Mage. Many Spirits decks play Thalia, a card I'm not a huge fan of in the list. I thought Meddling Mage could fill that slot, especially with Peek in the deck. I played this list in a MTGO league and did not have much success. Peek making your cards costs 1 more off the top was very annoying, and the Meddling Mages didn't do enough when I resolved them. I was still rusty a bit so maybe that lead to some losses, but I don't think this is the upside for sticking with two colors.

Merfolk, yet again

I'll probably always go back to Merfolk every few months. I just enjoy it so much, even when I know its much worse than Humans and Spirits now. After seeing the not-so-obvious-to-me synergy between Noble Hierarch and Aether Vial, I decided to go back to my Noble Hierarch Merfolk CoCo list and add Vial back in. I also finally got to play some reps with Merfolk Trickster in Modern. You don't have a basic forest so Field of Ruin can be a problem for casting CoCo, but Tideshaper Mystic can always help fix your mana. The deck was surprisingly resilient, much more so that Spirits or Humans thanks to Silvergill Adept and some spice in the SB like Kumena and Jace. Overall the deck is fine, but adding green doesn't really get you enough SB cards to make it worth it to me.

Combo Elves

One final deck I attempted to play was a more combo-focused Elves list with Cloudstone Curio and Beast Whisperer. The thinking was that Beast Whisperer could be a Glimpse of Nature you can Summoner's Pact for. I don't have the exact list I played but it was almost entirely 4 ofs with singleton Walking Ballista and Craterhoof Behemoth. I found that actually trying to combo off on MTGO is a huge pain. Also I don't think you have time to take off a turn to cast Cloudstone Curio in Modern, though it was very good without going infinite, just looping Elvish Visionary and Dwynen's Elite could really get out of hand. Beast Whisperer was probably 1 mana too expensive. If it didn't die to Lightning Bolt it may have more potential. Glimps of Nature you can cast for value early (say turn 3 or 4) just to draw a few cards and set up for future, but Beast Whisperer doesn't let you do this. Drawing multiple Summoner's Pacts while trying to play a fair game was very terrible.

Next Week(s)

I have one other brew I may play if I have time, but otherwise I imagine it's going to be focused entirely on Bant Spirits. There still seems to be lots of variations and no real consensus yet on several cards. I want to start honing in on exactly what I want and like.

Grand Prix Denver Report *5th Place*

I always have more to say when I do well. Success means perhaps I have something useful to share, or perhaps its a way to hold on to the glory for just a bit longer.

The Secret to Team Events

The biggest impact to your success in team events is choosing your teammates. I know this may seem obvious but it doesn't get brought up much. Clearly to have the best chance of success you want to have the best teammates possible. There are a bunch of factors that go into this process, and much of it is navigating complicated social dynamics that even I am no expert in. If success at a team event is important to you, find the best players you can that are also looking for success at the team event. My friend Jack Dobbin put on a clinic in this regard at GP Denver. He picked up members of the last two domestic Team Limited Grand Prix winning teams (Jack is no slouch either), and they cruised to an easy victory only losing one match on the weekend. 

One thing I keep in mind for team events is managing the personalities of the teammates. I'm very easy going and can get along with almost anyone, but many of the people I want to team with aren't quite the same. If someone on your team doesn't want to team with the third person, you have to pick between the two. It is not worth it to have that potential conflict there for 14+ rounds. Maybe this means teaming with neither person, no matter how good you think they are or how much chance for success they will add to your team.

For this event I was lucky I could have both Will Lowry and Collin Rountree on my team. I get along great with both of them, and while many others might not get along with them all the time, they respect and like each other enough that I knew it would work out. We teamed before at a Team Constructed SCG Open, but Team Limited is a different animal where we actually need to be on the same page strategically.

Guilds of Ravnica Team Sealed

We did two practice Team Sealed during prerelease weekend, and I built many simulated pools on the various websites that try to do this. We wanted to have one person being the "architect" of the pool, with the other two people giving feedback on the decks. For our team, Will would be the architect, Collin would give feedback for the Dimir deck, and I would give feedback for the Boros deck. My other duty is to make sure the right player is playing the right deck. Most of the time this means I play Boros, but I considered all the options before we submitted the lists.

Because of the guilds, team sealed for GRN is easier than most sets. In just about every pool there will be a Dimir deck and a Boros deck. I saw one pool that didn't end up with Boros, and every pool had Dimir or UBx. The not-so-secret consensus is that Golgari is by far the worst of the guilds. We didn't think Selesnya was much better. Many teams tried to avoid the green cards by playing Dimir (sometimes splashing the good GB cards), Boros (could include Naya), and Izzet, but sometimes the colors just weren't deep enough or the green cards were too strong.

Our strategy was to find a way to win with the green decks. There are not many easy ways to do this. The simplest strategy is to get paired vs the opposing Boros deck and hope it's weak enough to take down with larger creatures. Another strategy is to open some incredible rares. A third strategy might be to do something weird like splashing red in Golgari to play Cosmotronic Wave. All of these were on the table and it was up to Will to figure out what gave the green deck the best chance to win if we had to play green cards.

Our Event

Our first pool made winning with green very clear: we had two Find // Finality. The Boros deck was a bit weak without any rares, but had two Truefire Captain. The Dimir deck splashed red for the Izzet cards we weren't playing and included 10 gates and Guild Summit. I took the Boros, Collin played Grixis, and Will played Golgari.

