The MagicHouse Cube: Introduction

Finally.

This is just a short general introduction to the MagicHouse Cube. Most of the actual discussion of card choices -- and lists of the cards in the Cube itself -- will be in separate posts for each color/multicolor/artifact/land.

To those unfamiliar with the concept of a Magic Cube, it is a set of cards -- usually somewhere between 550 and 800, in order to facilitate 8-man drafts -- with chosen singletons of cards throughout Magic's history.

Cubes often (if not always) have an overarching theme governing the cards chosen to be included. The most common theme -- popularized initially by now-Wizards employee Tom LaPille -- is the "best hits of Constructed". This means including ridiculous cards that have dominated past Constucted formats, as well as the staples that defined those same formats. This meant that you would often be presented with absurd draft choices -- Umezawa's Jitte versus Treachery, for example. This created an interesting and novel Limited/Constructed hybrid feeling to Cube drafting that made the format extremely popular around last Fall.

During this period of Cube popularity, Ben Peebles-Mundy, Steve Nagy, Kevin Ng and I decided to attempt to cobble together an exact duplicate of Tom's Cube for our own use. It involved a large number of proxies, as we didn't have a good collection of older cards, but it was a pretty impressive effort. The Cube sucked us all in for quite a while, leading to us favoring it over regular drafting when the format of the moment (Lorwyn) became stagnant.

This led to us questioning a number of Tom's inclusion, and a general desire to reduce the size of the Cube so as to make the experience more consistent (and get rid of a bunch of cards we deemed unnecessary or awful). We shaved off almost a hundred cards that we could agree no one particularly liked.

As such, the Cube format itself became stagnant. Ben and Steve in particular ended up drafting the same archetype every single time (G/B/x Rock and U/x control, respectively). I myself began to favor the Equipment-heavy Red and White aggro decks, mostly because the cards would always be there. It quickly became very predictable and boring.

Steve's Cube (it was considered his, as the majority of the cards in it were his) fell out of favor when Extended season came about, as it was pilfered for cards for our decks. By the time the season ended, Steve was graduating and moving away, and so I purchased the Cube from him, replacing most of his cards with my own copies and buying almost all the rest that were in the Cube.

As such, I became the owner of the now-monikered MagicHouse Cube, named after Ben, Kevin and I's residence last year, which housed five Magic players overall (Aaron Vanderbeek and Mike Patnik being the other two) and had Steve as a regular visitor.

My own opinion of the Cube is somewhat complex. I believe there are too many carbon-copies of Tom's Cube out there, and as such I wanted to give it a different spin. Steve had always been somewhat adverse to diverging too far from Tom's design, but I had no such reservations.

I saw my problems with Tom's Cube as follows:

• Little to no cohesion among a color's themes.
• Little to no balance consideration, especially with regards to redundancy.
• Very little support for some of Constructed's most popular decks (Suicide Black and black aggro in particular).
• Lack of support for Combo in general, from Reanimator to other two- or three-card combinations.
  
• Not enough color-combination "signals" through multicolored cards.

I decided to focus most on the first and last issues.

While I'm sure Tom put a good deal of thought into what cards to include, his criteria seemed to be more based on a card's history rather than its place among the rest of the cards in the Cube. Cards like Empyrial Armor were very good in their time, but in the context of the Cube are massively underwhelming and didn't really promote any interesting decks or combinations.

In addition, I thought Tom wasn't using his Multicolored slots well. I see the Multicolored cards as a way to define the strengths and weaknesses of a particular color combination. So U/W would have mostly controlling cards, while W/R would have almost exclusively aggressive cards. There are many color combinations -- G/B, B/R, U/G -- that could function as aggro or control, and so the cards for those combinations were the ones that could fit in either type of deck.

I also believed the colors were wildly imbalanced. White's cards were too evenly divided among aggro and control, Green was an unfocused mess, and Blue was simply absurd. The reason for Blue's dominance was that too many of its cards did the exact same things, and powerful things at that -- counterspelling, card drawing, card stealing. I decided to remove some of this redundancy and include other cards, especially creatures, that would fit into Blue's tendency towards control while simultaneously reducing its ridiculous consistency and creating the possibility of aggro decks with Blue as a support color (U/G and U/B in particular). White and Green still have major issues, which I will address in their particular sections, but hopefully I make some progress towards making them better.

Finally, I made a somewhat radical move to support Combo better -- the Snoopy card. Inspired when Mike Patnik sent me a utilities check with a sleeved Snoopy card, it allows the drafter to replace it with a single card from outside the pool of drafted cards. In a sense, it is a replacement for the Wishes, most of which have been major Constructed players, without the clunkiness of having to look through the Cube for a particular card every time a Wish is cast.

I think Snoopy is balanced for a number of reasons. First, it only allows the drafter to get a card from outside the pool of drafted cards -- so if you wanted to get Vedalken Shackles but someone had drafted it, you couldn't, even if it was just sitting in their sideboard. So, if you open Snoopy with a ridiculous bomb (such as the aformentioned Shackles), it becomes a huge risk to take it, as you're not 100% sure you'll get the card you're planning to.

Because of this restriction, I think that Snoopy serves more as a Combo catch-all rather than a general wild-card. Oftentimes a drafter will pick up half or a third of a powerful combo, of which many are incidentally in the Cube (among the most recent formats, Reveillark, Mirror Entity, Body Double, and Mulldrifter/Venser/Riftwing Cloudskate are all in there).

As a result of these changes, instead of a general "Best of Constructed" theme, I basically manifested the MagicHouse Cube as a "Best Archetypes of Constructed" theme. I also decided to personalize the Cube a little further, including some of my own favorite cards, that are certainly good cards but probably not quite the cards most would look at to include in the Cube.

So that's a general overview of the MagicHouse Cube. I'd post a list of the cards in it, but I haven't completely documented the current incarnation of the Cube, and I haven't had the opportunity to update the Cube for Eventide yet. I'll make these updates as I document and post the individual colors in the days to come, along with the idea behind each color's card choices and their place in the context of the Cube.

