MTG Salvation

Hello folks,

100 card is still going strong, hope for folks that don't partake in the discord, they'll try to make the jump over as I try to circle around and make notifications here as well but a lot of the dialogue happens there first:

https://discord.gg/REWVR4X

That's a perma invite for anyone still exclusively using MTGS that may be interested in making the jump over.

We're a bit light on players as of recent, which has been great eV for the folks showing up, last few weeks the least that any player regardless of record walked away with was 5.3 tickets.


Let your friends know about the event and have them give it a shot, and I also hope some of our long time players can make it back out to support the format and hopefully play some fun games.

Quick snapshot of the Metagame, based on Tournament Winning Decks:

White Weenie-11
RDW-2
RGMidrange/Ramp-2
Oath-2
Mefolk-2
Reanimator-2
UWRAggro/Control-2
GrixisDelve-1
Esper-5
4/5CShift-2
URMoon/Twin-3
4CBlood-5

Obviously alot of WW wins, but that's mostly due to presentation rate and the relative inexpense of the deck vs its ability to win games. Hope to see you all out next week and have a great week ahead!

Take care,

K (lowman02)

ML,

Brother, if you're going to do something that some folks may not like, then just do it and own it--please don't pardon yourself or appeal to the community in a sense of the travails you have to undergo in both your life and as host of the CSM and how these lend righteousness to your actions--the community isn't your sounding board; they're your friends and, in regards to the format, your responsibility. If you think that taking a portion of the prize pool equal to the what the victor receives each week in the tourney, due to the resources you have to put in, adheres to a sense of equity and fairness then so be it. However, no one wants to listen to groveling, me least of all because I know it for what it is, which is self-blind and unadulterated hypocrisy.

You say that you did not start this format to make money, and I believe you, but you sure did sell it for money to me for well over 100USD late last year. I've loaned tuned vintage decks to you at well over 400tix in value, so you could grind Gatherling tournaments to support your hobby during times of financial duress. When you had to sell your MTGO collection last year, I accepted your MTGO tickets in exchange for money over paypal to help you avoid unfavorable exchange rates. When you wanted to start playing 100c again, I gave you 30 tickets on MTGO to build a new deck up; with that deck you've won a few tournaments and I've provided you with special prizing of chase cards to help you continue your hobby in this great format. I did this for all folks because I love this format, and I like to help all of those that enjoy playing it, especially if it is challenging for them financially to compete in it.

That all said, I've paid it forward to you man, I've helped you out a lot of times even if you woke me up at 0100 in the morning to trade you a vintage deck for the next day, and what I'm going to ask you here is important to me: do not take a cut of the sponsored prize pool, leave this to the community. If it helps to think of yourself as the host and me as the producer then do so, I did technically buy the tournament from you (although I did this to help you out financially as much as I did because I wanted to be host). I'm at a point in my life where I have enough going on that I can't make it out every week, just won't happen, so I needed to hand the reins back off, but I would appreciate if you kept on in spirit of the changes that were made during the time I hosted as I think a lot of them did good things for the format and the whole of its player base.


Thanks man


K (lowman02)


PS-if you need help setting up polls, sending the results emails (I can cut and paste this in 5 mins or less) or bouncing racists/bigots/miscreants from the event than let me know, think the last miscreant (banned person) was in 2016 (ScionofJustice...go figure right) and was the only individual banned since the event was setup on gatherling (at least that's what the format editor's history has in it) [and this last one I'm serious on, I'm something of an anti-bully, and if I was honest with myself get kicks out of mentally crushing idiots who indiscriminately spurn others without provocation...maybe that's why I do what I do, who knows]

Hey all,

Hope everyone is having a good week to this point.

Few brief announcements on the format:

First: Prize support has been expanded, the total prize pool has expanded to 16 tix for every event. This said, winner will take home 8 tix, and the remaining tix will be split between the X-1 players. Thanks again to our great sponsors at MTGOCardMarket.