We went 7-1 on day 1. We were very fortunate our losses were spread out correctly. Collin started 4-0 but finished 0-4. I started 1-3 but finished 4-0. Will went 6-2. My personal highlight was hitting my 1 out Cosmotronic Wave in game 3 of round 8 to not be dead to an army of X/1s, and then having my opponent brick on the next 5 drawsteps while I killed him with a lone Skyknight Legionairre. 

Our second pool had a much better Boros deck. It ended up with Light of the Legion, Venerated Loxodon, Tajic, and Runaway Steamkin for rares. We had a good Dimir deck, but all the good cards were single color Blue or Black. We tried splitting White for Selesnya but couldn't find a build we liked. We then split the Blue and Black. The Golgari deck had 3x Dead Weight and multiple early game threats to actually put pressure on the opponent. The Izzet deck was the weakest but splashed Black for Etrata and Artful Takedown, and green for Vivid Revial (and Chamber Sentry) to have a strong lategame. Double Chemister's Insight provided additional card advantage. I assigned Will to the Blue deck and Collin to the Golgari deck, and once again I was on the Boros cards.

My deck was incredible and I went 5-1, only losing to an Izzet deck that Quasiduplicated a Murmuring Mystic. Collin was 4-2 and Will went 3-3. Our losses didn't quite line up as well as before, and we finished the day 4-2 when both Collin and Will lost after I easily dispatched my opponet while playing for top 4. 

Last Place

It's very rare to play an entire tournament while still in contention to win the event. This was a nice experience where up until the final game we still had a chance to win the GP. When you get knocked out of contention early but still have other prizes to play for that may or may not be important to you personally, it can be hard to have your head in the game to play those final rounds. We didn't have to experience that at all, but it did make the sting of losing feel a bit harsher. I remember reading a quote from someone at a World Championship many many years ago that described getting 10th place as "a blur of wins but somehow a disappointment". I understand that feeling now. 

It's also hard to reflect on this event at a personal level. In the three matches we lost, I won my personal match twice. The other time we all lost in very quick fashion. When I think back, it's hard to find something I could have done to give us a better chance. Losing round 14 was basically losing in the finals of a PTQ, or losing in top 4 of RPTQ. Basically last place if the goal is to make it to the Pro Tour. But we did end up with $700 each (it's also very rare to play a Magic event and turn a profit, especially one you fly to). And I got the points I needed to be Bronze (which isn't really anything for me anymore anyway, but I guess I did it.)

It had been almost 4 years since I had last played Team Limited, and I really don't know why I haven't played more. I really enjoyed it, especially with the two people I teamed with. I'll be looking to play again in the future, hopefully sooner than 4 years from now.

Thanks,

Ty

Aether Vial

Throughout my Magic career, I have played many decks with Aether Vial. It is one of the cards I enjoy playing with the most. I played it when it was first printed in Affinity. I played it in Extended and Legacy Goblins. I played it in Merfolk and Death and Taxes. I've recently been playing it in Spirits and Humans. Fourteen years of playing this card and I thought I knew all there was to know about it.

I was wrong.

A 2004 era Goblins deck

This past week I've learned two things about the card that changed the way I think about it.

One-Drops with Aether Vial

The first piece of new information came from my favorite Magic player when I first started playing competitively, Jeff Cunningham. In his article about the top tier of Modern, he put forth a list with two copies of Thraben Inpsector in addition to the four copies each of Champion of the Parish and Noble Hierarch. In his words: "The Thraben Inspectors are included because I think standard builds of the deck are short on one-drops - this is because maximizing Aether Vial requires you to have another one-drop (besides itself) to play on Turn 2, and so it effectively doesn't count as a one-drop."

This seems fairly straight-forward and obvious, but felt like a revelation. Because Vial requires such a large portion of the deck to be creatures to be effective, the decks that play is are historically fairly aggressive. However many of these lists don't play more than four one-drops to vial in. Merfolk, Death and Taxes, Spirts, and even Legacy Goblins rarely play more than eight one-drops at most.  This is largely because the main strength of vial is in its repeated Sol Ring activations with two or three (or more) counters.

Humans plays a bit more aggressively than these other decks, and a card like Thalia's Lieutenant incentivises you to put as many creatures onto the battlefield before you deploy it. More one-drops in Humans is likely more correct than fewer. As Thraben Inspector also provides the late game card advantage you need to continue to take advantage of Aether Vial, its the perfect compliment one-drop.

Some notes here: Mutavault in Merfolk acts as a one-drop (or zero-drop) that makes the deck function with adequate aggression. Also the requirement for late game card drawing is likely why we are seeing the increased play of the card Horizon Canopy. Legacy DnT has Stoneforge Mystic and Recruiter of the Guard and therefore doesn't need as many copies.

With this knowledge, I played Humans at a PPTQ in Houston. I lost in the top 4 due to a poor mulligan decision, but overall I was very happy with the deck. It will be something I'll consider playing again in the future.

How many Aether Vial do you play?

The answer is obviously 4, right? Well, maybe not. Ondrej Strasky made the top 8 of GP Prague with a Bant Spirits deck sporting only 3 copies of Aether Vial.  It has been very interesting to look at the reasons behind the number.

