Fighting Clout Part 2: If You Can't Beat 'Em... |
|
After kicking around a lot of deck ideas based on the strategies I discussed in my last article and never fairing all that well I decided to join the dark side. I always had a plan against DDW, but I could never make it work consistently. Maybe I would have some cheap removal to hold them off early, some midrange two-for-ones to get ahead as the game went on, and a couple engines to take over the late game. But if I drew these cards in the wrong order, or stumbled on land, or tapped out at the wrong moment, it was all too easy to get blown out. Combine that with the fact that in a format with no good life gain it is incredibly easy to get burned out, even when you have total control of the board, and it is just really hard to get a good percentage against DDW. So I switched my attention to just trying to build the best version of DDW I could. Here's the list I used to win SPDC 7.02: Creatures SIDEBOARD Specific Card Choices: 4 Dragon Fodder - I didn't think much of this card when I saw it in the Shards spoiler, reading it as a strictly worse Mogg War Marshal, a card I never liked that much in the first place. But Kehmesis insisted that Fodder deserves a spot in the deck and he was right (Boin also called it his MVP in his MPDC-winning deck). First of all, it's not strictly worse than War Marshal, because you can attack with both guys without paying the echo. But more importantly, it's perfectly situated in the current metagame. The main way people seem to have settled on of fighting DDW is instant-speed spot removal, which is really awkward against Dragon Fodder. They never want to waste two spells on tokens, so you just get in there for two a turn and pretty soon they are in burn range. It's usually correct to play Dragon Fodder before your other guys, especially if they have mana up, to stop them from using their removal efficiently. The fact that it enables Gianbaiting is just gravy. Seriously, you have to play this card to understand how good it is, but it absolutely deserves to be a 4-of in this deck. After Clout it's probably the card I most want to see in my opening hand. 3 Flame Jab - I had three mostly to fight other red decks, which didn't really show up. Still, it's never really bad, because against aggro they will have guys you can kill, and against control the game will go long enough that you'll have lots of land to burn. 4 Shock / 1 Tarfire / 2 Lash Out - The 5/2 split on Shocks and Lash Out is kind of weird (note that Shock is better in this deck than Tarfire, because it doesn't trigger Bog-strider Ash). Now that Treefolk seems to be on the rise and has some 3-toughness guys, I might opt for one or two more Lash Outs. On the other hand, Shock is pretty much the best card you can have in the mirror and is solid against just about everything. I wouldn't really consider Shard Volley unless I had already filled up on 8 Shocks. You usually use your burn to clear out creatures and Shard Volley is terrible for that. It's only good when it kills them. 4 Clout of the Dominus - Boin had success relegating Clout and the hybrid creatures to the board. I was pretty happy I had it main. A lot more people thought they were prepared for it than were actually prepared for it, if you know what I mean. Disperse, Oblivion Ring, and even Wickerbough Elder are all cards that I am quite happy to see on the other side of the table. Yeah, they can answer a Clout, but not without getting bashed in the face enough times to usually lose the game. Now that people are so conscious of Clout you have to be a little trickier about sticking it, but you usually get a good window, even when they're trying to stop you. Just don't walk it out there when they're obviously sitting on removal. Don't be fooled, Clout is still amazing. 22 Mountain - In testing pretty much the only games I lost came when I was manascrewed. It's pretty painful sitting on multiple Noggle Bandits and Acolytes with two Mountains. I went up to 22 on the theory that if I could play my spells I would usually win. The three Flame Jabs help mitigate the risk of flood as well. I'd say 21 is reasonable, but I've seen people running 18 or 19 lands with Shard Volleys and even more 3-drops than I had, and that's just asking for trouble. Sideboard 4 Giantbaiting - These were amazing all night. A lot of decks just sit back on some weenie blockers, trying to hold off your Dragon Fodder tokens, and if that's their plan Giantbaiting usually blows them out. Note that they can't fight the conspire effectively with countermagic. It's not in the maindeck because it's less good against decks with lots of removal, where you won't be able to conspire it, and it's a very swingy card in general - sometimes it's absolutely amazing and sometimes it doesn't really do anything. Still, I'd say it deserves maindeck consideration...maybe not the full set, but at least a luck one-of. 4 Magma Spray - These are for Safehold Elites (a card that can really frustrate you otherwise) and the mirror. It can be really nice to have another one-mana removal option. 4 Vithian Stinger - I had these for the mirror and and Faeries, but I never got to use them. I really love this card since even if they kill it immediately you still get to use it once. But maybe if the trend toward green fatties continues this guy isn't necessary. 