I'll start with White tomorrow, and hopefully get through the colors -- if not the whole Cube -- before Alara's release and the subsequent posts regarding the new Limited format.

~Andres

Return, and the sad state of StarCity.

It's been a hectic month, between moving into my new place in Pittsburgh, starting school, and a couple of other unexpected personal entanglements.

Now that things have settled down a bit, I'm getting back to focusing more on Magic and, subsequently, updating here.

Plans for the near future include finally writing up the MagicHouse Cube, some general Limited theory articles, and the formal introduction of my drafting blog, using Ben Peebles-Mundy's powerful new draft converter tool.

Speaking of Ben's draft converter, it has had a profound impact on the nature of Limited writing on StarCityGames.com, the subject of my last post -- and not really in a positive way.

First, the popular "Drafting with Rich" articles, where Rich Hoaen posts MODO draft walkthroughs with some minor commentary, returned after being eliminated due to a lack of a MODO 3.0 draft recorder/converter tool. This was an expected change, and at least put some Limited content on the website every day, even if Rich never likes talking about his drafts too much.

Citing the public's preference for learning about Limited through draft walkthroughs than articles, Craig Stevenson (editor of SCG) used his own conversion magicks to change the sole weekly Limited article -- Nick Eisel's "Limited Lessons" -- into a second "Drafting with..." daily article. The real reason behind this change is unclear; there's been a long-standing dissatisfaction with the quality of Nick's articles among the community, which I assume is due to his own lack of playing Magic since he moved away from Pittsburgh last fall. My personal opinion of the articles aside, it seems that this may have been the real reason behind the change, rather than a general dislike of Limited articles, especially since Ben's article on SSE Mono-Red this week was quite well-received.

This change has, however, catalyzed a number of interesting changes in the SCG Limited discourse.My initial hope for Drafting with Nick was that he would exemplify a different viewpoint than Rich.

One of the things I find most infuriating about SCG's Limited writing is that Rich Hoaen's decisions are almost never questioned. This absolute deference to Pro writers is more of a general problem with SCG readers, but it shows up more in Hoaen's forums than anywhere else.

Let's make this clear. Rich Hoaen is clearly very good at Magic (moreso in the past than now), almost certainly moreso than myself (reservations made only because I've never met or played against him, but certainly in terms of achievements he's way ahead).

However, this IN NO WAY limits my ability to disagree with and criticize his thoughts and picks in an objective fashion. Anyone who ever has so much deference to a Pro that they ignore their own thoughts is doing themselves a grand disservice. I'll go so far as to say that anyone who does such a thing is absolutely barring themselves from reaching the level of those they deify.

Rich Hoaen is not always right. He doesn't know some terrible secret that the common Magic lay-player is unaware of. His decisions can be analyzed just as easily as anyone's. Limited, unlike Constructed, is rarely predicated on subtle interactions and the metagame; draft picks are what they seem to be and pros should not escape scrutiny for their decisions in Limited merely BECAUSE they're pros.

Given this opinion, I was hoping that these two well-known drafters would clash in terms of style and philosophy.

Rich generally values consistency above all else; he took Karoos absurdly high in Ravnica block draft, and in the current format values cards like Silkbind Faerie -- which are always playable, and have a very low range of impact on the game (meaning not that it has little impact, but that its significant impact rarely varies from game to game) -- over incredibly strong, but inconsistent, cards.

Nick, on the other hand, is often willing to take risky cards to create a powerful deck. He drafts with the final product in mind much more so than Rich (and most drafters in general). He's very good at picking up small synergies among cards and crafting cohesive decks that most people wouldn't even consider, which is why he's been responsible for "creating" a number of Limited archetypes in past formats. On the negative side, though, he often takes "bad" cards over "good" cards, which I saw as a potential problem for his daily-walkthrough reception.

Instead, Nick's drafts have been simply awful. Perhaps it's his lack of having a real-life Magic group to play with on a consistent basis, or perhaps he's just playing a lot less Magic overall, but his first two weeks have resulted in drafts that are nothing short of baffling and embarassing. Instead of presenting a cohesive draft philosophy opposed to Rich's, he seems to waver between schools of thought within the drafts themselves. In one particular draft, he took Scuttlemutt over Ashenmoor Gouger -- a very Rich pick, as Scuttlemutt is a consistent card that will almost always make one's deck -- then takes Ember Gale third, citing his extreme preference for Red in the format.

If you value Red so highly and are willing to take Red cards over superior cards of other colors, why wouldn't you take one of the best possible cards for a Red deck over a completely marginal card in a Red deck (i.e. Scuttlemutt, whose mana acceleration is basically irrelevant in Red and whose size/cost ratio is subpar?)

It's decisions like these that have led to Nick being flamed (somewhat validly) in the forums. While there's always some idiot in those forums who doesn't understand what's going on and attempts to call Nick out on something he actually did right, there's been an immense amount of spot-on criticism in his forums.

Most infuriating about this whole situation, though, is that now Rich is basically a deity on the site and can do no wrong. The direct comparisons drawn between his drafts and Nick's on a daily basis have made even those willing to criticize him in the past genuflect before him in his own forums.

There's very little that can be done, unfortunately. Hopefully Nick gets more comfortable with the format or the nature of the drafts he should submit to SCG, and the field becomes a little more even and perhaps will even result in some valid discourse and comparison.

On the other hand, it makes me wish even more that there was someone -- anyone -- on the website writing about Limited theory, as there's now so much content on the site to analyze and no one taking advantage of it.

Next time -- since we're in the September lull, I'll take this opportunity to finally make posts on the MagicHouse Cube.

The problem with Limited writing.

