This thread is for the discussion of Meyou's latest article, Off Topic: Durdling Your Turn Away. Due to technical issues the thread that is normally created when an article is published didn't occur, so I have created this thread to allow you to talk about it. As always, please keep your comments on topic.
A lot of this article is misusing the term "durdle". Drawing cards, or tutoring is in no way durdling around, it's setting up your combo or win condition for the turn after.. I'm really confused because the author goes from disliking durdling to saying it's good and not really leaving any particular impression pro or con in doing this. Personally I love expensive card draws and tutors. I don't think grisly salvage is a great card until I look at the deck playing it as a four-of. "Would you still play the card if it said tutor and skip your turn?" -- This depends on what I CAN tutor for. If this card will win me the game, then yes, I'll take a chance to use one turn to win next turn.
Tutor and a lot of combo decks are durdlish. When playing those decks, you are typically not interacting with an opponent or their board. Travis Woo lately has made a deck surrounding Summoner's Egg that intends to set up some huge fatties. The problem is you spend many turns doing a whole lot of nothing while the opponent smacks you around with creatures. The deck falls about against any discard as they pick apart your hand.
I'm not saying durdle is inherently bad. I do think it is easy fall into the trap of thinking you are doing something to progress your game forward when you are not. I think though if you skip a turn tutoring or setting up something, it better be pretty powerful. Otherwise, decks like Jund are just going to have a field day with your deck and thank you for an easy win.
It is something to be conscious of... It isn't necessarily bad. It can be when people spin their wheels to make a mediocre play. Whenever you aren't interacting with an opponent, you are giving them a free turn. It is like telling the player that is piloting splinter twin "hey, go ahead with your combo. I'm not going to be interacting with you so have at it. Maybe I will combo off before you. Otherwise. Good game."
Super circumstantial evidence in order to make you question an entire form of play. I'll take durdling in Legacy ANT over non-durdling whatever counts as aggro in Legacy these days any day of the week. If you're unable to decide which cantrips/tutor/card draw you should be playing in light of the board state and what your opponent is doing then you're doing it wrong. Obviously, don't cast Ad Nauseum down to 3 life when you're playing against Delver or Red Sligh with Bolts in hand.
Slow play, however, is a thing that should be critiqued to no end. As a combo player, having to do math for multiple routes can slow you down each turn but you should know the possible routes and what they all yield if you're playing the deck well. If not, get paper and pen so you aren't wasting time doing the same math over and over again. Legacy and Modern are becoming formats where match draws are the norm and that is frustrating.
I can't stand Modern as a format, because all of the midrange decks are built to stall the game. The banned list slows combo down too much and there just aren't enough good aggro cards. The format needs better durdling (ie: Ponder/Preordain) in order to speed it up, making combos come together faster, or enabling Stoneforge Mystics to grab aggro equipment albeit durdling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Loved the article. I'm pretty sure blinking Eater of Days was doable before planeswalkers made it possible to do something while Chronatog just durdled.
I have some general classifications on taplands, a minor form of durdling in EDH:
"You pick" taplands (e.g., shocklands): Always use, at least in the case of shocklands.
Conditional taplands: These are more complicated. I tend to use the Rootbound Crag cycle, especially with my taplands, original EDH duals, etc. While the Seachrome Coast cycle is nice in other formats, I tend to avoid them in EDH, just because they're rarely there when I only have two or fewer lands. The Lorwyn tribal lands are a special case, only because of the existence of Murmuring Bosk. Other than that, I only use them if there's a tribal theme in my deck.
Tapland plus: While I tend to avoid the manlands in EDH, and the refuge cycle only gets a place in Oloro, I do like the scrylands.
Simple tapland: I might use, if it taps for three or more colors, and I'm playing a three- or more-colored deck. This includes vivids, of course. Of course, in Pauper, I will use gates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Lol. Like the post Soulbanana and good luck with that.