3 Ember Gale - My tech against Deft Duelist and Aggro Faeries, though again I never got to use it. The image of blowing away three Duelists and swinging in for the win is still pretty tasty. Overall I think this list is pretty tight. The only card in the maindeck that arguably underperformed was Inner-Flame Acolyte. He trades for a Shock or the front end of a Safehold Elite a little too often right now. Maybe Tattermunge Duo would be an upgrade in this slot. It's great against red and has the potential to bash through even the fattest treefolk. In the board, Ember Gale might not be necessary if not many people are playing Duelists or Bogles and the Faeries tend towards the control versions with less 1-toughness guys. I could have used another anti-treefolk option. Maybe Intimidator Initiate? On Standard Of course anything can happen in any given match (or tournament), but SPDC reinforced my belief that DDW is the best deck and is pretty resilient even against strategies aimed specifically at it. Unfortunately, I don't think it's that fun of a deck to play. For one thing, it's fairly luck-dependent. Sometimes you stick a Clout and just win. Other times you don't draw the Clout and just get overwhelmed by superior cards (Stream Hopper and Noggle Bandit are pretty terrible when they're not suited up). I agree that the Time Spiral standard metagame had shifted too far in favor of control. The problem now isn't that it's more aggressive, but that the aggro matchups are too luck-dependent (Clout; three-color manabases) and non-interactive (shroud). I'm hoping Conflux will give us something to shake things up. In the meantime though I don't expect DDW to dominate the metagame. Not because it's not strong (it is), but because that's not how PDCers roll. Most PDC players don't play to win, or at least not only to win, and love to bring their fun pet decks to the table. Also, paupers are an iconoclastic bunch - in general they value individuality and new ideas. For much of the community, a deck's previous successes are actually an argument against playing it. So I think we'll have a situation where everyone knows DDW is good, but many people decide not to play it for reasons of their own. It's not a bad situation, though it does mean that anyone who feels like it can pick up DDW and probably have an edge on the field. If only Fleshbag Marauder had been a common, like it was originally spoiled... Procumbo in the forums 11 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
12:22 PM, 12 November 2008
(also I want to beat you to death)
12:19 PM, 12 November 2008
(nor does it mean it is the best deck)
12:18 PM, 12 November 2008
I wish you would keep playing it. Just because you won one tournament with it doesn't mean you will win every one.
10:45 AM, 11 November 2008
I hope you understand the spirit of jest in which that imperative was written. (I know sarcasm et. al. don't translate on the Internet...)
However, I would like to strongly encourage you NOT to stop writing articles. I think these deck "how-to" articles are great to read and very helpful, especially to newer players.
Thanks again!
9:58 AM, 11 November 2008
"I likely will. I kind of wanted to make a point about how good it is, but now maybe I'll move on to something else."
I think it was with you I had a conversation about how boring DDW is- it just does its thing. That and the challenge of making something else that can beat it is what I think motivates some people.
"Indeed, the only DDW player, Bodeddie, took second with the exact 75-card list from this article. (By the way, I don't consider that a breach of etiquette in any way.)"
Totally. Even if no one brings the best deck, it's still the standard by which the others get judged (at least informally). Netdeck all you want. It's the best way when starting (imho), especially with such an accessible format like Pauper.
9:52 AM, 11 November 2008
"Thanks for a great read, Nate. Now stop playing DDW."
I likely will. I kind of wanted to make a point about how good it is, but now maybe I'll move on to something else. If this week's MPDC is any occasion, the community seems to have arrived at a kind of gentleman's agreement not to play DDW.
In the article I predicted that "anyone who feels like it can pick up DDW and probably have an edge on the field." Indeed, the only DDW player, Bodeddie, took second with the exact 75-card list from this article. (By the way, I don't consider that a breach of etiquette in any way.)
The larger Magic community kind of had the debate about borrowing decklists a long time ago. In the very early days of Magic, the internet was not as pervasive as it is today, and everyone basically showed up at tournaments with their own decks without any concern for "the metagame." Once lists started being posted online, people who picked up winning lists were sometimes stigmatized as "net-deckers." But now, of course, that stigma is long gone. Once a deck is public knowledge it is fair game to be copied, tested against, modified, whatever. Of course, there's no reason PDC has to go the same route.
Personally, I enjoy trying to design decks that are competitive. In writing we say that restrictions breed creativity. For example, if you are going to write a sonnet you will follow a number of rules - 14 lines, iambic pentameter, etc. But working with and around these rules helps many people access their creative side. In Magic, I find that designing decks to be competitive is a restriction that breeds creativity. It is much harder to choose the last two cards of a competitive deck than to throw together a 75-card list from scratch that has no legitimate shot against the field. Crafting a deck that can win is what I happen to find interesting.
5:30 AM, 9 November 2008
I disagree with Poly's comment that playing a deck for originality's sake has anything to do with "metagame development". In fact, many would argue that the reflex of many PDCers to play suboptimal decks for non-competitive reasons actually hampers the development of what is usually understood by a metagame.
Someone wants to be innovative for innovation's sake? Be my guest. But let's not delude ourselves and call it "metagame development".
4:55 PM, 7 November 2008
Boin, you have interpreted my comments in ways that I didn't intend, which makes me think I did a poor job explaining them.