In my opinion, there's a huge problem with the type of Limited discourse going on today, both on the prominent Magic strategy websites (StarCityGames.com, Brainburst.com, etc.) and in real life. This is a specific problem that I've been aware of for a while now, and radiates from what I believe are low expectations and an even lower level of understanding of Limited play.

For a moment, take one website -- StarCity, for example -- and compare the Limited and Constructed articles delivered weekly on that site.

Every day there are four to six new Constructed articles, aimed at both casual and competitive players and covering a wide range of formats. Every WEEK, there's ONE dedicated Limited article. While the one Limited article a week -- written faithfully by classic Night-at-the-O attendee Nick Eisel -- does cover the expected range of topics, mostly involving draft pick orders, X/Y archetype analysis, and the occasional Sealed Pool construction, it alone can simply not be as comprehensive as the salvo of articles written on Constructed.

So why doesn't StarCity get some more Limited writers? Why the massive disparity between the two formats? Is there some inherent problem with Limited that makes it simpler than Constructed and therefore unworthy of the same level of analysis and attention?

Of course not. I believe that the current state of Limited strategy is a result of two things -- the normalization of knowledge of the average Magic player, and Wizards' continuing lack of support for Limited.

There is no question that the average PTQ player is much, much better today than they were ten or even five years ago. The propogation of Magic strategy through websites like The Dojo was only the beginning of player normalization -- now, it seems the only time that you see players bad enough to include "unplayable" cards in Sealed Pools and first-pick the worst common in a color is at Prereleases. As such, the level of competition is much higher now than ever before, and will almost certainly continue to rise -- due to, in no small part, the presence of articles like Nick's.

Pick orders and archetype analysis allow everyone to understand the general gist of what's going on in a draft. While the average PTQ player may still not understand many of the subtleties and nuances of drafting, they aren't nearly as clueless as before.

They know what cards are good.
They know what decks are good.
What else is there to know about Limited, anyway?

I believe there is SO much more to Limited than pick orders and archetype analysis. Limited is a fantastic game of hidden knowledge, strategic guessing, and careful outmaneuvering of the other seven people in your draft. Not only that, but Limited challenges our ability to actually play the game -- to attack, block, mulligan, and plan ahead -- by presenting dynamic scenarios to which we have to constantly adjust and by challenging the cognitive structures we develop and become far too comfortable with in Constructed.

I am not saying that Limited is necessarily better or worse than Constructed, just that it tests a completely different skillset that is highly underdeveloped in most players, even extremely competent Constructed players. Nor am I saying that pick order and archetype analysis articles are bad or unnecessary -- only that they merely scratch the surface of a much deeper (and extremely interesting, I think) realm of Magic theory and strategy.

Have you ever thought about *how* you draft? Not what cards you value over others, or what color combinations you like, but the your own intrinsic drafting style? Do you signal heavily, go with the flow, or draft greedy? Do you value "control" cards over agressive cards? Risky cards over dependable staples?

There are tons of other questions to be asked, and each one is a careful deliberation to be made about your Limited game. Most people just instinctively fall into a camp and never change, precisely because no one is writing about how such things affect your game, or how to even go about making such changes!

As a corollary, I believe that many of those considered the "best" Limited players are not, in fact, particularly skilled at Limited. I think they are just absolutely excellent players and use this to overcome others in the more-or-less even playing field resulting from player normalization and a lack of deeper inquiry into the format. Of course, there are those that excel in both understanding Limited and playing tightly, and those are the ones that seem almost impossible to beat in Limited -- or, at least, in draft.

The other problem that arises with Limited is Wizards' continuning emphasis on the Sealed Deck format as a PTQ format. This is, without a doubt, insane and absolutely detrimental to the continued development of Limited. The disparity of power in Sealed pools is only part of the problem, too, as many drafts can be more or less decided by the cards opened.

The problem is the complete lack of self-determination in such a process.

Even when the cards break poorly in a draft, skilled Limited players can quickly figure out what's going on and either manipulate the draft to their advantage or at least minimize the damage these anomalies can cause.

When you're handed a shitty pool, that's it. You can do everything right -- build perfectly, play perfectly -- but because of the nature of the game, you're mostly banking on either the poor skill level of your opponents or said players getting extremely unlucky. There's just nothing else that can be done because of the lack of any control over the quality of your cards.

This is not a format that begs to be analyzed. This is a format most want to dismiss as a necessary annoyance and cross their fingers to get through -- which, honestly, isn't that bad a plan. Of course there is a great deal of skill involved in building a Sealed Deck correctly, but the issue is that the effect of such skill is nowhere near the impact it has in Draft, or, of course, the impact preparation, playtesting and metagaming can have in Constructed.

I am, however, not saying Sealed Deck is a useless format. In fact, it can be quite fun in lower-stakes tournaments such as Prereleases, local store tournaments, and tournaments far too large to be realistically done in a Draft format (although I do believe that Draft can be configured in such a way as to handle the average PTQ -- I am speaking here of huge events like GPs and such). I just do not believe it should be the primary competitive format, as it inherently dissuades people from pursuing competitive play.

I find Limited to be fascinating. While I have had some mild success with the format, I have a great deal to improve upon. It is precisely because of this desire to improve that I want to see a deeper and more involved discourse on Limited. Perhaps it is far too presumptuous a goal for someone with no presence in the community and nothing more than this blog as a vehicle to express myself, but I really do hope to contribute to improving the nature of Limited writing, and perhaps eventually be able to present to Wizards the issues I (and, I believe, many others) have with their current configuration of Limited tournaments.

I think expectations are too low for Limited, which is why Starcity and other websites feel no need for more (and different) Limited writing. I think the current structure of Limited tournaments is a hindrance to the format's development, and more than anything else I believe that the average Magic player knows FAR less about the way Limited works than he think he does.