I agree it is easy to overload on tap lands. More and more, I am taking comes into play tapped lands out of my decks and replacing them with basics or better lands. Some amount of tapped lands are okay, but drawing too many just slows you down so much in so many games that you tend to get blown out. I've gotten more reliant on signets and the like. Sure, they get blown up at times, but they at least allow you to get stuff on the table and going.
I enjoyed this, and largely agree with it, except for the aether vial comments. You get a net return on your one mana tempo investment. Transforming mana into other resources (mainly cards or card selection) can definitely cause issues though, especially at sorcery speed. Of course, as you mentioned repeatedly, it can often be worth it, but a lot of modern combo ideas I see posted run into the extreme end of the issue. They can get pretty reliable turn four kills, but only if they do nothing until then, not even hold up permission. That's going to be a problem.
Lol. Like the post Soulbanana and good luck with that.
I agree it is easy to overload on tap lands. More and more, I am taking comes into play tapped lands out of my decks and replacing them with basics or better lands. Some amount of tapped lands are okay, but drawing too many just slows you down so much in so many games that you tend to get blown out. I've gotten more reliant on signets and the like. Sure, they get blown up at times, but they at least allow you to get stuff on the table and going.
Yeah, there are a few ones worth running. The ones I listed, plus the karoos and the Urza's Saga cycle, basically.
And it also makes for other difficulty. You can't ramp very easily with them, you can't abuse fetchlands+Crucible of Worlds, and you don't get to use them with (take your pick: Koth, Corrupt, Valakut...)
The toughest part of any new deck is always getting the lands right. Just because the human mind has such difficulty really comprehending chance. (This is also why people think pile shuffling is more random than riffling.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I don't understand what this article is trying to say. Arguing that the board state is an accurate representation of the game state is I don't know its like you are talking about a game that isn't magic. The article was written well enough but it seemed to be walking the line between being meaningless and downright incorrect. Literally every action alters the gamestate, a top activation can change the state from one player winning in two turns to the top player winning the next turn; just because you don't see the game state change doesn't mean nothing happened. I think we should face it and acknowledge that durdle has like 10 different definitions and at this point is meaningless beyond being a general condemnation of someone's play.
Well, this is one of those food for thought articles.
There are many times there is no one right answer. We humans create ideas, definitions and categories to better understand things. Many science students come into college believing science and evolution are done. In reality, we actually know so little about many, many things. Students get frustrated when they ask their professor something and all they get is a shoulder shrug and no answer.
Durdle is something to think about. It's maybe not perfect and neither is any scientific study. New graduate students love to pick apart their peers papers or presentations. No study is perfect. We have two options. We can continue to pick apart the study or... appreciate what it has to offer. The data is flawed, but the experimental design is great and shows promise. The experiment was flawed, but the logic and possiblities are very promising.
My approach to durdle was asking: are you spinning your wheels? Does the metagame require your deck to be more interactive with the opponent or does it need to be faster? If you lost the game, did you actually do anything?
I don't really get what you mean by spinning your wheels, most of the stuff that falls under durdling by your definition is searching for the right answer to your opponent's strategy. Sometimes when you spin your wheels nothing happens and you look silly but other times you start going. Like in standard sometimes I cast quicken while facing lethal hoping to topdeck a verdict, when it happens its great but most of the time I don't get anything and look silly. It might look like "durdling" but really it is just trying to get the most out of your deck and play optimally.
I get your defense of writing the article because discussion is certainly better than no discussion but it seems like article is more valid as a critique of the game design than players and decks.
I by no means am claiming it is a solid definition. It is simply a different approach to looking at the game.
Let' try tackling this in another way. You are talking about playing good Magic and we are talking about playing good decks. A film professor once told me in order to appreciate good movies you have to watch a lot of bad movies. Forest Gump good movie. The Death Bed, the Bed that Kills is a horrible campy movie.
Take life gain. One could argue it is changing the state of the game. Well, sure. Everything changes the state of the game to some degree. So, what happens if I filled my deck with nothing, and I mean nothing, but life gain. Eventually, I will lose. There is no winning strategy. I am doing a lot of things. Maybe even drawing a couple cards off Survival Cache, but I am not really doing anything.