Second: Voting on the ban listing is still open, we've only had six players cast a ballot. So far there's a lot of cards that are sitting on the fence (50/50 vote). Keep in mind, with only 6 voters, even some of the cards showing 25% voted for them to get in the format are at 50% because two players voted to adopt the German Highlander Banned list (well more voted to adopt it, but then proceeded to vote independently on the cards, but that's alright, at the end we'll count the specific cards that these players believe safe for the format). If 0001 on 8 OCT 17 comes around and all we've had are 6 voters, then we'll go with that majority. So if you want to have a voice in the format please feel free to cast your ballot at: CSM Voting Tool.

Third: Offer is still up, if we hit twenty players this next Saturday then 16 treasure chests are going into the winners circle for added prize pool.

Take it easy you all and if you're into drafting etc, then take a look at that hamtastic gamestate that a deck I drafted in the Ixalan limited format came to (3-0 limited cradle combo :P).

--KB

Mike,

So, if I understand your logic correctly, what you intended for me to do is generate a council of a smaller subset of the player base just to discuss the cards, have no decision making authority over what cards should be banned/unbanned or watched, but then go back to an open voting system. The most salient question is why would I waste my time or 6 other folks time--why wouldn't we just put the cards to a vote and be done with it; while I admire your egalitarian approach to this process, I cannot see why such a council is anything but superfluous if it does not make said decisions...matter of fact, it would be complete nonsense.

I'm trying to bring order to how this process works, by bringing the most informed of your players to a table to vote, not on what they like, but on what they know or have come to objectively see as fair and balanced. This is why I did not per se use the duration of their play in the format, but their results...results imply knowledge...to overcome ones opposition on a more continual basis is not likely the best way to learn, but it does display a higher level of mastery and tacitly implies a wider knowledge of the game...this was the manner in which I came to this conclusion. I think I've seen several players state that we need a codified process that is both efficient and enlightened to make healthy choices for the format and widen the meta. I appreciate everything you've done to keep 100c alive on Gatherling, but frankly your approach to card evaluation is generally very subjective and your notions of democratic process are akin to the ancient Greeks who fruitlessly squabbled until their city states were driven under the hegemony of others due to continual in-fighting. I've gathered folks I truly believe can be objective about the format, keep it healthy, fun, and thriving for you and really all of the community. But, frankly, you're impeding progress here man.

I told you I wanted to do something, other players showed an interest in developing a more codified process, you charged me with doing it, and now it's a different story...I've continued to show my proof of a need for a relook on this issue, by jamming the same deck I've cited as the being the best under current bannings...think I've won 4/5 tournaments I've played it in, dawts didn't do too much worse with it (maybe even better), If I did it ten times would that be enough proof...

Regardless, I'm under and over it brother...do what you will with the ban list, I'm done trying to help the format grow or see itself more clearly. Thanks for all the great games to the community, you all rock, and keep your eyes peeled if you're interested in playing some Canadian, German, or Australian Highlander, I'm likely to start running some smaller events off of challonge and advertised through reddit.

Take it easy everyone

--KB

2:43 PM lowman02: it's variance laden
2:45 PM lowman02: yeah I suppose we'll see on it--hopefully, we see this format clearly and go in the direction that German Highlander has gone which isn't perfect, but is far more balanced and healthy
2:45 PM ML_Berlin: go ahead and make a council

Michelle,

No, I think Carnage Tyrant is bad; this card is a trap...anytime WoTC prints a card with uncounterable on it certain folks ears perk up, because these sort of folks enjoy a heads up game where both players are playing with certainty that what they intend on enacting will happen(and at this point what is the f'ing point we're just running through permutations of a deck and decisions don't matter outside of building the world's most perfect clock and/or hoping to get lucky...). This card is a far cry from Thrun, The Last Troll, if you cast this against my U based control deck, then I'll throw a Baleful Strix under the bus (and take 6), Diabolic Edict it, Day of Judgement it, Elspeth, Sun's Champion down tick it, Council's Judgement it...etc, etc. Wait none of these cards are even U...the issue with cards like this are that they give players a false hope by treating a symptom of a greater problem vs decks that utilize U as a supporting control color for permission (in U decks you're more often using counter magic to stop the threats you can't 2-1 your opponent on, ie PWs and non-critter spells). You beat U and control style decks in two ways, one presenting permanents that they have to utilize card advantage cards like Wrath of God on a one for one basis against (or Oblivion Ring on a PW threat) (this is crucial in these matchups, if you do it right you can force U/W/B players to play a 4-6 mana spell to take out 1-2 cards, which surprise generally means your crap will resolve next turn [just put 1-2 more down though, sometimes wraths run in packs{like f'ing siege rhinos man}]), and secondly by being more efficient and getting under their curve with presentation of relevant threats (for instance Tarmogoyf or Grim Flayer, if either is left long enough it will win the game rapidly). By the time this guy is smelling the coffee, Thrun has already cranked your opponent for 8 life, by the time it's attacking he's coming in for 12 life and new kid on the block doesn't even have wrath insurance like Thrun does (well some of them).