For the moment, all I can do is provide this type of analysis in this blog -- everything from in-depth pick analysis to comparing and constrasting the most basic schools of Limited thought and structure. In addition, I encourage anyone reading this to demand more of the websites that claim to bring the "best" Limited information on the web. Remember, however, that there is no one to truly blame for the current state of Limited. The sites and the writers they employ are simply meeting the (very low) demands of the general Magic populace, while at the same time overloading them on so much Constructed information that it feels like they truly are getting all the Magic information they need.

Demand more. Only by making the sites realize that there is much more to Limited than they realize -- and that people actually want to hear about it -- will things change.

I hope to bring some of this type of deeper Limited writing to this blog soon. I'm finishing up finals in the next few days and heading back to the United States, so I may not have time in the near future to write, but I do very much intend to make good on these promises.

~Andres

GP Madrid, or the process of losing.

The tournament was supposed to start at 9 AM.

Now, I realize that the start times for Magic tournaments are usually inaccurate. The nature of both the players involved and the event in question makes it a practical guarantee that no tournament with more than 8 players will ever begin exactly on time.

However, this particular tournament didn't get started until at least 10:30AM.

If this were the only time-related issue with the tournament, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, almost every round had a 45-minute delay between the end of the round and the beginning of the next.

I suppose that's reality when a tournament has 1,466 players, but it was still torturous.

Without further ado, my Sealed pool:

1 Barrenton Medic
1 Endure
1 Goldenglow Moth
1 Kithkin Shielddare
1 Recumbent Bliss
1 Rune-Cervin Rider

1 Plumeveil
1 Silkbind Faerie
1 Swans of Bryn Argoll
1 Thistledown Duo

1 Edge of the Divinity
1 Nightsky Mimic
2 Nip Gwyllion

1 Biting Tether
1 Cache Riders
2 Consign to Dream
1 Dream Thief
1 Ghastly Discovery
1 Merrow Levitator
1 Prismwake Merrow
1 Sinking Feeling

1 Dream Salvage
1 Gravelgill Duo
1 Helm of the Ghastlord
1 Oona's Gatewarden

1 Inside Out
1 Noggle Ransacker
1 Shrewd Hatchling

1 Blowfly Infestation
1 Loch Korrigan
1 Nightmare Incursion
1 Raven's Crime
1 Splitting Headache

1 Fists of the Demigod
1 Kulrath Knight
1 Poison the Well

1 Gift of the Deity
1 Odious Trow
1 Rendclaw Trow
1 Worm Harvest

1 Fire at Will

1 Heartlash Cinder
1 Hotheaded Giant
1 Inescapable Brute
1 Outrage Shaman
1 Puncture Blast
1 Smash to Smithereens

1 Runes of the Deus
1 Scuzzback Marauders
1 Tattermunge Maniac
1 Wort, the Raidmother

1 Medicine Runner
1 Mercy Killing
1 Safehold Duo
1 Safewright Quest

1 Grazing Kelpie
1 Invert the Skies
1 Trapjaw Kelpie

1 Aerie Ouphes
1 Devoted Druid
1 Gloomwidow
1 Gloomwidow's Feast
1 Hungry Spriggan
1 Prismatic Omen
1 Roughshod Mentor

1 Chainbreaker
1 Fang Skulkin
1 Jawbone Skulkin
1 Rattleblaze Scarecrow
1 Scrapbasket
1 Scuttlemutt
1 Shell Skulkin

1 Leechridden Swamp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay.

My first impression of this pool was that it was acceptable. I saw a number of very strong cards like Outrage Shaman, Biting Tether and Kulkrath Knight, some removal and a bunch of fliers.

On setting it out, though, I quickly realized the pool's glaring weakness; a near-total lack of two-drops.

This pool is actually pretty easy to build, though, as both Black and White can be pretty easily removed from contention. This leaves some combination of Red, Blue, and Green.

Red is the color with the strongest cards, but is pretty shallow beyond them.

Blue is both deep and powerful, but has no real removal and many of its creatures are pretty fragile.

Green is the deepest color, but none of its cards are terribly exciting.

Seeing as how my pool was underpowered to begin with, I decided to go with the Red/Blue configuration. I saw the strongest synergy in my deck being the one between Cache Raiders and Outrage Shaman/Wort/Biting Tether, and this build was meant to maximize it.

1 Oona's Gatewarden

1 Scuttlemutt
1 Dream Thief
1 Plumeveil
1 Silkbind Faerie
1 Thistledown Duo

1 Shell Skulkin
1 Shrewd Hatchling
1 Swans of Bryn Argoll
1 Merrow Levitator

1 Cache Raiders
1 Kulrath Knight
1 Outrage Shaman
1 Scuzzback Marauders

1 Wort, the Raidmother

1 Puncture Blast
1 Fire at Will
1 Recumbent Bliss
2 Consign to Dream
1 Helm of the Ghastlord
1 Biting Tether

8 Island
8 Mountain
2 Plains

The problem with this build, of course, is that it has a single spell that costs less than three. The splash for Recumbent Bliss is almost a "free" splash -- I'm pretty sure I would have played at least one Plains regardless, as it serves as a sort of dual land for both of my hard-to-cast spells (Plumeveil and Fire at Will). However, the deck desperately needed removal, and Bliss is a pretty strong card, so I took the risk.

This deck has a lot of synergies -- mostly involving Cache Raiders, who were surprisingly strong -- but includes a lot of really mediocre cards (Shell Skulkin, Merrow Levitator, Helm of the Ghastlord) and again has no early game defense. I toyed with the idea of including Fang Skulkin as a vanilla 2/1, but it just seemed so terrible and fragile in my already-underpowered deck.

I considered a Green/Blue build, but it glutted up the three-drop slot and didn't really offer much early-game to shore up the loss the best cards in my pool (the Red ones). I also tried Green/Red splashing either Biting Tether and Silkbind Faerie -- which resulted in awful mana -- or Recumbent Bliss and Silkbind Faerie -- which had better mana, but still involved a terrible curve and, again, the loss of many powerful cards in blue.