It is one of the reason I think some players love their Fungus decks especially Fungus Commander decks. New players love them because they are constantly doing something during their upkeep. Their doing stuff. That means they are winning right? My point isn't those decks can't be good in the Commander format. The act of doing something doesn't actually mean you are doing something productive.
It is one of the reason I think casual players love decks with Doubling Season. They are making tokens and putting counters on everything. They are doing stuff man. I play Akroma's Vengeance. They recover and start doing more stuff. They are playing Magic man. This is where it is at. I play and activate Oblivion Stone.
We can look at people playing bad Magic by not attacking. They are afraid of the boogeyman might jump out at them so they don't attack. Sure, they are playing creatures. They are doing stuff and then they get hit by a Wrath of God or the opponent just combo's out and kills them.
A common fault in some new players building decks is they often take out woefully understocked in graveyard, enchantment or artifact hate. There is nothing in their deck. The entire decks is ineffective. They can't do anything cause of their opponent's Humility in play. They have no enchantment destruction.
I bring up durdling to say hey, is your deck or whatever actually doing what it needs to be doing or are you just running around in circles/going the long way to get there?
I don't want to be offensive, but I'll be brutally honest. I found the durdling argument confusing, and its definition as well. You write of durdling as:
Durdle can add consistency. Using Sensei’s Diving Top to prevent Dark Confidant damage has its benefits. The problem is it is slower.
For example, the disappearance of Green Sun's Zenith in the Legacy environment indicates the environment has shifted to a faster pace.
So, faster = takes less time to finish your turn? I, and I'm sure other people as well, view a "fast game" is "death in few turns, regardless of time taken per turn".
You then write:
Let’s look at Legacy at the moment. The format is very, very fast in the current metagame. It is very plausible to lose turn two (sometimes even turn one) to a storm deck.
And how long does it take to play a turn of storm? Yea, exactly. Storm is durdling by your definition, but now it's very fast?
I agree that playing against Eggs is not the best experience in the world, but this entire article doesn't have a consistent definition of durdle, or "fast game", and I'm also not sure where it was getting at. It felt like a durdle.
So suddenly anything that isn't directly contributing to killing your opponent is durdling? I'm sorry, but Magic is a multidimensional game, and there are many ways to approach winning. Running cards that prolong the game to the point where your expensive, yet high-impact spells can simply take over the game is hardly durdling. Activating Sensei's Divining Top after every time you draw a card is durdling. Shuffling your library twice a turn with Soothsaying to pull off some better topdecks is durdling. Trying to survive for as long as you can without dying to your opponent's creatures so you can drop an Ætherling is not durdling. The article takes an overly critical and judgemental lens and applies it to any action that isn't pressuring your opponent's life total, which is hugely in contrast to the way Magic is these days.
From this article you'd think that the Durdliest Catch would have inevitability every time.
Would I tap out to draw dozens of cards with a Skullclamp if I could prevent my opponent from winning the next turn? No. But if he's doing nothing, why not set up a masterstroke of resources gained? This is why Skullclamp is such a great card, and why it is banned in most formats.
Great example of a durdly card I'm fond of: Undead Gladiator in EDH. I have had so many opponents look at him and go, "A 3/1 for 3? Why is he in this deck?" I have to laugh. As if I ever cast him!! With him in my yard, all cards in my deck essentially have "Cycling 2BB" (albeit with a timing restriction). It adds a step, sure, so sometimes I get some eyerolls if I do it a lot in one turn. But it's a great tool in reanimator strategies and can't be countered by spell-counters. Likewise Fauna Shaman / Survival of the Fittest type effects. They are more truly "durdly" than Birthing Pod because a clever Pod chain with 187-creatures can directly impact the board. Survival just provides potential *future* advantage. I think this is what meyou is saying here: plays that merely set up other plays are risky because they take time and add steps, making your strategy easier to disrupt (anything with more moving parts is easier to disrupt).