Strasky's GP Prague Top 8 Decklist

The divide between UW Spirits with Aether Vial and Bant Spirits with Noble Hierarch has come down to a few key factors. Collected Company is a great card in conjunction with Spell Queller, but requires a bit more mana sources and a third color. Noble Hierarch solves those problems, but it is much more fragile than Aether Vial. You cannot keep one-land Hierarch hand with Spirits the same way you can keep one-land Vial hands. Also, the interaction between Phantasmal Image and Collected Company is not ideal, so you will have fewer instances of double Drogskol Captain in Bant despite what would seem to be more. 

I've preferred the UW version, largely because of my love of Vial. This Strasky version plays both Vial and Noble. In additon to Mausoleum Wanderer, the deck now has 11 solid turn one plays. The issue with running both is the amount of creatures required to play Collected Company.

The other Bant deck in the top 8 played 31 creatures. Frank Karsten set the minimum at about 22 creatures, though you clearly want as many as possible. What the Strasky list has decided on is that he wants 28 creatures (22 of which are non-Noble non-Image). With the requirements of 21 lands and 4 Path to Exile, that only leaves room for three Aether Vial. This also helps alleviate the problem of drawing multiple Vials when you don't need them.

One interesting thought: if the numbers you want are 21 land, 28 creatures, and 4 Company 4 Path, is the deck better at 3 Vials and 60 cards, or 4 Vials and 61 cards? Could this be a time to play more than 60 in order to get the right ratios for Collected Company? That will be something that may be worth looking into.

Old Dog, New Tricks

What this week has shown me is that you can still have success in Magic by questioning your assumptions about everything. I thought I knew it all about Vial, but I'm excited to try these new things in different decks. I had decided to focus on Humans since I felt it was a bit better than Spirits overall, but with the success of Spirits at the GP and these new innovations, I may return to Spell Queller and Co. for my upcoming PPTQs.

Thanks,

Ty

Cedric Phillips

Cedric Phillips recently had a bad day  During the time period between his first post about being in tears at the events of the day and the second post explaining his position, I found myself defending him in various discussions with other Magic players. I did my best to explain what I thought his position was to these people. I didn't want to put words in his mouth, but I had a good feeling I knew what he was getting at. He does a much better job explaining his position in the Facebook post than I did, but I don't think I was very far off.

It is okay to care.

Most discussion or thinking about the meaning of life will quickly find the conclusion that nothing matters once you are dead. Some despair at this notion, some use it to fuel their apathy. People like Cedric know that they can create their own meaning of life by caring about something and working to make things they care about better.

Caring isn't uncool. Caring is what's important. Thinking it is weak or uncool to cry when you have the experiences Cedric had is really missing the point. Either you have a warped view on masculinity or can't relate to caring. Think of something in your life that would make you this upset. That level of caring is how Cedric feels about MtG and the community. It is something I admire.

Many years back, someone asked me if I knew anyone that loved Magic more than I did. At the time, in a pre-streaming, pre-podcast, minimal-content world, it was hard for me to name any names. Certain writers and many pros seemed to sell how little they cared. I didn't know many players in my area who loved the game as much as I did. But in the years that followed, Magic exploded in popularity. The opportunities for those people who cared even more than I did made it so they could have full time jobs doing something they loved. I'm not nearly as passionate or as hard-working as Cedric and the others like him who have brought about this change, but I very much appreciate it.

Cedric loves to talk about how great the SCG Tour is at promoting its players to give them these opportunities. While I may not have always agreed with this, I can now speak from personal experience that they are outstanding at it by sharing this anecdote:

This past weekend, I played in the SCG Open in Fort Worth. My team was featured on camera during round four. I've since gone back and watched the coverage - part out of vanity, part curiosity, part looking for misplays. My name is shown as Timothy Thomason. This is how it appears in the DCI system (they require you to use legal name for some reason). When my match was on camera, Cedric didn't hesitate to call me Ty. This is a guy I've only met two or three times in my life. I don't have nearly a large enough profile for my preferred nickname to be common knowledge. In the middle of the match, I'm in no position to try to get them to use my preferred name, I have games to win. Cedric not only remembered my preferred name, but even remembered the story of my previous open win (which is now almost five years ago). Maybe he didn't know it immediately or had some background info researched before the match went live, but that still requires effort that he is not obligated to do.

I don't always agree with Cedric on everything (especially Milita Bugler), but I support him and his passion for the game. Having people like him in charge makes it easier for me to spend as much or as little time with the game as I'm inclined, knowing that it's always getting better.

Esper Spirits in Modern

I've reached the end of my chain of RPTQ qualifications, so I'm back on the PPTQ grind. Hopefully I can get the last pro point I need at GP Minneapolis this weekend to get to Bronze and stop playing PPTQs again.

For once I wasn't looking forward to Modern season. I've played very few games at all since the PT in February, and I was actually enjoying playing Standard. The few times I played I didn't really enjoy it. I think M19 changes that. It has a surprisingly high amount of cards that I want to play in Modern. The top of the list is Militia Bugler and Supreme Phantom.

The Deck

I played one league with an Esper Spirits list that 5-0 recently. I went 2-3, but the cards excited me and I could see with some tuning there might be a solid contender. Image, Drogskol Captain, and Lingering Souls all reminded me of one of my favorite standard decks of all time. However I was focused on Sealed prep for the GP and didn't know I would be able to play Modern PPTQ. When I found out Saturday afternoon I could go to the Sunday PPTQ, I made some adjustments to the list from some theorycrafting. This is where I ended up:

4 Mausoleum Wanderer

4 Rattlechains

4 Supreme Phantom

3 Selfless Spirit

3 Phantasmal Image

4 Spell Queller

4 Drogskol Captain

4 Lingering Souls

4 Path to Exile

4 Aether Vial

2 Mutavault

4 Seachrome Coast

4 Flooded Strand

2 Polluted Delta

2 Marsh Flats

1 Watery Grave

1 Godless Shrine

1 Hallowed Fountain

2 Island

2 Plains

1 Swamp

Sideboard:

3 Stony Silence

3 Collective Brutality

3 Unified Will

3 Damping Sphere

2 Geist of Saint Traft

1 Kataki, War's Wage

This deck has many similarities to Humans and Merfolk, but many key differences. Spell Queller is the effect that the other two decks don't have access to. Also all of your creatures except Mutavault have flying. It is slightly less explosive that either deck. It is less disruptive than Humans but better than Merfolk in that regard. It is more resilient than both. You get to play really good sideboard cards.

I have never played the Green version of Spirits, so I can't 100% say this version is better. I do think the card Collected Company is not what I want to be doing in a deck like this. I actually bought all the cards for Bant Spirits a while back and then never played it after I did a math problem. I wanted to know what the odds of a Company in response to a Supreme Verdict would find either Selfless Spirit or Spell Queller. The answer is somewhere around 65%. This is not high enough to make me want to cast the card in that situation. If you miss you probably lose, though if you hit you win. However you can use the Company after the Verdict resolves to rebuild and still possibly win. There are obviously lots of factors that go into it, but I wasn't happy with this math so I never tried it out.

The Games

Just a few quick recaps:

R1 vs RG LD - G1 I make an overly aggressive attack when I think his hand must be air, but turns out he was playing his creatures around my Wanderer activation so he drew the sixth land he "needed" to cast Stormbreath Dragon and kill me when I could survive and likely win by leaving a guy to block. I win G2 with two Vials vs his two Blood Moons. G3 is very close but I'm able to force through lethal in the air before he can take over with Pia and Kiran + Tireless Tracker.

1-0

R2 vs KCI - I have Spell Queller for his KCI G1 and he dies. G2 he has Aether Grid and I lose most of my team, then he combos me. G3 I have Stony Silence and he never finds an answer.

2-0

R3 vs Tron - We split the first two games. G3 I'm in a situation where he is at two life and I have Wanderer in play. He has Ulamog and I have 23 cards left in library. After the game I counted I had twelve outs to win but I drew Mutavault and lost to his Ghost Quarter. Moorland Haunt would have been better.

2-1

R4 vs Mardu - G1 we're both empty handed but I draw two Drogskol Captains in a row and he can't deal with them. G2 I draw two Lingering Souls and his Collective Brutality has to take one. Despite a strange judge call that I won't get into here I manage to win the game easily with the Spirits.

3-1

R5 vs KCI - Simliar to R2, I have Queller G1 and Stony G2. I turn an almost guaranteed win into a possible loss by following up with Kataki (a card I think is unplayable but only put in the SB because "it's a spirit!") allowing him to draw cards from his Stars, Terrarions, and Wellsprings. I still have a Damping Sphere and he soon dies, though it was closer that it should have been.

4-1

R6 vs Storm - Exactly 64 players so all the X-1s have to play. I have two Wanderers and Lingering Souls G1 and he can't go off. G2 I have Spell Queller for Past in Flames and my team is Hexproof so he couldn't get out without Anger, which he wasn't playing.

5-1

1st Seed

Quarterfinals vs Scapeshift - G1 his draw is slow and I can do exactly 20 the turn before he gets to seven lands. G2 I Unified Will his first Primeval Titan. He draws a Valakut and uses fetch to kill my Wanderer. I play two Supreme Phantom, hoping to untap and hold up second Unified Will. He draws another Valakut, which doesn't do anything but makes subsequent Mountain draws very scary. I Image the Phantom and put him to 1 life on the attack, and he draws a third Valakut (probably the only bricks left in the deck) and I win.

Semifinals vs Tron - G1 he doesn't draw any Tron lands that he doesn't search for, and I have two Spell Quellers to counter his searchers and he dies. G2 he has two Ugins and I don't draw a way to stop either. G3 he has turn three Wurmcoil and I put a bunch of creatures into play with Souls. I hold up Queller for a possible Oblivion Stone which he doesn't have. I play it EOT to try to draw a lord for lethal. I don't draw it but attack him to two life anyway. He has Ugin again and I lose.

The Takeaway

I liked all the spirits except Geist of Saint Traft and Kataki. These cards aren't playable in my opinion, especially Geist. I never knew when I wanted it, and lord + Lingering Souls was usually more than enough pressure that couldn't be blocked. 

Aether Vial was just fine. I sided it out quite a bit to bring in Stony Silence, and I was happy to have 22 lands to play in the games without Vial. I can see the want for a card like Noble Hierarch, as playing Spell Queller on turn two then protecting it with Rattlechains or Drogskol Captain is very appealing. 

I didn't activate Mutavault at all during the tournament. It could have been solid but only playing two means it won't come up too often. I could be interested in Moorland Haunt in a split, or just Haunt and more colored sources.

All the non-creature SB cards were great. I think I want to play a couple of Ceremonious Rejections and possible some enchantment or artifact removal. I had no answer to Ensnaring Bridge in the 75, and Blood Moon was tough. Collective Brutality was the weakest of the others and still very good, though I don't know if you need three.

I might try to play a four color version with both Noble Hierarch and Lingering Souls.

Props Slops

Props:

Spirits
Eddie Eng for lending me Supreme Phantoms

Michael for winning the PPTQ with Infect

Kyle Evans for being a great HJ and my good luck charm. I think I've top 8 the last 4 PPTQ I played where he was HJ

Slops:
Haibing and I for both losing in top 4

Tron. The games just aren't interesting on either side.

Thanks,

Ty

Green Blue Hadana's Climb at Pro Tour Dominaria

I played at Pro Tour Dominaria in Richmond Virginia this past weekend. I went 9-7 overall. This is my personal best result over the eight Pro Tours I've played in. My constructed record of 7-3 was by far the best I've ever done at a PT.

Draft Rounds

I went 2-4 in draft, going 1-2 in each draft. I think in both drafts my deck was okay or better, but in each draft it could have been much better. I've never been able to get the UR decks to work in my practice drafts, and my unfamiliarity with the archetype made it harder for me to see that is the colors I should have been. I think if I had found the right line to end up in UR I would have had closer to 5 wins in the limited portion. My two decks can be seen here and here.

I made the worst play of my life in the last round of the second draft that prevented me from salvaging a .500 draft record. My opponent had just attacked me with two Serra Disciples and then played a Cabal Paladin. He was tapped out except for his Paladin and a Knight of Grace. My board was D'Avenant Trapper, Juggernaut, and Relic Runner. I missed the fact that his Paladin gave his Knight +1/+0, so when I played Aesthir Glider I tapped his Paladin and then attacked with Juggernaut and Relic Runner. He blocked my Juggernaut and killed it with first strike damage, I pass the turn slightly embarrassed. The embarrassment was even worse when I looked at my hand and saw Seal Away.

My Constructed Deck

I supposed I always knew I would play a green deck. I fell in love with Jadelight Ranger in the only standard event I'd played prior to testing for this. Also Llanowar Elves was reprinted. I was willing to play anything, but I'd obviously have a slant towards green. I'm not I'm good enough to intentionally go against my bias to make sure I'm evaluating properly. Also I didn't have much time to prepare.

Goblin Chainwhirler is warping the format, but it's more than that. The strength of all the red creatures in combat makes it very difficult to stabilize against the red decks by deploying your own creatures. Chainwhirler, Kari Zev, Earthshaker Khenra, and Ahn-Crop Crasher are almost impossible to block with the creatures you can play in other colors for similar mana costs. If you are able to stabilize by playing your own dudes, Hazoret and Glorybringer and Chandra means you won't be stabilized for long. The only way to beat the red decks is to either legitimately answer all their threats (eg. UW Control) or to go over the top and kill them. The best way to go over the top and still be able to stabilize that I found was Verdurous Gearhulk.

A few things I found when testing: Karn wasn't as good as I had hoped. We had a list very similar to the CFB UG Constructs but never got it to consistently beat anything. I also tried BG Snake, but the liability against Soul-Scar Mage was not my favorite, and the upside wasn't quite enough to consistently go over the top. I tried out a list with Bristling Hydra and Hadana's Climb and quickly realized no one could beat Bristling Hydra. Adventurous Impulse increased the amount of Hydras in the deck, so I added them.

In order to play Hydra, you need to play Servant of Conduit. The energy was far more valuable in pumping Hydra than in drawing random cards with Glint-Sleeve Siphoner. Also if you cut Winding Constrictor you wouldn't need your second color mana on the first two turns. Lack of interaction didn't hurt since the BG decks were cutting back on it already. The only concern I had was not having Ravenous Chupacabra for other green decks. Once I figured out how good Skysovereign, Consul Flagship was in the mirrors (and against red), I knew my deck would be a good choice for the expected metagame. I wasn't expecting much UB Control at all, so I didn't need multiple Blossoming Defense. I played enough countermagic in the sideboard to have a decent shot against UW control. Kefnet's Last Word and Commit / Memory helped me answer Scarab God and Ghalta that otherwise would destroy me. Maximum Hadana's Climb never really was an issue, and I didn't mind drawing two.

This is what I registered:

If Adventurous Impulse could find Skysovereign, I would consider playing a second or third in the main. The second one in the main still probably better than a Spell Pierce or something in the current metagame.

Constructed Rounds

Its hard to tell whether the red decks I faced were mono-red or red-black midrange, or something in between. I think at least two I played were straight mono-red, and two were the midrange variant. The other two were probably more aggressive with a black splash for Scrapheap Scrounger. Overall I went 4-2 against Chainwhirler decks.

I played against UW Control three times, going 2-1. The matches I won were not particularly close, especially when I get to bring in 13 cards from the sideboard. Despite that, I still lost a match when I didn't draw any SB cards after losing game 1.

The third archetype I played against was UB Midrange. I got game 1 with Skysovereign before he could get Scarab God online. Game two he used Gonti to cast Verdurous Gearhulk on his Gifted Aetherborn, but I had Kefnet's Last Word to take it and win the game.

Going Forward

I'm still undecided if this will be in my lineup for the Team Unified Standard RPTQ. The blue counters take away from UW control, though maybe you can get away with just Spell Pierce. Perhaps the default lineup of GB, RB, and UW is still the best. I'll be working with my teammates to try to figure it out.

Thanks
Ty

Leveling Up

I’ve played a few magic events since the last time I posted. During these events I’ve actually learned (or relearned) quite a bit. The highlight of these events was making the top 4 of the RPTQ for PT Dominaria. This means I will be attending my 8th Pro Tour at the beginning of June. This is also the third time I have managed to qualify for back to back PTs, and I feel like something is different this time. I feel like I have leveled up.

SCG DFW – Modern Open

For the main event of the SCG Open, I played a Bant Evolution list of my own design. It is very similar to the list I played at GP San Antonio, but I added Jace, the Mind Sculptor. I also cut the red mana, only being able to get Kiki-Jiki into play via Edritch Evolution (or multiple Birds of Paradise). I did not have a successful tournament, going 5-4 in matches with one win being an opponent no-show.

What I learned from the main event was nothing big, but it was still important. I learned that just because I have a brew and I’ve had success with my own variants before, doesn’t mean everything I come up with is tournament ready. I knew going into the event the deck still needed work, but I was committed to playing Jace in the event.  I acknowledged this before the event as well, knowing I wasn’t there to win just to have some fun.  Since I’ve sold my MTGO collection, I no longer have that outlet to play the wacky early stage brews at low risk. I don’t know if that means I should not play brews at all, or only at local store tournaments, but I also knew exactly what I was doing.

SCG DFW – Standard Classic

Instead of running it back on Sunday with a deck I knew was not good (with some updates, like the 4th Jace), I was able to borrow a Tier 1 Standard deck for the Classic. I played Sultai Climb to a 5-2 finish. I lost one match to my unfamiliarity with the format and one match to a very good draw from the mono-red opponent. I’m very glad I was convinced to not play Modern because I learned some important lessons.

The first lesson I learned was that Standard is very good right now. The games were refreshing after a mono-Modern diet I had myself on. All the decks seemed interesting, powerful, but not broken, and all decks had many ways to interact. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

The second lesson was how much margin for error is available in a tier 1 deck. My experience with fringe decks in Modern like GW Ghost Quarter usually required almost perfect play and a bit of luck for success, something that I was able to achieve but also very draining to attempt. I made many more mistakes in Standard, but none of them felt like they cost me the game on the spot the way they can in Modern. Also, playing good decks has always been a strength of mine that I forgot I had. I’m naturally good at pressing a deck advantage into a board advantage without much to worry about from the opponent when they are outclassed (either on deck or play skill, but much easier on deck).

RPTQ Dominaria

Going into the RPTQ, my sealed experience had me wanting to open just a few cards (outside of the bomb rares). All I wanted was 4x Legion Conquistador and 3x Sun-crested Pteradon. The deck I opened was very close. I had 3x Conquistador, and 1x Pteradon, but also had 2x Forerunner of the Empire and a Needletooth Raptor. The rest of the deck was various removal splashed over four colors thanks to 3x Evolving Wilds and a Traveler’s Amulet. I picked up a loss in round 3 and an draw in round 5, but managed to win round 6 and sneak into 8th place on tiebreakers. I think this is the first time in a while picking up unintentional draw didn’t leave me in 9th/10th at an event of this size. Also luckily for me the draft pairings were random, so instead of having to face Limited Legend Haibing Hu (the only player in the top 8 I think I’m <50% against) in the 1st seed, I got paired against another player. I drafted a medium Wb vampire deck with 2x Famished Paladin to go with 2x Moment of Craving and a Mark of the Vampire. I was able to win my match against a UG merfolk deck in the top 8 to secure the invite.

What I learned from this event was that I still have what it takes in sealed and draft. While limited is no longer my preferred format, all those years of experience put me way ahead of the average RPTQ player. Also listening to the Limited Resources podcast about sealed gave me some good insight to building my deck that I might not have had otherwise that paid off (like splashing for Recover).

Nexus ESports Event

I played 5 Color Humans at the Nexus ESports opening event. Zach Krizan has a great space and I was glad to go support him and his store. I lost in the top 4, with both losses on the day coming against Bogles.

What I learned was once again playing tier 1 decks is a different story than playing my own brews. The deck also killed incredibly fast, and I found myself with almost 40 minutes to kill between rounds several times. It’s been quite a while since I’ve had that kind of time. Also despite tier 1 lists being fairly stock, the sideboards are generally pretty bad, at least to me. I’ll have to redo the SB if I play the deck again.

Main Takeaway

Looking back after the RPTQ win, I realized I’ve been having quite a bit of success in the events I’ve chosen to play dating back almost a year. I’ve tried to pinpoint exactly what I’ve done differently, and how I can still achieve things like PT invites when I’m playing so much less than I did at my peak.  I think there are two main reasons.

The first is being more confident in my own deck building decisions. I’ve had success with decks that were completely my own (naya evolution) or partially my own (the GW GQ deck) that involved me personally justifying the existence of every card in the list. I also know what I want to do and how to achieve that.

The second reason is probably the main reason as it ties everything together. I’ve become much better at the time I spend thinking about Magic and preparing for events that doesn’t involve actual playtesting. With less time to spend during the week and no Magic online collection, I’ve had to make good theory decisions before the event to be adequately prepared, and I think I’ve been doing a good job of this. Finding the right things to think about before the events can be hard but I think I’ve proven to myself it’s doable. It’s not ideal but when it’s all I have, I have to be happy with that. I’m also much more accepting of making mistakes in game since I know ahead of time they are all but guaranteed to happen.

Going Forward

I hope I can apply these techniques in preparation for the upcoming Pro Tour. I’m also optimistic that there is more time to prepare than for other PTs I’ve played in the past, so at the least I shouldn’t have an awful deck.

Follow Up to The Worst Rule in Magic Today

There was great response and discussion to my previous article about the current penalty for Drawing Extra Cards. Much was expected, some was unexpected, but most all of it was quality. I want to address two common misunderstandings about what I said in this follow up (the urge to respond to all the comments is strong, but I don't have the time or patience to attempt such a fruitless task).

Follow Up #1 - About my Proposal

I want to clarify that the suggestion I made on how to improve the rule is just that, a suggestion. Maybe I wasn't clear by putting it under the heading "My Suggestion", but the main point of the article was to illuminate the flaws with the current situation, not to delve deep into the many facets of possible solutions. I'll reiterate here that my issue is the current rule is extremely exploitable and serves to aid cheaters while doing little to protect the innocent players because innocent players rarely find themselves in Example D.

As for the critiques on different angles that could exist using my suggestion, I think if the alternative would be perfect they would have already implemented it. There is a tradeoff in how these penalties are written in all situations, and to accept the status quo as being perfect or good enough is a disservice to the community. We should always be striving to do better, and I believe those that write these penalties agree, otherwise we would not have reached this point.

A common critique of my suggestion goes like this: If player A draws an extra card and player B notices, player B will now have an incentive to wait until its too hard to determine the source of the extra card in order to get a game loss penalty for player A. I agree this incentive would exist, but I do not think it would be as common as those who mention it think, nor do I think it makes my proposal automatically invalid. To explain, I'll actually have to go to Uncle Ty's Old Timey Magic Stories.

Prior to the implementation of the "Thoughtseize Solution", game loss was the standard penalty for drawing extra cards. This often led to "feel bad" moments when a player would draw two cards with sleeves stuck together or similar dexterity error. In a somewhat notable event, Patrick Chapin activated Ajani, Mentor of Heroes on camera at a Pro Tour and put the card into his hand without revealing it. While it was caught immediately, there was no path available for the judges to downgrade the penalty from a game loss to a warning. These kinds of incidents will still be warnings under my system.

My experience through 15 years of play has been when the count is off someone was very likely cheating, and the "feel bad" game losses occurred when the player caught it but it was too late because the card had hit the hand already. That's why i think it's a big difference in situations and one size fits all isn't working. Maybe this isn't the common experience everyone has, but this is where my suggestion is coming from. 

Follow Up #2 - About the judge call

Some have suggested I'm only upset because I lost the match and that's why I have an issue with this rule. While I am upset that I lost the match, this is not the only reason, nor even the major reason. It was perhaps a catalyst to finally write the thoughts I've been developing over the last two and half years. I didn't just come up with all of the previous post overnight. I'm on record on Twitter (@ceciliajupe) criticizing the change when it happened in 2015.

I am aware that despite saying "they would be mostly powerless to do anything" they still had the power to disqualify the player if they thought he was cheating. Disqualification is always an option, I didn't think I needed to say that. I think that judges at the higher levels like GPs and PTs are more likely to do the things needed to make the current rules work. At lower levels like PPTQs, the weaker judges will struggle to make the best decisions. If you think a different judge (maybe you) would have made a different ruling in this situation, I'm glad to know that but I think most judges would not. We can write the rules to protect weak judges from hurting innocent people who make mistakes, or we can write them to protect them from being exploited by dishonest players. I am not a judge and I do not know which way should be preferred.

Since writing the article I learned that the player's previous disqualification was for a similar situation where he was found with extra cards. Perhaps the Head Judge of that tournament was more thorough than the judge at the Hunter Burton event. Perhaps the player had learned through experience what not to say when trying to explain away his cheating. Perhaps the system failed to have a proper penalty to lower the incentive to cheat. What's done is done, I can't change the past. I just want to ensure this doesn't happen in the future.

So yes, I was upset because I lost, but I lose all the time. I was more upset because I got cheated. I was more upset because a cheater was allowed to continue and do well in an event that so many people love. I was more upset because we had caught a known cheater red handed and couldn't bring him to justice. 

The discussion doesn't end here

I want to thank everyone for reading the previous article, and especially thank those who engaged in discussion about it. I also want to thank the great people that put on the Hunter Burton Memorial Open. I hope none of my anger perceived as directed at them; it was a fantastic event overall. Unfortunately, I don't think as many people will read this post as the previous one.

Thanks,
Ty

The Worst Rule in Magic Today - and How to Fix It

This past Sunday, I played the Hunter Burton Memorial Open. I was looking forward to playing this wonderful event for quite some time. The recent unbannings of Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Bloodbraid Elf added to the anticipation. Despite playing ten rounds of a fresh Modern format, hanging out with friends all day, and winning $100, I came away with a bad taste in my mouth. Unlike other times I’ve been cheated in the past, the sting isn’t dissipating as time goes on. The more I think on it, the angrier I’m getting.

What Happened

After I won game one against Human Aggro, my opponent started game two with Unclaimed Territory into Aether Vial. His turn two play was Seachrome Coast, Vial in Champion of the Parish, cast Kitesail Freebooter. His turn three play was to deploy two Meddling Mage naming the cards he saw in my hand with Freebooter. At this point I noticed he had three cards in hand, along with seven permanents in play. Ten total cards on turn three, having played first. So an extra card appeared somewhere in three turns. Either he started with eight, drew an additional on turn two or three, or had an Aether Vial in his lap or something.

My opponent was a player who I know has been disqualified in the past. When I called a judge to ask a question away from the table, the first thing I told the judge was “My opponent has a history of being disqualified, I think my opponent is cheating, he has an extra card in his hand.” The details of the rest of the investigation don’t really matter to this because I knew despite my best effort to clue the judges in and actually catching him in the act of cheating, they would be mostly powerless to do anything.

By the end of the judge call, the head judge had determined that there was indeed an extra card in his hand, and no one could explain how it got there. The remedy was to have me look at his hand and shuffle a card back into his deck (I will call this the “Thoughtseize Solution” for the rest of the article). I chose a card, he shuffled it into his library. I continued the game but being unable to play the spells in my hand, I was dead in another turn.

The Worst Rule in Magic Today

The current penalty for drawing extra cards is covered in the Magic IPG under Hidden Card Error. The penalty is a Warning with an additional remedy that “If a set affected by the error contains more cards than it is supposed to contain, the player reveals the set of cards that contains the excess and his or her opponent chooses a number of previously-unknown cards sufficient to reduce the set to the correct size. These excess cards are returned to the correct location.” I believe in most cases this remedy is simple enough and corrective enough to be fine. The Hidden Card Error lists six examples:

A. A player draws four cards after casting Ancestral Recall.

B. A player scries two cards when he should only have scried one.

C. A player resolves a Dark Confidant trigger, but forgets to reveal the card before putting it into her hand.

D. A player has more cards in his hand than can be accounted for.

E. A player casts Anticipate and picks up the top four cards of her library.

F. A player, going first, draws for his turn.

One of these things is not like the others. Examples A,B,C,E,F are things that can happen due to brain farts, dexterity errors, or sticky sleeves. Option D by comparison is much more suspicious. We don’t know where this card came from, but we are okay with that? All my opponent had to say to avoid further penalty was “I don’t know how this got here.”

Without getting too much into Uncle Ty’s Old Timey Magic Stories, this penalty wasn’t always this way. The “Thoughtseize Solution” was only implemented in 2015. Prior to that, Drawing Extra Cards had its own entry in the IPG with a penalty of Game Loss (with some situations for downgrades).

The powers that be do a great job writing the IPG and keeping it up to date for an ever evolving game. They have priorities of ensuring a fun experience for everyone that plays. As a competitive player, I understand that my focus (or paranoia) about cheaters is not shared by those at the DCI, so we may disagree fundamentally about the philosophy behind this penalty. Still, I think with regards to example D, they are way off base.

A Confusing and Contradictory Philosophy

The IPG exists to provide a reliable consistent response to common situations. When you implement the “Thoughtseize Solution”, it is anything but reliable or consistent. At one extreme, the removal of a key card can make a game lost on the spot. In other situations, the card removed might not matter at all (as in my situation). And when it comes to Example D, we can’t even be certain the extra card is in the zone  we think it is.

The philosophy behind this remedy says “Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to generate advantage” (my bold for emphasis). They are acknowledging the rule can generate an advantage, and they seem to be okay with that. They know they can write the IPG to prevent advantage generation (because it worked this way before), but they choose not to. They are okay with you getting a “feel bad” when you get cheated if that means you don’t get a “feel bad” when you make a mistake.

An Oversight of Incentives

As the rule is currently written, the player has no incentive to report a discovery of a mysterious extra card. The penalty will be a “Thoughtseize” the turn he catches it, and it will still be a “Thoughtseize” five turns later when the opponent happens to catch it. Obviously, knowingly hiding it is cheating, but as you can see by now this is next to impossible to prove, or even consider it possible. Good Magic players will know the advantage of waiting as long as possible to get the best option.

Through all those years and events, I’ve accidentally drawn seven cards after a mulligan, I’ve had sleeves stick together when casting Ponder, and I’ve eagerly untapped and drawn a card when I thought my opponent had said “Go” when really nothing had been said at all. But I’ve never had a situation where I had a mysterious card appear in the count on my side of the board. The current penalty does nothing except protect cheaters.

My Suggestion

I think the rule should be changed to have a separate penalty when there is no known source of the extra card. Example D should have a penalty of a Game Loss, with a possibility to downgrade if self-reported.

Let’s Discuss 

At the event, I had a conversation with a level three judge whom I respect a great deal about my concerns, including much of what I've said here. He dealt with my frustration at the time (which has only increased in the past twenty-four hours) and heard me out. He too had an experience similar to mine that had him questioning the way the penalty was written. If you are also concerned with not being cheated at your next event, share this post and have these conversations with other players and judges in your community.

Thanks for reading,

Ty