I figure the URw option gave me the best chance to simply overwhelm my opponents should they not come out of the gates. I chose to play at all points, since I needed the turn to not fall impossibly behind.

So, with no bombs and only a single bye, I charged into the fray.

After my first-round rating bye, I got crushed by a deck with Firespout and Deus of Calamity in two short games. Besides being worse than his, my deck also simply decided not to show up in terms of both lands and good spells. He was also probably the best player I played against on the day, making a solid read on Fire at Will and playing around a potential bounce spell at one point (which, despite having two Consigns, I didn't have).

I won the next five rounds almost effortlessly. I beat decks much better than mine, which in retrospect makes me feel a lot better about my performance. Playing with Cache Raiders is pretty difficult, as it requires a lot of planning ahead and percentage predictions on draws. I only screwed up with it once that I can remember, returning a land instead of Gatewarden when I could draw a sixth land for Wort the one turn I actually drew the land. I wanted to cast a five-drop and therefore didn't want to not have Gatewarden in play the next turn, but it was pretty irrelevant as a blocker at the time and drawing a land would have given me the option of playing it anyway. It was irrelevant, though, as whenever I had Cache Raiders going I usually ended up winning.

I then got summarily crushed two rounds in a row by two people I can only describe as "brain-dead". Somehow the quality of player worsened as the rounds went on, and by round 7 I was playing against a guy who couldn't seem to attack or block effectively. His deck was built to destroy mine, though. He had a bevy of quality two-drops, Repel Intruders (which blew me out in both games, despite him making it terribly obvious that he had it), and multiple god-Auras that I should have been able to beat but wasn't. My removal didn't show up in time and my four- and five-drops were not getting it done.

My next opponent was even worse. I kept, on the draw:

Mountain, Mountain, Puncture Blast, Fire at Will, Silkbind Faerie, Consign to Dream, Shrewd Hatchling.

I'm good here with any land, and a Plains is a blowout. Of course, I never see another land this game, while my opponent "curves" out with Nip Gwyllion -> Nip Gwyllion -> Blight Sickle, Odious Trow. Fire at Will would have been huge, but I never got there.

Game two I mulligan to five but actually draw spells and lands, which is more than enough to beat his pile (how did this guy get to 5-2?)

Game three he reveals the good part of his deck, which includes Stillmoon Cavalier (to which I have few answers), Voracious Hatchling, Gloomlance, Soul Reap, and Gnarled Effigy. While obviously decent in Sealed, this is the first game I've ever lost to Gnarled Effigy, as I usually find it way too slow to ever have an impact when I have a good deck. Of course, my current deck's glacial pace can't beat such a card, and after torturously killing every creature on my side with the Effigy -- despite my being dead on board for multiple turns beforehand -- he kills me and my GP experience is over.

So, the GP was not a success. This is nothing new. I didn't even get my cards signed by Mark Tedin or Rob Alexander, as they were both gone by the time I was out, and there was not enough time in-between rounds to get through the massive lines at their booths.

But in the spirit of this blog, I want to analyze what I learned from it. While I haven't gotten around to doing a Fearless Magical Inventory on this blog yet -- although it's certainly something I want to do soon -- I think I have to address what is one of my weakest points, if not the weakest.

I need to learn how to lose.

I don't necessarily mean avoiding "tilt" (getting mad after a loss, to the point where anger clouds one's judgment and ability). While I was certainly someone who went on tilt a great deal, I made special efforts this past year to rectify them. I still get somewhat frustrated when I lose in a particularly embarassing or unlucky fashion, and I'll still bitch a bit to people I know about losing -- as everyone in Magic does -- but I have managed to lower my anger level at my opponent when I lose.

No, this is more about my own internal process after a loss. I tend to put everything on the line at every significant (PTQ level or above) tournament I go to, despite the amount of preparation I put in. As such, whether I get unlucky or make mistakes, I leave every unsuccessful tournament thinking three things:

• I'm terrible at Magic.
• As an result, I'm worthless.
• I didn't have fun.

While the truth of these statements can vary, I can say with certainty that they are hard to prove through a single unsuccessful tournament. My Magic record is actually better than a large number of "good" people I play with, and Magic has little to no reflection on me as a person in other respects. As for the third statement, the only reason I think this is because of the first two; were I able to not think such things, I would probably realize I was having a good time both playing Magic and hanging out with friends at the tournaments.

I can rationalize this to no end, but it doesn't defeat the feelings that rise up every time I get knocked out of another tournament. It's especially frustrating in Limited, because my draft records are very good but I can never seem to make it through the Sealed Deck portion. My deck is never strong enough and I always feel like I'm outclassed card-for-card starting around Round 4. I feel if I can just make it to a t8 or Day 2, I'll be in great shape, but I rarely do.

I have to remember that there will be more tournaments, and until then more time to improve. If I let every single defeat get me down, I won't put in the effort and practice I need to actually ever win. As much as I can attribute my failure at this GP to a very weak pool, I certainly made some misplays, and I'm pretty glad I recognized most of them immediately afterward. In addition, I'm glad I built close to optimally given the tools I was handed.

Personally, I think the psychology of Magic players is very interesting, and definitely something I want to keep a focus on in this blog. There are the "downers" like me, but there are also the "bad-beaten" that attribute every loss to bad luck, the "blind eyes" who think that their mistakes are not relevant or not worth pointing out, and the "unaffected" who don't seem to care whether they win or lose at all. I think all of these are intrinsic weaknesses, and it is rare to see someone who can objectively evaluate their mistakes, learn from them, and not be affected by them in the future.

To become one of those players is not easy -- especially for someone as easily affected by losing as I am -- but it is a worthwhile goal, and one of the most important things I'm striving for.

Otherwise, the GP was not terribly exciting. It was cool to be in such a large tournament, but ultimately it was slow, I had almost no one to talk to between rounds (which contributed to the slow feeling of the tournament), and I was quite honestly feeling pretty ill after a couple of rounds due to lack of sleep and food. It was not the experience I hoped for, but by putting it in a positive light I'll get everything I can out of it.