I believe the article is really talking about the power of Tempo, and danger of losing Tempo in order to set up stronger plays in the late game. It was written rather provocatively in terms of being framed as a criticism of particular plays, but in reality it's not like deck manipulation is bad - the point is that it comes at a cost. When you are investing mana in future power, you might not be able to keep up with the opponent in the here and now.
In general, you either want to be MUCH faster than your opponent (able to put them on a clock that they can't beat), or a little slower and a little more powerful (able to go over the top of the opponent's threats). Imagine the following three decks. On deck is full of nothing but Eager Cadets. The second deck is full of nothing but Trained Armodon. The third deck is full of nothing but Serra Angel. Assume all decks will play 1 land a turn.
The first deck will probably lose to the second deck and the second deck will probably lose to the third. However, the first deck has a surprisingly good shot at beating the third deck.
This is all pretty obvious of course, but that's the point. Meyou is invoking a very solid concept. This was why Mimic Vat, an absurdly powerful card, had so much trouble making an impact on standard. The tempo loss you gave up in setting it up was just too painful.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
I'm not saying durdle is inherently bad. I do think it is easy fall into the trap of thinking you are doing something to progress your game forward when you are not. I think though if you skip a turn tutoring or setting up something, it better be pretty powerful. Otherwise, decks like Jund are just going to have a field day with your deck and thank you for an easy win.
It is something to be conscious of... It isn't necessarily bad. It can be when people spin their wheels to make a mediocre play. Whenever you aren't interacting with an opponent, you are giving them a free turn. It is like telling the player that is piloting splinter twin "hey, go ahead with your combo. I'm not going to be interacting with you so have at it. Maybe I will combo off before you. Otherwise. Good game."
Slow play, however, is a thing that should be critiqued to no end. As a combo player, having to do math for multiple routes can slow you down each turn but you should know the possible routes and what they all yield if you're playing the deck well. If not, get paper and pen so you aren't wasting time doing the same math over and over again. Legacy and Modern are becoming formats where match draws are the norm and that is frustrating.
I can't stand Modern as a format, because all of the midrange decks are built to stall the game. The banned list slows combo down too much and there just aren't enough good aggro cards. The format needs better durdling (ie: Ponder/Preordain) in order to speed it up, making combos come together faster, or enabling Stoneforge Mystics to grab aggro equipment albeit durdling.
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
I have some general classifications on taplands, a minor form of durdling in EDH:
"You pick" taplands (e.g., shocklands): Always use, at least in the case of shocklands.
Conditional taplands: These are more complicated. I tend to use the Rootbound Crag cycle, especially with my taplands, original EDH duals, etc. While the Seachrome Coast cycle is nice in other formats, I tend to avoid them in EDH, just because they're rarely there when I only have two or fewer lands. The Lorwyn tribal lands are a special case, only because of the existence of Murmuring Bosk. Other than that, I only use them if there's a tribal theme in my deck.
Tapland plus: While I tend to avoid the manlands in EDH, and the refuge cycle only gets a place in Oloro, I do like the scrylands.
Simple tapland: I might use, if it taps for three or more colors, and I'm playing a three- or more-colored deck. This includes vivids, of course. Of course, in Pauper, I will use gates.
On phasing:
I agree it is easy to overload on tap lands. More and more, I am taking comes into play tapped lands out of my decks and replacing them with basics or better lands. Some amount of tapped lands are okay, but drawing too many just slows you down so much in so many games that you tend to get blown out. I've gotten more reliant on signets and the like. Sure, they get blown up at times, but they at least allow you to get stuff on the table and going.
Yeah, there are a few ones worth running. The ones I listed, plus the karoos and the Urza's Saga cycle, basically.
And it also makes for other difficulty. You can't ramp very easily with them, you can't abuse fetchlands+Crucible of Worlds, and you don't get to use them with (take your pick: Koth, Corrupt, Valakut...)
The toughest part of any new deck is always getting the lands right. Just because the human mind has such difficulty really comprehending chance. (This is also why people think pile shuffling is more random than riffling.)
