Yeah, I cannot see this ever happening. The problem with taking subpar cards over good or great playables is that we don't know who we're drafting with. The person we're passing to might have certain preferences due to playstyle and/or color preferences within a particular format. That person might also have a different conception regarding pick orders. There is also the added issue of not knowing the skill level of your opponents. However, even at a high level draft, such as a top-8 draft or day two of a limited GP, where all the players are ostensibly skilled, there might still be a significant divide in thinking between players. It's impossible to ever really know what other people are/should be doing, because you don't know what they do or don't like.
So, tl;dr, you don't take unplayables over strong playables to "get them into" a particular deck. You should always be aware of what you're passing, as well as what you're seeing late, but that should never become the main focus of your draft; your foremost concern should be building a good deck.
This strategy is only optimal in niche situations, in my experience. I most often do this when I know I'm drafting with inexperienced players, who might as well be replaced with someone who takes a random card from each pack (The people who hate draft everything and always take rares). So, if you go open into these drafts you will have a hard time assembling 23 playables, but if you force from the the getgo, you have a solid chance.
This strategy is only optimal in niche situations, in my experience. I most often do this when I know I'm drafting with inexperienced players, who might as well be replaced with someone who takes a random card from each pack (The people who hate draft everything and always take rares). So, if you go open into these drafts you will have a hard time assembling 23 playables, but if you force from the the getgo, you have a solid chance.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy that if you're playing against poor players, it doesn't really make sense to alter your core strategies too much. The one thing I probably do (perhaps too much) is get greedy with splashes. If I'm getting really, really late high-tier playables, I'll typically take fixing pretty high in packs 2/3 to ensure I can play all the cards I have that I probably "shouldn't" have. I would rather crush them with spell quality than attempt to build a "tight" two color deck in a situation where people around me are picking in an unpredictable fashion -- you never really know what's "open" if people are making lots of errors, essentially.
That being said, I've developed a new philosophy on this issue recently. My new conception of things is that if you're "good," none of your decisions are really ever going to be "bad" enough as to put you in a significant competitive disadvantage against noticeably weaker players. Since you are operating from a relatively sound point of view (we hope), you're always going to make decisions that are reasonable. Since that's the case, you should not have to significantly alter your manner of doing things to beat people you should be beating anyways. You just need to do what comes to you naturally -- since you're predisposed to doing things well anyways, you're already at a significant competitive advantage compared to weaker players.
The thing is that if you're playing against subpar players and you know it, then you have an opportunity to do wacky stuff just because you can. Sure, you can draft the Spiky deck you would in a competitive environment, but if you expect your opponents' decks to be generally terrible then why not have some fun with them?
(I know that that's both condescending and terrible strategy, but it's fun and satisfying in a way that conforming to the normal rules of drafting often isn't.)
You should read the article the OP linked to. Really, the title of the thread should be "cooperative forcing," since to force effectively you need to actively pass quality cards in other colors. If you are forcing white, it is beneficial to take Guardian Lions over Murder to try to put the person next to you in black (and NOT white). This way, anyone who is drafting with a Hron strategy and sitting after you will have incentive to be in a different color than you. During the next pack, you should get higher quality cards in your color. The "cooperation" aspect is the key to forcing.
Interestingly, the more people that use this forcing strategy, the better each of their decks will become (small caveat: people forcing the same color aren't seated next to each other). I wonder what would happen if I just sat down to draft and announced, "I'm forcing white."
The real trouble with this kind of tactic is that even if your opponents are perfectly willing to let you draft what you want uncontested, it may not be the best color to be in for your seat. How many times can you draft Guardian Lion over Murder before your deck starts to be an embarrassment? (Hint: less than one)
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, I cannot see this ever happening. The problem with taking subpar cards over good or great playables is that we don't know who we're drafting with. The person we're passing to might have certain preferences due to playstyle and/or color preferences within a particular format. That person might also have a different conception regarding pick orders. There is also the added issue of not knowing the skill level of your opponents. However, even at a high level draft, such as a top-8 draft or day two of a limited GP, where all the players are ostensibly skilled, there might still be a significant divide in thinking between players. It's impossible to ever really know what other people are/should be doing, because you don't know what they do or don't like.
So, tl;dr, you don't take unplayables over strong playables to "get them into" a particular deck. You should always be aware of what you're passing, as well as what you're seeing late, but that should never become the main focus of your draft; your foremost concern should be building a good deck.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy that if you're playing against poor players, it doesn't really make sense to alter your core strategies too much. The one thing I probably do (perhaps too much) is get greedy with splashes. If I'm getting really, really late high-tier playables, I'll typically take fixing pretty high in packs 2/3 to ensure I can play all the cards I have that I probably "shouldn't" have. I would rather crush them with spell quality than attempt to build a "tight" two color deck in a situation where people around me are picking in an unpredictable fashion -- you never really know what's "open" if people are making lots of errors, essentially.
That being said, I've developed a new philosophy on this issue recently. My new conception of things is that if you're "good," none of your decisions are really ever going to be "bad" enough as to put you in a significant competitive disadvantage against noticeably weaker players. Since you are operating from a relatively sound point of view (we hope), you're always going to make decisions that are reasonable. Since that's the case, you should not have to significantly alter your manner of doing things to beat people you should be beating anyways. You just need to do what comes to you naturally -- since you're predisposed to doing things well anyways, you're already at a significant competitive advantage compared to weaker players.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
(I know that that's both condescending and terrible strategy, but it's fun and satisfying in a way that conforming to the normal rules of drafting often isn't.)
The real trouble with this kind of tactic is that even if your opponents are perfectly willing to let you draft what you want uncontested, it may not be the best color to be in for your seat. How many times can you draft Guardian Lion over Murder before your deck starts to be an embarrassment? (Hint: less than one)