With this tournamnet out of the way, I can start writing some more theoretical and specific entries. I have a few thoughts on the new SHM/SHM/EVN draft format, a few new decklists to talk about, and of course the MagicHouse Cube to introduce and discuss. Finals for my classes here in Madrid are this week, so updates will be more sporadic, but in my downtime I hope to keep my thoughts on the game.

~Andres

Nationals Nostalgia.

My original intent was to make this post about the MagicHouse Cube, but my lack of access to the Cube itself -- it being at home in the United States -- severely hinders my ability to do so.

As such, I'll share an idea that's been lurking in my head for a while now.

US Nationals is at the beginning of August. I fondly remember last year's Nationals, even though it was where I made my single most embarrassing Magic mistake. While I played UGW Blink in that tourney, I qualified for it by winning South Florida regionals with a deck I loved: Mono-Black Rack.

3 Plagued Rusalka
4 Dark Confidant
4 Withered Wretch
4 Ravenous Rats
3 Yixlid Jailer
3 Garza's Assassin

4 Cry of Contrition
4 Smallpox
4 The Rack
3 Stupor
2 Slaughter Pact
1 Phyrexian Arena

1 Pendelhaven
20 Swamp

SB:
4 Blackmail
3 Deathmark
2 Extirpate
3 Last Gasp
3 Leyline of the Void

Unfortunately, this deck was focused around a number of number of Ravnica Block cards that really made the deck function. Dark Confidant in particular was incredibly important to the deck and Cry of Contrition was an amazing role-player. The deck's immense synergy was what made it work, as none of the cards besides Confidant are particular powerful on their own. The deck could even afford to play some pretty generic two-drops in the form of Withered Wretch and Yixlid Jailer for an advantage in the Dredge matchup; the quality of the creatures that get sacrificed to Smallpox or get in some early damage were relatively unimportant, as long as they had two power.

On the other hand, the deck had a fairly weak matchup versus aggro (Gruul being the popular aggro archetype at the time). Kird Ape's three toughness and fast clock were particularly hard to handle. However, I managed to still win the matchup four times over the seven rounds of Swiss, mostly because many of my opponents didn't really know how to manage their hand versus MBR's salvo of discard.

Overall, the deck loses:

Plagued Rusalka
Dark Confidant
Cry of Contrition
Phyrexian Arena
Blackmail
Last Gasp
Leyline of the Void

Most of these are either unnecessary in the current metagame (due to the lack of Dredge) or have easy replacements. However, the loss of Confidant and Cry were so devastating that the archetype fell to the wayside.

However, with the release of Eventide, I think that there are now equivalents for both of these cards, although they may be a bit deceptive. In addition, with the lack of Dredge, the deck can become much more focused.

The new Eventide card that fits into this archetype is Raven's Crime. While this card is not exactly equivalent to Cry of Contrition, as it will never be a two-for-one, it has the ability to be a virtual two-for-one (in discarding an unnecesary land, since the deck's curve is extremely low) and has the additional ability to give The Rack more reach later in the game.

The replacement for Dark Confidant, on the other hand, requires a bit more stretching: Bitterblossom. While the two cards have different functions -- drawing cards and making tokens, obviously -- but both fill a very similar role: creating a wave of advantage at the cost of life. Of course, Bitterblossom is a constant cost while Confidant was variable, and Confidant was extremely possible to remove with your own cards (Smallpox and Rusalka). As such, including Bitterblossom changes the deck somewhat, but it gives the deck an extremely powerful card with which to combat the current suite of powerful Standard decks.

Before starting the construction of this deck, I want to address a card that many, seeing its immense synergy with Smallpox and discard in general, splashed for: Tarmogoyf. This card is obviously incredibly powerful, and with the new Eventide BG filter land is easier than ever to include. While I'm going to consider a mono-black version of the deck at first, it seems almost inevitable that this card will get included.

To begin actually crafting a decklist, let's start with what I believe is the pure core of the deck:

4 Bitterblossom
4 Raven's Crime
4 The Rack
4 Smallpox

This is the essential engine of the deck. Raven's Crime and Smallpox help empty hands and cripple boards, while Bitterblossom and The Rack do the job of actually killing the opponent.

Beyond these cards, we need creatures to fill out the curv and some more spells -- most likely more discard or removal.

The first card I believe is an auto-include here is Thoughtseize. This card not only fits the discard theme of the deck (subsequently increasing the power of the other discard spells, as well as The Rack) but also solves a huge number of potential problems for this deck -- most importantly, other Bitterblossoms and Chameleon Colossus. MBR has no good answers to these cards once they are in play, so including Thoughtseize gives the deck a cheap, effective solution.

For the same reasons, I believe Stupor is an incredibly powerful card for this deck, in addition to being an actual two-for-one. While it will probably not ever hit a Bitterblossom, it can quite possibly hit Colossus, which is actually the bigger problem for this deck.

Since we're adding a whopping seven discard spells, four of which cost one, it seems reasonable to reduce the count of Raven's Crime by one. Unlike Cry of Contrition, drawing multiples is not terribly exciting, so this shouldn't reduce the card's effectiveness at all.

4 Bitterblossom

4 The Rack

4 Smallpox
4 Thoughtseize
3 Raven's Crime
3 Stupor

This should be the last of exclusive discard spells to be included, as there are still no actual creatures in this deck, and room for removal is needed as well.

Let's handle both problems at once. I think that one of the more exciting sub-engines that could be included here is Scarblade Elite + Nameless Inversion. The Elite fills nicely the role of Withered Wretch -- which was mostly just a 2/2 for two -- and Nameless Inversion is a versatile, unbounded removal spell (unlike Terror, the other big removal consideration) and gives the Elite four more cards to activate itself with. This package adds both a good creature and a strong package of removal to the deck. Note that these eight Elf cards will significantly facilitate a green splash for Tarmogoyf, as it gives Gilt-Leaf Palace a decent chance of coming into play untapped.

If we're adding this Assassin sub-theme, it seems perfectly logical to include Garza's Assassin. This card was responsible for a large number of wins at the South Florida Regionals and gives the Elites more Assassins to devour.

Another playable Assassin is, of course, Murderous Redcap. Redcap has a lot of synergy with the deck as it stands now -- Persist is pretty exciting with Smallpox, after all -- so he's certainly worth consideration, but isn't quite the auto-include that the rest of the assassins are.

4 Scarblade Elite
3 Garza's Assassin

4 Bitterblossom

4 The Rack

4 Thoughtseize
4 Nameless Inversion
3 Raven's Crime
3 Stupor

The next cog of the deck to address is the "Rats". In my Regionals list this was taken care of by actual Ravenous Rats, which fit nicely into the deck, being an instant one-for-one and providing a great creature to use with Smallpox or Cry of Contrition.

While Rav Rats is still as good as ever for the purposes of discard and sacrificial lamb, its body has become stunningly irrelevant with the presence of higher-quality early drops, Chameleon Colossus (so it isn't even a dependable chump-blocker), and most of all Bitterblossom.

Eventide presents an interesting alternative in Hag Hedge-Mage, which provides a significantly better body at a higher cost. The issue, of course, is the two-swamp requirement on the Hag's ability. This won't be an issue if the deck remains monoblack, but a splash for Tarmogoyf will be stretching it.

The final option is one that was used in a lot of lists similar to mine at 2007 Regionals: Augur of Skulls. This guy is really just much better than Ravenous Rats, having both a relevant ability and a greater discard power. With the Rats' body nearing total irrelevance in this metagame, the fact that Augur can be killed before his discard goes off is less important. Trading Augur for a removal spell is virtually the same as casting Ravenous Rats anyway, except you probably hit a more relevant card!

4 Scarblade Elite
4 Augur of Skulls
3 Garza's Assassin

4 Bitterblossom

4 The Rack

4 Thoughtseize
4 Nameless Inversion
3 Raven's Crime
3 Stupor

The last slots in the deck should probably be devoted to another creature (as the creature count is still quite low) and it should probably shore up some of the current configuration's weaknesses.

Let's quickly list out this incomplete decklist's weaknesses:

• Great deal of self-imposed life loss (Bitterblossom + Thoughtseize)
• No large creatures
• Issues removing large Black creatures and pro-black creatures (Chameleon Colossus in particular)

While the addition of a card like Tendrils of Corruption coupld offset some of the life loss, the deck needs a good creature to help combat opposing creatures immune to the deck's removal, as well as increase its conventional clock.

Some of the aspects we're looking for in these last few creatures are: efficient power/toughness to cost ratio, evasion, low cost, castability in monoblack. Some kind of lifegain ability would be highly prized as well.

Dusk Urchins
Creakwood Liege
Stillmoon Cavalier
Dauthi Slayer
Stromgald Crusader
Hypnotic Specter
Graveborn Muse
Magus of the Abyss

Of these, the most exciting to me are Dusk Urchins and Creakwood Liege.

Dusk Urchins is a decently sized creature that is highly expendable, and can keep up the card flow. Getting two counters on Urchins and casting Smallpox seems like good times.

Creakwood Liege, on the other hand, shores up a ton of holes in the deck. It makes Bitterblossom more effective and able to combat tokens enhanced by Scion of Oona, it makes all the deck's pretty marginally-sized creatures more impressive (especially amusing with Dusk Urchins) and, of course, produces an army of tokens itself, gaining some card advantage versus decks where one-for-one removal might not be efficient enough. However, it does cost four, which will be a bit much with the deck's low land count and propensity to lose lands to Smallpox and Raven's Crime.

Stillmoon Cavalier seems pretty strong versus Faeries, as it is both unblockable by Bitterblossom tokens and immune to their removal spells, and can even survive combat with Mistbind Clique on both offense and defense.

My initial round of testing will be with this:


4 Scarblade Elite
4 Augur of Skulls
4 Dusk Urchins
2 Garza's Assassin
2 Creakwood Liege

4 Bitterblossom

4 The Rack

4 Thoughtseize
4 Nameless Inversion
3 Raven's Crime
3 Stupor

4 Mutavault
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
16 Swamp

A note about the mana. My instinct is that having all four Mutavaults could seriously hinder the deck's ability to cast spells. However, the Urborgs should help with that, and I think the deck's gameplan is greatly enhanced by Mutavault. The other problem is the low land-count, but only two spells in the deck cost over three mana, and most cost two or less. There's a good chance this manabase is way too greedy, but testing will reveal the truth of that.

Unfortunately, this deck will only be relevant for a short period of time. I'm going to really try and make this deck competitive -- I love the concept and the way this deck plays -- but in all likelihood it will not reach a finely-tuned state before it becomes completely irrelevant. Hopefully I'll be able to mop up some FNMs and such with it, though.

The sideboard is something that will be borne out of testing as well, but I think my initial skeleton will involve some number of Damnation, Puppeteer Clique, Cruel Edict, Extirpate/Faerie Macabre, Soul Snuffers, and Stillmoon Cavalier. There is also the possibility of splashing Green in the deck, but I'd rather keep it mono-black for the time being until I can figure out if the core of the deck is still competitive or not.

Tomorrow is GP: Madrid. It looks to be a huge event, and honestly I'm quite nervous about it. Spending a month in Spain with little to do other than prepare for this event has built it up greatly in my mind. While I don't particularly expect to Day 2 or finish well, I do have strong hopes for it, and I believe I've done everything I can to set myself up for it if the right Sealed Deck shows up.

Good luck to everyone in their Eventide release events over the weekend, should you attend. I'll be back with a tournament report for the GP, regardless of my level of success.

~Andres

Eventide Pre-re #2.

I headed back to MTG Metropolis yesterday for another Pre-re. It was more in the vein of a Release Event, but the set still isn't out, so...it was a bit strange. Only about 25 people showed up, probably because there were multiple other small Pre-res in other stores around Madrid, in addition to a Regionals in Guadalajara on the same day.

My sealed pool (Note: the cards are in Spanish, so alphabetization isn't happening)

1 Barrenton Medic
1 Rune-Cervin Rider
1 Goldenglow Moth
1 Safehold Sentry
1 Barrenton Medic
1 Recumbent Bliss
1 Kithkin Zealot
1 Suture Spirit

1 Nightsky Mimic
1 Beckon Apparition

2 Oona's Grace
1 Faerie Swarm
1 Merrow Levitator
1 Cerulean Wisps
1 Ghastly Discovery
1 Sinking Feeling
1 Thought Reflection
1 Banishing Knack
1 Whimwader

1 Gravelgill Duo
1 Oona's Gatewarden
1 Wanderbrine Rootcutters
1 Dream Salvage

1 Noggle Bandit
1 Riverfall Mimic
1 Stream Hopper

1 Ashling the Extinguisher
1 Ashenmoor Cohort
1 Blowfly Infestation
1 Puppeteer Clique
1 Soul Reap
1 Sickle Ripper
1 Corrupt
1 Torture
1 Soul Snuffers
1 Smoldering Butcher
1 Smolder Initiate
1 Crumbling Ashes
1 Syphon Life

1 Sootwalkers
1 Emberstrike Duo
1 Fists of the Demigod
1 Traitor's Roar

1 Desecrator Hag
1 Rendclaw Trow
1 Odious Trow
1 Hag Hedge-Mage

1 Outrage Shaman
1 Cinder Pyromancer
1 Heartlash Cinder
1 Puncture Bolt
1 Flame Jab
1 Ember Gale

1 Giantbaiting
1 Wort, the Raidmother
1 Tattermunge Duo
1 Tattermunge Maniac

1 Hearthfire Hobgoblin
1 Scourge of the Nobilis
1 Battlegate Mimic
1 Double Cleave
1 Fire at Will

2 Nettle Sentinel
1 Aerie Ouphes
1 Monstrify
1 Juvenile Gloomwidow
1 Viridescent Wisps
1 Gloomwidow's Feast
1 Howl of the Night Pack
1 Raking Canopy
1 Tilling Treefolk
1 Crabapple Cohort

1 Old Ghastbark
1 Safehold Duo
1 Mercy Killing

1 Cold-Eyed Selkie
1 Wistful Selkie
1 Slippery Bogle
1 Invert the Skies

1 Tatterkite
1 Elsewhere Flask
1 Wingrattle Scarecrow
1 Fang Skulkin
1 Ward of Bones
3 Jawbone Skulkin (YES!)
1 Thornwatch Scarecrow

1 Leechridden Swamp


------------------------------

-----------------------

--------------


Not very exciting.

Unlike most of the Prerelease sealed pools I've seen so far, this one's pretty straightforward. Black is a guarantee, and it's only really viable to pair it with Red or Green. Red is definitely shallow, but more powerful, and there were enough Black cards where the two fit well together.

1 Fang Skulkin
1 Sickle Ripper

1 Tatterkite
1 Tattermunge Duo
1 Rendclaw Trow
1 Hag Hedge-Mage
1 Noggle Bandit

1 Ashling the Extinguisher
1 Desecrator Hag
1 Sootwalkers
1 Soul Snuffers
1 Wanderbrine Rootcutters

1 Outrage Shaman
1 Puppeteer Clique

1 Wort, the Raidmother

1 Flame Jab
1 Torture
1 Soul Reap
1 Elsewhere Flask
1 Puncture Bolt
1 Fire at Will
1 Syphon Life
1 Corrupt

8 Swamp
8 Mountain
1 Leechridden Swamp

A pretty simple build. The only questionable inclusion is Fire at Will with only eight Mountain, but the deck was already on the weak side so I figured I needed to take a few risks to "get there".

As it turns out, the quality of my deck was largely irrelevant. Everyone I played against was so absurdly bad that I defeated decks of mind-boggling quality with my pile. In the deciding game of the fourth round (at 3-0), my opponent simply decided life wasn't worth living anymore and make an "alpha strike" that was neither alpha, as I didn't die, nor a strike, as I ended up taking no damage. On the other hand, he did die on the swingback, so perhaps it did have some qualities of an alpha strike :P

I lost the last round to a lack of land and came in 4-1. This was only good enough for 4th place, as my tiebreakers were abysmal (unsurprisingly) but I did get the same prize as the Top 3 -- an astounding SEVEN packs.

Overall, not an exciting event, but worthwhile. It was nice to feel like I was just completely outplaying people, as this Sealed Deck is pretty indicative of the average power of what I'm handed, and I'll probably need the playskill factor to overcome this handicap at GP Madrid.

I did make a few observations on specific cards.

• Syphon Life is absolutely amazing in Sealed, and with some planning ahead I was able to take games down out of nowhere. I've never happier about holding five lands in my hand.
• Fire at Will is just underwhelming and astonishingly easy to play around.
• Noggle Bandit is basically unstoppable.
• 2/1s really, really suck in this format.
• Rendclaw Trow has the amazing ability to hold back multiple creatures at a time when your opponent is terrible.
• Ashling is average.
• Soul Snuffers is awesome, and especially awesome when your opponent has more creatures than you and has just played Godhead of Awe.
• Outrage Shaman is ridiculous.
• Flame Jab, like Syphon Life, is so much more effective in use than it is in theory -- and it's not bad at all in theory.
• Desecrator Hag is clearly good but her body is just too small and her ability is hard to work around sometimes. It's no Gravedigger.

Next Time: An introduction to the MagicHouse Cube, and later, an analysis of the White cards in said Cube.

~Andres