On phasing:
There are many times there is no one right answer. We humans create ideas, definitions and categories to better understand things. Many science students come into college believing science and evolution are done. In reality, we actually know so little about many, many things. Students get frustrated when they ask their professor something and all they get is a shoulder shrug and no answer.
Durdle is something to think about. It's maybe not perfect and neither is any scientific study. New graduate students love to pick apart their peers papers or presentations. No study is perfect. We have two options. We can continue to pick apart the study or... appreciate what it has to offer. The data is flawed, but the experimental design is great and shows promise. The experiment was flawed, but the logic and possiblities are very promising.
My approach to durdle was asking: are you spinning your wheels? Does the metagame require your deck to be more interactive with the opponent or does it need to be faster? If you lost the game, did you actually do anything?
Feel free to discuss.
I get your defense of writing the article because discussion is certainly better than no discussion but it seems like article is more valid as a critique of the game design than players and decks.
Let' try tackling this in another way. You are talking about playing good Magic and we are talking about playing good decks. A film professor once told me in order to appreciate good movies you have to watch a lot of bad movies. Forest Gump good movie. The Death Bed, the Bed that Kills is a horrible campy movie.
Take life gain. One could argue it is changing the state of the game. Well, sure. Everything changes the state of the game to some degree. So, what happens if I filled my deck with nothing, and I mean nothing, but life gain. Eventually, I will lose. There is no winning strategy. I am doing a lot of things. Maybe even drawing a couple cards off Survival Cache, but I am not really doing anything.
It is one of the reason I think some players love their Fungus decks especially Fungus Commander decks. New players love them because they are constantly doing something during their upkeep. Their doing stuff. That means they are winning right? My point isn't those decks can't be good in the Commander format. The act of doing something doesn't actually mean you are doing something productive.
It is one of the reason I think casual players love decks with Doubling Season. They are making tokens and putting counters on everything. They are doing stuff man. I play Akroma's Vengeance. They recover and start doing more stuff. They are playing Magic man. This is where it is at. I play and activate Oblivion Stone.
We can look at people playing bad Magic by not attacking. They are afraid of the boogeyman might jump out at them so they don't attack. Sure, they are playing creatures. They are doing stuff and then they get hit by a Wrath of God or the opponent just combo's out and kills them.
A common fault in some new players building decks is they often take out woefully understocked in graveyard, enchantment or artifact hate. There is nothing in their deck. The entire decks is ineffective. They can't do anything cause of their opponent's Humility in play. They have no enchantment destruction.
I bring up durdling to say hey, is your deck or whatever actually doing what it needs to be doing or are you just running around in circles/going the long way to get there?
So, faster = takes less time to finish your turn? I, and I'm sure other people as well, view a "fast game" is "death in few turns, regardless of time taken per turn".
You then write:
And how long does it take to play a turn of storm? Yea, exactly. Storm is durdling by your definition, but now it's very fast?
I agree that playing against Eggs is not the best experience in the world, but this entire article doesn't have a consistent definition of durdle, or "fast game", and I'm also not sure where it was getting at. It felt like a durdle.
Would I tap out to draw dozens of cards with a Skullclamp if I could prevent my opponent from winning the next turn? No. But if he's doing nothing, why not set up a masterstroke of resources gained? This is why Skullclamp is such a great card, and why it is banned in most formats.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
In general, you either want to be MUCH faster than your opponent (able to put them on a clock that they can't beat), or a little slower and a little more powerful (able to go over the top of the opponent's threats). Imagine the following three decks. On deck is full of nothing but Eager Cadets. The second deck is full of nothing but Trained Armodon. The third deck is full of nothing but Serra Angel. Assume all decks will play 1 land a turn.
The first deck will probably lose to the second deck and the second deck will probably lose to the third. However, the first deck has a surprisingly good shot at beating the third deck.
This is all pretty obvious of course, but that's the point. Meyou is invoking a very solid concept. This was why Mimic Vat, an absurdly powerful card, had so much trouble making an impact on standard. The tempo loss you gave up in setting it up was just too painful.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane