I feel a little bored of the subject of women in magic, at some point it is hard to believe that this is still going on instead of accepting everyone as players. I hope that Melissa is a trend of women continuing to do well so I do not have to feel like a sexist for cheering for a player that I have had great games against and enjoy the stream of (Tom Martell) over somebody that I do not know.
Great Job as always Pete. Women have always been in M:TG it is true. In fact I was once fairly chatty with Dr Bush (mostly via #mtgwacky) and she was always incisive and insightful. She was by no means the only one with competitive skills: http://outofthebrokensky.com/?GAL=13&IMG=1
This picture alone shows 5 serious women players competing in the first (and only) Women's International. There were plenty of pro players there watching with critical interest.
I am not at all surprised Melissa did well, though I am a little surprised it is 2013 and we are still discussing gender roles in mtg. I expected (perhaps naively) to see little of the chauvinism I saw in the commentary over the weekend. "Oh she's gorgeous!", "She's only there because she's a woman!", etc. Some of the comments were quite a bit more ugly. I realize our game is over populated by horny male teenagers but it gets sad when those teens are actually in their 20s-30s.
In other news gatecrash has been unexpectedly fun. Go figure. My first impression was that we had a dud, but my delayed reaction is: wow some of these cards are great fun. Now if we can only wean the populace off of Boros Reckoner/Blasphemous Act so the latter can go back to being my secret weapon. :)
I've often wanted to write about women in the game of magic. Seems like you said everything I wanted to say. The evidence suggests that it's not a lack of women playing the game- it's the attitudes of the men saying inappropriate things. Even if you feel you just "raped" someone, it's probably better to keep that to yourself.
Also, I really enjoyed looking at all the decklists from standard this week. There are a few holes in the standard metagame that people may not have noticed yet. Primarily...Stuffy Doll is really good right now.
That's an interesting thought...I would have to shift a little bit towards token generation, though. In all the matches I played, I generally had only one or two creatures out.
Either that, or I could play Lifeline. I should probably play that in this build anyhow. :)
That's just what makes Dredge tick - it's all the stupid angles of attack it has, and the ability to tick off all the hate people run vs. it
Having Paradise means an opponent might have to blow a nihil spellbomb, crypt or trap at the wrong time or having something in the GY after such an occurrence. Dredge makes the choice of when to use these cards MUCH tougher with always active bloodghasts in the mix.
The ONLY downside to paradise is it practically locks Dredge into 1 mana answers, which is a small problem when misstep exists (and I know all about wispmare and chewer - the problem is half the time those cards are the wrong answer). Running Mine might let you stretch into other anti-hate. I don't think you'd ever be justified. If you are playing dredge, you are already cheaper than practically every deck in existence - including a lot of Standard ones.
Although I can see switching Gemstone mine for Undiscovered Paradise it significantly makes the deck worse imo and isn't nearly as tournament worthy. Being able to recur those Bloodghasts is such a huge part of dredge. Gemstone Mine can not fill that void in any capacity.
Oath isn't cheap. Agree 100%! Not sure What Zackaringo was thinking on that one.
@ DL! I live 30 minutes away from both you guys. Still think we should try and arrange a draft one night. Would be too fun!
You can run Gemstone Mine instead of Undiscovered Paradise to significantly lower the price of dredge. It's not quite as good as Undiscovered Paradise, but it's still a tourney deck with Mine's instead.
I've personally only seen 3 people running affinity: Kuriboh, thewoof2, and the_crisp_one. Despite it's success, it's never been a widely played deck. I think there will be quite a few "rogue" builds in this meta, a much higher percentage than in other QTs.
Also, Oath isn't a budget deck, no matter how you build it. Show and Tell is like 50 or 60 right now. Jace isn't cheap, neither is Thoughtseize. Pretty much whatever option you choose, the deck is expensive, no matter the price of Oath.
Hey, Cauldron of Souls. I like it! I'll have to add that. :)
As for the new client...after a good first week of using it, it's now crashing as often as- something that crashes a lot. I might do another article about the client, if it comes to the point where the endless bug reports I've sent to customer service amount to anything.
Cauldron of Souls! It's colorless, can target any number of creatures just by tapping, and if Horobi isn't out it can give your entire team persist. I really liked it in my version, which you can check out here: http://puremtgo.com/articles/conqueror-commander-vol-lx-horobi-deaths-wail Of course it's pretty old, but at least you can get some additional ideas. Nefashu was another goofy card that I really enjoyed. Crypt Ghast would probably go well in here also.
On an unrelated note, the new client looks god awful. I assume the multiplayer set up doesn't look any better. Sad times.
Sorry for posting another comment in a row, but I've been getting a few questions in other parts of the internet about the article, and I want to put the answer to them in a central location so that anyone reading the article can easily find the answer.
For example, this comment comes from reddit: "OMG, playing underdrafted colors is better draft strategy than playing overdarfted colors, who would have known!!!!1"
This is an overly reductive statement, but it touches on an important issue. How much of an impact does overdrafting have on win rates? The answer is not as much as most Magic players seem to think.
Let's just do some quick math:
One in four players is in Boros, or two per draft. There are 45 cards per player in a draft. Take 45 and multiply by 8, and you get 360 cards total. Take out 24 basic lands. That leaves us with 336 cards that form a given drafts card pool. Divide that by five (the number of guilds), and we get 67.2 cards per guild in any given draft. If you believe that overdrafting is causing Boros's low win rate, then what you are saying is that you cannot find 46 cards out of 67.2 that can make up a winning deck. In other words, you are telling me that about 1/3 cards in Boros is unplayable. If that is the case, then Boros is not the best guild.
That is the exact point I'm trying to make. If 25% is too much for a guild to handle, then that means the guild isn't good enough. One of my big complaints about Boros is that it is too highly susceptible to overdrafting, and it seems that that is exactly what the data is showing us. Two out of eight is not "overdrafting," and so the argument that overdrafting is what causes Boros's low win rate is just not validated.
Thanks a lot. I've actually got quite a few matches recorded right now, but with how bad my internet is right now, it would take approximately 120 hours to upload a single match. So at the moment I'm trying to work out a way to get these videos uploaded without waiting half a week. They are coming though, eventually.
Note: For the Turn Speed graphs, the first graph is labeled 1,2,3,4... etc. The second graph is labeled Two, Three, Four, Five, etc....
Because of this, the graphs are spiking at different "numbers." This was just because, for some reason I haven't figured out yet, Excel automatically labeled the first graph with numbers instead of the written out numbers. The graphs start at two, because I've never seen a limited game end on turn one. So the second graph is accurate, while the first should be adjusted so that each number is one higher.
I will try to remember to fix that when it does the same thing the next time I put these graphs together.
Zach Orts pointed out something really important to me the other day, when he was talking about the applicability of these articles, and I wanted to discuss that for a moment in the comments, since it doesn't really have anything to do with the main topic of the article.
My main worry is that people will take these articles and try to use them as a blueprint. They'll look at this, and try to use it to go into a draft with the intention of "forcing" a particular guild, merely because it has a high win percentage. A blueprint is used to build something to exact specifications; you don't deviate from the blueprint, and it is the entire focus of your project.
I think of these articles as more of like a map. I have spent some time surveying the surrounding area, and I've tried to create as accurate a map as possible of the things that I have seen. I tell you about everything I saw over the little ridge off to the east, and I let you know that where the river bends up in the north, you'll run into some pretty dangerous territory. From a military perspective, a map is incredibly important, since it will guide your strategy. However, you still need to use your eyes and look at where the enemies are at. Likewise, you should go into a draft with the idea of the different kind of directions that are possible, and then choose the best available option based on what you actually see in the pack.
Amazing article. Very surprised by the Dimir result. I've actually submitted the first of a "forcing dimir" miniseries where I explore the undervalued guild more fully and show how it can work realistically. Many of the points you touched on are correct.
Hi, I really like your pauper articles, the decks seem fun to play. It would be nice if you could record a few matches with the decks and put them on youtube. Keep it up :D
@Rex: Well, you were talking about Tribal Wars only. This article isn't specifically about Tribal Wars, it's about the constructed applications of the creatures in the set, divided into their tribes. You can go tribal in every format, and most importantly, you can go nontribal creature-heavy in every format.
Creature Type Database (and Tribal Commander database) updated. Thanks for the tip, Vantar. Although, it has nothing to do with Gatecrash per se, it's just something that happened to be decided now. :)
BTW, Tabak forgot to write down "Legendary" in his Lovisa text errata. I suppose she'll still have that supertype.
And saying that Human is essentially a supertype now gave me a wicked idea...
I feel a little bored of the subject of women in magic, at some point it is hard to believe that this is still going on instead of accepting everyone as players. I hope that Melissa is a trend of women continuing to do well so I do not have to feel like a sexist for cheering for a player that I have had great games against and enjoy the stream of (Tom Martell) over somebody that I do not know.
Totally agree about the terminology. Gamer culture desensitizes its members to certain terms which have an extremely negative impact outside of it.
Great Job as always Pete. Women have always been in M:TG it is true. In fact I was once fairly chatty with Dr Bush (mostly via #mtgwacky) and she was always incisive and insightful. She was by no means the only one with competitive skills:
http://outofthebrokensky.com/?GAL=13&IMG=1
This picture alone shows 5 serious women players competing in the first (and only) Women's International. There were plenty of pro players there watching with critical interest.
I am not at all surprised Melissa did well, though I am a little surprised it is 2013 and we are still discussing gender roles in mtg. I expected (perhaps naively) to see little of the chauvinism I saw in the commentary over the weekend. "Oh she's gorgeous!", "She's only there because she's a woman!", etc. Some of the comments were quite a bit more ugly. I realize our game is over populated by horny male teenagers but it gets sad when those teens are actually in their 20s-30s.
In other news gatecrash has been unexpectedly fun. Go figure. My first impression was that we had a dud, but my delayed reaction is: wow some of these cards are great fun. Now if we can only wean the populace off of Boros Reckoner/Blasphemous Act so the latter can go back to being my secret weapon. :)
I've often wanted to write about women in the game of magic. Seems like you said everything I wanted to say. The evidence suggests that it's not a lack of women playing the game- it's the attitudes of the men saying inappropriate things. Even if you feel you just "raped" someone, it's probably better to keep that to yourself.
Also, I really enjoyed looking at all the decklists from standard this week. There are a few holes in the standard metagame that people may not have noticed yet. Primarily...Stuffy Doll is really good right now.
I apparently misclicked on adding the picture. It is here:
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/13401_Ask-the-Judge--12-22-2006--Fe...
at the bottom of that article.
That's an interesting thought...I would have to shift a little bit towards token generation, though. In all the matches I played, I generally had only one or two creatures out.
Either that, or I could play Lifeline. I should probably play that in this build anyhow. :)
Kinda helps.
That's just what makes Dredge tick - it's all the stupid angles of attack it has, and the ability to tick off all the hate people run vs. it
Having Paradise means an opponent might have to blow a nihil spellbomb, crypt or trap at the wrong time or having something in the GY after such an occurrence. Dredge makes the choice of when to use these cards MUCH tougher with always active bloodghasts in the mix.
The ONLY downside to paradise is it practically locks Dredge into 1 mana answers, which is a small problem when misstep exists (and I know all about wispmare and chewer - the problem is half the time those cards are the wrong answer). Running Mine might let you stretch into other anti-hate. I don't think you'd ever be justified. If you are playing dredge, you are already cheaper than practically every deck in existence - including a lot of Standard ones.
I agree with you Bliven. It is RUG + Rav Trap. For the record we are calling Alberto's deck RUG hence forth.
Andy
3+1=4
Why is the Delver list called 4c delver? It's just RUG with ravenous trap in the board.
Although I can see switching Gemstone mine for Undiscovered Paradise it significantly makes the deck worse imo and isn't nearly as tournament worthy. Being able to recur those Bloodghasts is such a huge part of dredge. Gemstone Mine can not fill that void in any capacity.
Oath isn't cheap. Agree 100%! Not sure What Zackaringo was thinking on that one.
@ DL! I live 30 minutes away from both you guys. Still think we should try and arrange a draft one night. Would be too fun!
Andy
You can run Gemstone Mine instead of Undiscovered Paradise to significantly lower the price of dredge. It's not quite as good as Undiscovered Paradise, but it's still a tourney deck with Mine's instead.
I've personally only seen 3 people running affinity: Kuriboh, thewoof2, and the_crisp_one. Despite it's success, it's never been a widely played deck. I think there will be quite a few "rogue" builds in this meta, a much higher percentage than in other QTs.
Also, Oath isn't a budget deck, no matter how you build it. Show and Tell is like 50 or 60 right now. Jace isn't cheap, neither is Thoughtseize. Pretty much whatever option you choose, the deck is expensive, no matter the price of Oath.
Hey, Cauldron of Souls. I like it! I'll have to add that. :)
As for the new client...after a good first week of using it, it's now crashing as often as- something that crashes a lot. I might do another article about the client, if it comes to the point where the endless bug reports I've sent to customer service amount to anything.
Cauldron of Souls! It's colorless, can target any number of creatures just by tapping, and if Horobi isn't out it can give your entire team persist. I really liked it in my version, which you can check out here: http://puremtgo.com/articles/conqueror-commander-vol-lx-horobi-deaths-wail Of course it's pretty old, but at least you can get some additional ideas. Nefashu was another goofy card that I really enjoyed. Crypt Ghast would probably go well in here also.
On an unrelated note, the new client looks god awful. I assume the multiplayer set up doesn't look any better. Sad times.
I remember when Graeme and I found out we lived in the same town... that was a "what are the chances" moment!
At the time, there were probably only 60,000 in the town (so I guess not that small).
Sorry for posting another comment in a row, but I've been getting a few questions in other parts of the internet about the article, and I want to put the answer to them in a central location so that anyone reading the article can easily find the answer.
For example, this comment comes from reddit: "OMG, playing underdrafted colors is better draft strategy than playing overdarfted colors, who would have known!!!!1"
This is an overly reductive statement, but it touches on an important issue. How much of an impact does overdrafting have on win rates? The answer is not as much as most Magic players seem to think.
Let's just do some quick math:
One in four players is in Boros, or two per draft. There are 45 cards per player in a draft. Take 45 and multiply by 8, and you get 360 cards total. Take out 24 basic lands. That leaves us with 336 cards that form a given drafts card pool. Divide that by five (the number of guilds), and we get 67.2 cards per guild in any given draft. If you believe that overdrafting is causing Boros's low win rate, then what you are saying is that you cannot find 46 cards out of 67.2 that can make up a winning deck. In other words, you are telling me that about 1/3 cards in Boros is unplayable. If that is the case, then Boros is not the best guild.
That is the exact point I'm trying to make. If 25% is too much for a guild to handle, then that means the guild isn't good enough. One of my big complaints about Boros is that it is too highly susceptible to overdrafting, and it seems that that is exactly what the data is showing us. Two out of eight is not "overdrafting," and so the argument that overdrafting is what causes Boros's low win rate is just not validated.
If you want to check out the reddit thread, here is the link: http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/18wvtd/ars_arcanum_gatecrash_d...
Thanks a lot. I've actually got quite a few matches recorded right now, but with how bad my internet is right now, it would take approximately 120 hours to upload a single match. So at the moment I'm trying to work out a way to get these videos uploaded without waiting half a week. They are coming though, eventually.
Note: For the Turn Speed graphs, the first graph is labeled 1,2,3,4... etc. The second graph is labeled Two, Three, Four, Five, etc....
Because of this, the graphs are spiking at different "numbers." This was just because, for some reason I haven't figured out yet, Excel automatically labeled the first graph with numbers instead of the written out numbers. The graphs start at two, because I've never seen a limited game end on turn one. So the second graph is accurate, while the first should be adjusted so that each number is one higher.
I will try to remember to fix that when it does the same thing the next time I put these graphs together.
Zach Orts pointed out something really important to me the other day, when he was talking about the applicability of these articles, and I wanted to discuss that for a moment in the comments, since it doesn't really have anything to do with the main topic of the article.
My main worry is that people will take these articles and try to use them as a blueprint. They'll look at this, and try to use it to go into a draft with the intention of "forcing" a particular guild, merely because it has a high win percentage. A blueprint is used to build something to exact specifications; you don't deviate from the blueprint, and it is the entire focus of your project.
I think of these articles as more of like a map. I have spent some time surveying the surrounding area, and I've tried to create as accurate a map as possible of the things that I have seen. I tell you about everything I saw over the little ridge off to the east, and I let you know that where the river bends up in the north, you'll run into some pretty dangerous territory. From a military perspective, a map is incredibly important, since it will guide your strategy. However, you still need to use your eyes and look at where the enemies are at. Likewise, you should go into a draft with the idea of the different kind of directions that are possible, and then choose the best available option based on what you actually see in the pack.
Hope that helps the readers!
Amazing article. Very surprised by the Dimir result. I've actually submitted the first of a "forcing dimir" miniseries where I explore the undervalued guild more fully and show how it can work realistically. Many of the points you touched on are correct.
Hi, I really like your pauper articles, the decks seem fun to play. It would be nice if you could record a few matches with the decks and put them on youtube. Keep it up :D
@Rex: Well, you were talking about Tribal Wars only. This article isn't specifically about Tribal Wars, it's about the constructed applications of the creatures in the set, divided into their tribes. You can go tribal in every format, and most importantly, you can go nontribal creature-heavy in every format.
Creature Type Database (and Tribal Commander database) updated. Thanks for the tip, Vantar. Although, it has nothing to do with Gatecrash per se, it's just something that happened to be decided now. :)
BTW, Tabak forgot to write down "Legendary" in his Lovisa text errata. I suppose she'll still have that supertype.
And saying that Human is essentially a supertype now gave me a wicked idea...
The change was at the end of January.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/231d