The concept of "pride" or "vanity" I was talking about is more about personal accomplishment and visibility in the community. There is no other way to explain the appeal of the trophy banners. I had originally created them merely as tags of where the metagame was and had been, but they became badges of success and skill, at least to some segments of the community, and served an important part of the package of winning an event.
Likewise with the medal system. It was originally designed merely to map the progress of the metagame in follow-up reports, but with the record-keeping powers of Gatherling, medal counts took on an entirely new role.
I surely can't argue that every player finds value in these graphic representations of success, but I think more Paupers do than even are willing to admit it.
Also, there are certain Paupers who are known and respected more for their deckbuilding prowess than for their playskill or their leadership role in the community. Two such players I can think of off the top of my head, at least for the time being, are khirareq and White_Djinn. Both of them have a "brand name" -- that is, people refer to certain decks as "by the Scientist" or "a Djinn deck." Even those who take these decks on to victory refer to their original creator in their victory write-ups (hurriboy does frequently on behalf of khirareq, and kehmesis recently gave LulThyme deckbuilding credit for Standard's UB Faeries).
Many people, indeed, do seem to be averse to playing the winning decks. But not all of them are. However, there is almost a universal impulse in the PDC community to give the deck's originator a nod, rather than merely changing 4 or 8 cards and trying to claim credit for renewing the archetype. This impulse to give homage to a deck's source is showing respect for the pride/vanity of the person who designed or popularized the deck and acting with honor as a new steward or "backer" of the deck.
I think the lack of reprehensible behavior in such an open and inclusive community is quite astonishing. There is much in the world and in human nature that gives me pause, but the PDC community seems to be a showcase of the very best in mankind's potential for "good sportsmanship."
4:50 PM, 7 November 2008
I've snagged a few lists other people have used for the following reasons:
-see how it works (5 minute bad rock blew me away and I gave it a few whirls- it's a type of deck I'd never played before)
-make it better (I love trying to figure out what cards might be better off as something else, even thought I often clunk it up)
-to win (I do play to win, so sometimes I need something to work with when I can't find my own way)
4:18 PM, 7 November 2008
"Another amazing aspect of the PDC community is how much a part is played -- admittedly or not -- by pride, honor, perhaps even vanity. This impulse is shared so instinctively by Paupers that we have had unbelieveably few instances of people "ripping off" each other's deck ideas."
Thats a good point Polyjak, There is almost an aversion in PDC to playing other peoples winning decklists. This has many strange effects on the metagame. For example no matter how good a deck gets no more than 1/3 of people play it. Also many PDCers play decks that are far worse than the tier one decks just because they don't to use another persons idea, something that to me seems unthinkable, I play whatever deck will give me the best chance of winning more or less no matter what.
Its interesting that you mention pride or vanity keeps people from stealing decks because that is exactly why I do steal them. I want to win every tournament I play in (to show how good I am), and that impulse is what makes me steal decks, the same reasons other people don't take winnign decklists.
3:40 PM, 7 November 2008
You raise a fascinating point about the value the PDC community places on innovation and metagame development. At least, I certainly push both of those at the expense of the desire to win at any cost. As one of PDC's more vocal members, perhaps I help push the pendulum too far in that direction. I have never really given it too much thought, until today.
The tools of the community, too, help push the pendulum in that direction. Gatherling is a database full of decklists -- and we want as many flavors in there as we can get. Our metagame reports and trophies give incentive for players to try and innovate. If our events had bigger prizes, entry fees, or preregistration decklist check-ins, among other features, the tone of the community might be very different.
The post by LulThyme and others bemoaning the current state of T8/T4 decklist posting highlights this issue, as well. There are two primary reasons for requiring players to post their decklists. The first is to "grow the metagame" or the format. This is the reason I have always gravitated toward. WoCo and I, among others, were both very fascinated by the diversity of metagames and the data therein, and that impulse drove the design and implementation of Gatherling. Of course, we also mistakenly assumed that such motivation was shared by all Paupers.
We failed to take the other type into consideration -- those for whom the decklist posting stipulation is merely a measure to prevent cheating. In fact, I believe, it is actually against the best interests of this type of player to post decklists UNLESS required to do so because it "spills the beans" (or, I suppose, the "tech") and blunts any competitive edge.
Now, these are both extreme examples, and I think the majority of Paupers have a healthy dose of both of these extremes in their psychographic profiles. Another amazing aspect of the PDC community is how much a part is played -- admittedly or not -- by pride, honor, perhaps even vanity. This impulse is shared so instinctively by Paupers that we have had unbelieveably few instances of people "ripping off" each other's deck ideas. There is a spirit of collaboration and "giving credit where it's due" that I imagine is uncommon in larger tournament circles. This, again, shows a triumph of the spirit of innovation over the drive to win.
The character of PDC is a fascinating topic to me, perhaps because I spend so much of my free time mingling with the community. You can't deny that there's more than just the game of Magic that brings us together and keeps us here. Much has been written about it, and I'm sure the discussion won't stop anytime soon.
Thanks for a great read, Nate. Now stop playing DDW.