Guess I'd harken your attention back to the RDW vs MonoU deck matchup we played a while ago when you were concerned about your ML matchup, ie RDW. If I cast a turn 1 goblin guide or jackal pup, I'm infinitely better off than if I cast a T5-6 carnage tyrant, especially if my opponent's only reliable means of dealing with my permanents is one for one permission or bounce. Efficiency is king, especially as you look at how you solely beat permission. For instance we played a game in the RDW vs MonoU matchup, where I got you to 1-2 life and was on like 1 card in hand, to your 5-6 cards in hand, while both of us were on a large mana situation, let's say 7-8 lands a piece. In this 14-15 turn game, I had the luxury of forcing your mono U deck to always keep its mana up and never land a threat of your own, because the moment you tapped out for a Jace, The Mind sculptor or a Consecrated Sphinx I could send 2-3 burn spells that cost 1-2 mana at your face which you'd have to counter at an exchange rate of 2-3 mana and would be unable to in a situation given equitable mana. In this way, I was eventually able to get to 8 cards in hand, and then utilizing my own ability to cast more cards in a turn force a gamestate where 1. you were unable to play threats and 2. unable to present the volume of answers required due to my deck's higher efficiency at an overwhelming cost to card economy. One can always hope a player will throw resources in piecemeal and allow their opposition to deal with them one by one, but if the opposition is apt they'll present overwhelming force at the right point in time to exploit any given weakness of your deck, archetype, specific build, playstyle whatever...Carnage Tyrant is a prime example of a trap that forgets these notions and comforts it's user in rules text that is irrelevant on T6, because you should have already won the game by that point, if all your opponent is doing is countering spells...people play these cards because they like the feeling they give them, not because they're good I guess is my point...and that beating control takes pretty much no 6 drop ever printed, because it's just not the best way to do it Not to mention I've only played five 6 drops (or larger) in all of the CSM's I've played in (not to include X spells): Elsepth, Sun's Champion; Torrential Gearhulk, Karn Liberated; Primeval Titan; and Sun Titan...I suppose you could also claim Griselbrand, Emrakul, The Aeons Torn, and Protean Hulk but these were in a deck that could not reasonably cast them, even then I had generally many ways of cheating them into play...that aside, this card is nowhere near any of those sixes which all break the game in horrible, horrible ways.

Oh, and you know what else carries a sword better, your 1 drop, your 2 drop, your 3 drop, and your 4 drop Follow the curve to 5 it's the magic of the swords, keep them busy with the early nonsense and keep their mana tied up and bash with a hasty 2 power attack on T5 that has it's own backbreaking effects in addition to the added damage, etc.

This card might interest ramp style decks, but I'm really not impressed by it...but, to be fair, I'm also not much of a ramp player...I tend to think that spending 2-3 non-interactive cards (in a single game) that solely increase your mana count puts you in a horrible spot vs interactive decks...so in a lot of ways you're again playing the perfect clock, luck factor and hoping to knock your top deck into what you need. Not really my thing, sometimes it's utterly unbeatable, other times it piece meals into the jaws of answers, because on decks like this you really can't afford to wait on your haymakers because they're not more efficient than the answers of the control player (ie they don't have this option like RDW)...this could put enough equity in the card if you were playing this style of deck...but I think I'd just go for Gaea's Revenge, it's only The Abyss without trample, but then you shouldn't be expecting critters if you're playing these cards in the first place.

Hope this helps or is at least amusing Take it easy homie.

KB

Hi Michelle,

I think I'll be playing on Saturday; although I've only played U Moon and 4CBlood once before

--KB

P.S.-So, you're saying I like to play aggro, midrange, and control

ML,

Interesting point, but more so what I was talking about is that building RDW in the specific way that you have makes it naturally better in some matchups and worse in others; the same could be said for a RDW build like ChaosBlackDoom's but I would say that his build would tend to be better vs. Midrange decks and worse against control decks.

A funny concept that I've been toying with, at least mentally, if not in any empirical sense to this point, is the idea that the closer two decks mana curves are the greater probability that the decks converge to a .50 matchup; this eschews card value and speaks only to efficiency of casting those cards selected for presentation. The funny thing about this concept that I'm toying with is that there is some sort of "golden" ratio that's proportional in some way to the differential between two given decks average CMC, that up to a point will benefit the less efficient deck (higher CMC) but beyond a point begins benefitting the more efficient deck (lower CMC). For instance, I think one of the worst matchups for RDW is WW, the differential between two well built versions of each deck is likely negligible, ie somewhere between 6-10%, with WW likely being slightly less efficient (higher CMC) than RDW. But WW will tend to beat this deck on a regular basis. RDW is about even to lose or win to midrange where the differential in CMC is likely about 10-25% different (this tends to be eschewed by G/x, but for what I consider to be relative card power bias in a deck designed to beat aggro). But when you get to RDW vs Control where the differential is 15-35% different with the control deck having the less efficient cards/answers, I tend to think RDW can win a preponderance of games. So to a point a higher curve differential (a lack of efficiency, in what one hopes is exchanged for power) will tend to over power a slightly more efficient build, because the less efficient deck tops the last more powerful threat a greater amount of the time, at the right time, to end the game; but when the differential becomes so great that presentation of threats or answers will on average come a full turn cycle or more later than the average presentation of threats from the more efficient (lower CMC deck) deck, then you see this relationship become inversely proportional to win% (ie the more efficient deck starts winning more). This is a very rough model of something that could be modelled mathematically (may have already been done), but would operate under the hazy assumption that card quality and relevance is generally equal in any given matchup (which is just not the case). I think this model becomes more pertinent as an analytical tool for decks like RDW, because you should have a minimal number of dead cards in your deck (if you run any they should be in the board) and efficiency should be measured in capability to present over time in proportion to quantity of damage per card. When you get to assessment and building of midrange and control decks, your volume of dead cards (o ring is not always relevant, neither is force spike, lightning bolt is always relevant in that it progresses either the board or game state toward absolution) increases and disallows the assumption of quality being on average equal across the mana curve of a deck. Based upon assessment of meta or how I expect it to change, this is the tool I use to model a RDW to be successful in a meta. So while you may like the Ferrari, sometimes your meta may take you off roading and you need the Range Rover, or maybe you're going through sand dunes and you need a buggie. Regardless, no one version of the deck is right given varied meta, in an open meta (equal chance of representation of any given deck) I think there is an optimal version of the deck and I think it lies somewhere in between a version designed to beat control, midrange, or aggro; the problem you run into with such a deck is it converges closer to .50 matchup status (it certainly doesn't reach it, but goes closer toward it) forgoing advantage that can be had by building the deck specifically to beat a known meta.

Just some thoughts.

--KB

Hello Team 100,

I've uploaded yesterday's tournament, had a fun time playing what I'd consider the first fair deck I've played in a while (D&T is ostensibly fair, but Armageddon and Ravages of War are not very fair).

A few notes on card mechanics:

1. Sorin, Solemn Visitor is slightly bugged. The card's +1 ability (provision of +1/+0 and lifelink to the team until your next turn) does not work as it should. The ability only lasts through your current turn, but does not stay active, as it should, through your opponent's turn (the funny thing is Liliana, The Last Hope does work correctly, but it's still in standard, a pattern, hmm...). So, if you're using this card defensively, well then don't; it doesn't work correctly. Sorin, Lord of Innistrad is likely a suitable replacement and still a strong card for a creature heavy build; although it's less effective at winning races or board stall.

2. Likely more applicable, as I think it's more commonly played in the format, Dromoka's Command is slightly bugged too and has been for a few weeks. The card will work correctly in all instances that it can be used excepting one: when you cast this spell to add a +1/+1 counter and fight one of your creatures and an opponent's the card works until your creature is targeted and killed prior to resolution of the spell (and in both of my cases my critter technically wasn't killed it was exiled, so it may require more testing to verify if being killed has the same effect). This should cause the spell to fizzle as it will no longer have a target to add the +1/+1 counter and both critters will not be available to fight. What actually happens, is your critter will die (or be exiled) as expected and the opponent's critter that was chosen to be fought will receive the +1/+1 counter. The good news is, when this happens regardless you're likely losing, as you've just been 2 for 1'd, but it's certainly insult to injury that it's bugged this way. I had this happen a few weeks back in tourney play and figured I just targeted incorrectly with the card, but when it happened during this tournament, I went back to verify my targeting selection with the card and verified I had done it correctly, such that I had targeted my critter for the +1/+1 counter. It's unfortunate that the card has issues, as multimodal cards such as this tend to be very strong inclusions for the decks that can run them (ie Golgari Charm, I don't see many people play this, but the card is stellar, kills TNN, beats WW by either getting their critters or their pump enchantments, and nails control when you regenerate your team, if you can run this thing put it in there), but I can also see how a card such as this would get broken, in this specific selection, the targeting process involves three logical choices for selection of targets, so the algorithm likely has a small error in it that loops back to an alternate targeting choice if one choice becomes moot.

Anyway, I uploaded the tourney to YT if anyone is interested in watching: CSM 11 MAR 17; I did manage to catch quite a few of the other games, but when Michelle_Wong Scapeshifted for a win it crashed my mtgo

Also, Michael, I love you man, but you gotta just kill them when you got the lethal. Checkout your turn 11 combat step; the combat step prior on dawts' turn you blocked a Lavaclaw Reaches with a Savannah Lions that was equipped with a Veteran's Armaments, during the combat step the Lions became a 6/5, dawt's made the decision to pump the Reaches to kill the Lions but trade in the combat. You were brought to 3 life during this combat step, but he was tapped out, literally all lands and all critters tapped out. Your board upon resumption of your turn was mirran crusader, benalish trapper (tapper, Wizards sometimes get's the names right), Master Decoy, Porcelain Legionnaire, and an unequipped Veteran's Armament, you also had 5-6 available mana (1 Karakas, 4-5 plains). Your opponent is on 17 life at this point in the game, which may seem out of reach, but you actually have lethal given he can do nothing about it (excepting slaughter pact, this could get you, but you can't play around it anyway). The play here is to equip the mirran crusader with the armament and attack with all 4 critters. Because veteran's armament is all attacking critters for assessment of pump (not all other attacking critters), your mirran crusader would become a 6/6 (or a 12 power attacker, accounting for all but 5 of your opponent's life total) the remainder of your attackers 3 power off legionnaire and the two tappers (1 power each) actually kills him. I really hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I was rooting for you because I tend to believe that white has the best aggro deck in the format, even if everyone thinks it's RDW (which is better vs control, but has to get very lucky to beat midrange, white does not and if you build it right it can beat wraths), and mirran crusader and silver blade paladin can do some truly miraculous things in the combat step with small pump effects or equipment.

Sorry, I was just rooting for blood that turn and didn't feel very sated

Either way, take it easy everyone.

--KB

Hello Team 100,

I've been in the tank a bit, talking with Stsung, about magic theory and concepts, don't think either of us have found the mystical Fountain of Youth, although I'm sure we'll both play the role of Ponce de Leon or Asuza, to stay on flavor, and keep seeking. One of the concepts that we've spoken about at length is tempo theory. And, at the end of the day, how we even define tempo is something that is a bit opaque in nature. Denotatively, at least in the definition relevant to this article and not pertaining to music (which is only a specific application of the same idea anyway), this term applies to rate, rhythm, or pattern. In this case, I'd apply it to rate, but all of these describe the same general idea which is periodicity, whether that is governed by a fixed rate (it rarely is in MTG) or variable. Periodicity or rate, is not a measure per se of speed, in the denotative it measures the occurrence of an event or thing as it is presented over time. For example, a deck like legacy or vintage storm, or insert X combo deck here, may win extremely fast, turn 1 kills are a thing, but they are rarely based around the concept of tempo, the only time they ever make a play that could be considered a tempo impacting play is the turn they cast their card that wins. If anything, then these decks are actually exemplars of negative tempo in exchange for investment, because as a lot of players will banally note, "they don't play a real game of magic", and I would proffer that the reason this opinion exists is because these decks function completely outside of the realm of tempo (interaction in the non-virtual sense, ie discard etc), although I tend to think it's a vague statement that overlays a much simpler concept, again: tempo.

I propose that tempo as it applies to this game, is a measure of one of two things: 1. Direct progression of the boardstate toward victory, presenting threats, or in casting a card or using mana for an effect that directly applies toward winning the game 2. Direct impact on denying the opponent the ability to do the same. Anything outside of these two things does not impact tempo. I think the most elegant definition is likely: The rate at which cards and mana are spent to directly impact the outcome of victory.

You will often see a card like man'o'war be heralded as a great tempo card and you can see why through application of the definition above: this card presents a fair body at 2/2 for 3 mana but it essentially has mana short written on it after it has resolved, if the opponent has invested in a relevant creature threat that it can target. Although, this example is quite simple and most people, whether they have thought through why man'o'war accrues them tempo, know that it does. But objectively speaking it does so at a great exchange rate and impacts both sides of the tempo coin by presenting a threat that directly impacts the player of said card's ability to win and denies the opponent the same capability. You'll also hear player's say "I timewalked him/her" in plenty of formats where the card isn't legal and in effect what they're saying is I've exchanged favorably a full turns worth of draw and untap with the opponent; obviously man'o'war is only half of this equation, the opponent will still be up on cards, but they've taken a turn off to get solely a draw and land drop.

This may be overstatement of an obvious thing to some, but I think where understanding of tempo tends to break down for players is in the less obvious plays or card selection, where I believe many players accrue incremental (extremely subtle) tempo loss over the course of games.

I believe the number one cause of negative tempo accruement comes from player's choosing value over tempo. Value is a whole separate concept, but I tend to think in the context of this game, it can be summed up in contrast to tempo.

Tempo: "What's up, I'm tempo, I'll give you this right now and you have today and only today to take it" vs.
Value: "Goodday Sir, I'm value, can I interest you in investing now to reap dividends later for your 401K or kid's college saving fund".

Yeah sure one's a greasy car salesman, but you're driving off the lot today and getting where you need to go, and if you play your cards (pun intended) right, then there may be no need for a tomorrow. While value will pay in the long game, if the long game can be relegated to moot, then, well, it is moot.

I think there's a special sort of art that goes into balancing the two and some of it comes down to a science of knowing the relevant cards that can be presented by the opponent and how they pair against your own, but the largest part comes down to a sense of where in time and space the game lies to determine momentum, and either making the determination to swing for the fences like Casey (beatdown) or hang back and keep the game at your speed (control). And a lot has been written about who's the beat down and who's the control (Mike Flores), but realistically that's not the complete point here, both beatdown and control impact tempo, because both seek to impact directly the outcome of the game whether that be through active means or denial. Value does neither, which is its weakness that many people fail to account for.

So what do value cards look like: value cards are cantrips, they are tutors, they're comes into play tapped dual, scry, or manlands, they're shrine of burning rage and sulfuric vortex -- they are cards that invest in the future at the expense of today (there are some rarities that play both roles, they are great: Duskwatch Recruiter). And while, your parents probably told you to invest wisely, the dark truth is you'll eventually die and that stuff means nothing for you in an objective sense after you have (sure your kid's might get it, but is that relevant for you in the state of death [broader question, but hey let's be honest do we objectively know] and is that a given/known)--this is dark for dramatic hyperbole, but it displays a common misconception about the power of selection in this game or rather it displays the need for exacting use of it in time and place to allow the power of value and investment to persevere. It will always accrue negative tempo at the cost of a latent power; this is not to say that tempo plays will not have effects turn cycles down the road much the same as value plays, but their impact will not be in the active role at that time.

I'm not saying anyone should play without value in mind, value is great and it is necessary, but just as much as understanding the role you should assume in the game for aggro vs. control, is understanding when value should and must be eschewed to effect tempo and the opposite. When do you choose one over the other? I think this comes down to intuition (a solid grasp of the hidden information at stake and how that could affect you), knowledge of the card pool, as well as understanding of your opponent.

I don't think there's an equation to determine when to take the value line of play or when to take the tempo line, there's too many variables at stake and often you're making these decisions with several unknowns; however, I wanted to offer this game write up to enlighten or at least display what I consider to be solid play that may not be apparently obvious, but was decided upon by me as a player as a result of the tempo definition and theory the way I see it:


I am playing a Death and Taxes 100 CS singleton deck, my opponent is on what I assume to a 3-4 color midrange value deck, which I assume I am not favored against. My deck is not 100% assured to be the beat down at all times in this match, but I go into the game assuming that I will be the beat down, until a point at which I'm likely losing. I also know that I will need to progress my strategy which is aggressive, rapidly through efficient use of my mana to present threats, while simultaneously assessing his possible holdings and accruing value where I do not take loss of tempo which is the basis of my strategy. The below report is of a game two after winning my previous game against the opponent, we both begin with 7 cards in hand and the opponent chooses to put me on the draw (positive tempo for him, positive value for me [and vice versa, generally throughout]). My keep consists of the following: 2x plains, 1x Weathered Wayfarer, 1x Steelshaper's Gift, 1x Mirran Crusader, 1x Figure of Destiny, and 1x Porcelain Legionnaire. This hand is actually quite value or investment heavy for this deck (wayfarer and gift), but I opt to keep based upon the power of a T1 wayfarer on the draw, allowing a fetch for wasteland to generate both value and in the belief that his lands were far more relevant than mine over the course of the game (generating virtual tempo, influencing the course of a game many turns later).

Game:
He plays a turn 1 treetop village (negative tempo, high value) and passes it back to me. I draw a plains for the turn and cast my weathered wayfarer as expected and pass it back (positive tempo, although very little it's a 1/1 for 1 mana, positive value I've invested in card that will accrue me value, he must now deal with it or allow me the dividends). On turn 2, the opponent plays a wooded foothills sacrificing it to find a tropical island, he then casts a preordain (negative tempo, high value) and then passes it back to me. I draw a windbrisk heights for the turn, and use my plains to fetch with wayfarer for wasteland, then use the wasteland to destroy his tropical island (measured as an even or slight loss of tempo, for now, but positive value, I've draw a card for one mana and activation of an effect that would have otherwise attacked for 1 damage). I pass it back and on turn 3 the opponent plays a krosan verge (negative tempo, but positive value, this card is a 2 for 1, but not right now and not for free later). The opponent passes it back and we draw Accorder Paladin for the turn, we again opt to fetch with our wayfarer this time getting a karakas, we then use the karakas to play out our Figure of Destiny (even to slight loss of tempo, while we've not played our most relevant threat the accorder or the legionnaire, we have still made a play that can present a sizable threat to a midrange deck down the road, gain in value, we've drawn a free land card: karakas that has the upside of impacting either our tempo (in the active role against his threats presented and where applicable) or more virtual value in the defensive role of returning our own legends, if we find any, back to hand against removal (card advantage)). We pass it back and on T4 the opponent plays a polluted delta and passes (at this point if he fetches an untapped land, he can activate the krosan verge). We draw a Gideon's Lawkeeper for the turn, and assess that we need to begin aggression against the opponent, who we are not currently pressuring highly, and use our mana to present threats that he must deal with: we eschew another wayfarer activation and main 1 cast our Mirran Crusader, to allow him the mistake of countering this card and not fetching for two lands with the krosan verge, but this is also dual purpose play, we also know he cannot block "for free" (nothing is free) our figure of destiny if he chooses to counter, he allows it to resolve (increase in tempo, we've presented a sizeable threat that has landed on the board, no value). We attack in, while tapped out, with our figure of destiny, he opts to activate his treetop village and block and kill our figure of destiny "for free" (loss in tempo for us, gain in tempo for him, but loss of value from being unable to cash in on his investment in krosan verge on our turn; and I assess a gain in virtual tempo for us, based upon our holdings, we can present two threats easily on the following turn and the effect of not getting the two lands will be worse by our estimate than losing a 1/1 that will stay a 1/1 for a while. Frankly, and because of this, I also don't care to invest in the Figure of Destiny, my mana will be too tied up going wider to combat what I assume are larger creature's he'll be playing). We do intend on keeping the wayfarer to allow flexibility the following turn (value play); we are at this point at land parity; if he can play an additional land, we intend on still presenting at least one threat (legionnaire), but enabling us to fetch for tectonic edge to hit the most applicable land (virtual value down the road (1 turn) and virtual tempo much further down the road (2 turns), but overall use of wayfarer for tutoring is immediately a value play). After passing it back, on T5 the opponent misses his land drop, but plays a morph creature (I assume it to be den protector in these colors) (positive tempo, no change in value now, but virtual value gained if he can commit 2 mana more into his initial investment). He passes it back and we draw Hero of Bladehold for the turn, we play a plains from hand and attack in with the Mirran Crusader for 4 damage, he does not opt to block. We then cast our Hero of Bladehold, which gets countered by Force of Will, pitching a Reflector Mage (positive tempo for the opponent, but all things are relative we've currently got the upper hand on board, and a large value drop in the expenditure of two cards for one). We pass it back not having substantially altered the board state, on T6 the opponent draws a Steam Vents and plays it out untapped (negative tempo for him as his life total is not an irrelevant resource) and plays a True Name Nemesis (positive tempo, no change in current value, but a virtual value loss in being unable to activate the morphed den protector or the krosan verge). The opponent attacks with his morph which goes unblocked (positive tempo, no change in value). The opponent passes the turn and we draw a Thalia, heretic cathar for the turn, play out our windbrisk heights (negative tempo, but high value, and we don't need the mana this turn) and put a Sword of Fire and Ice under it; we then cast our Thalia and pass the turn (positive tempo overall we've presented a sizeable threat that will accrue virtual tempo throughout the game, even if we've eschewed playing a land that does not come into play untapped; high value, we have a two mana investment to get a high power card (SoFI) into play on the following turn, by doing something the deck needs to be doing anyway--attacking). We pass it back and on T6 the opponent plays a bayou that comes into play tapped due to Thalia (virtual tempo having a real tempo effect, in a way the commodity you're investing in with a card like thalia is tempo, but she presents a threat in and of herself, ie an actual tempo play as well, more to follow on this idea though). The opponent passes it back with no attacks, at this point his life total is 9, ours is 18, we draw brave the elements for the turn, we cast it, choosing blue, and attack for the fences (high tempo, low value play we've spent a card to trade for damage, but we also expect that he may have to make unfavorable blocks to stay alive, so virtual value accrued), he blocks with the morphed den protector against the Weathered Wayfarer and we get in for 7 damage off of Thalia and Mirran Crusader. Following the attack step we activate our wind brisk heights to get our SoFI (high value play, low tempo), it get's mana leaked (low tempo use of a card to generate a loss of value now for us and denial of tempo on the next turn for us), we then cast our steel shaper's gift finding Sword of Feast and Famine (low tempo, high value/investment) and use our last mana to play out a Gideon's Lawkeeper (which here is a tempo play, as it presents a 1/1 threat, but also accrues a whole boat of virtual tempo down the road due to being able to deal with threats costing many times it's mana exchange rate and the overhead cost of the card itself, value). The opponent unmorphs his den protector at endstep getting back preordain (all value play, virtual in what that card will do next turn and real in that he just got a card back for "free"). On the opponents turn 8, he casts preordain, and plays a savannah and passes it back. We draw a plains for the turn, and decide that we need to go wider than the opponent play out our legionnaire and our accorder paladin, eschewing the investment of the Sword of Feast and Famine and enabling us to use Gideons Lawkeeper on his endstep to tap his den protector and any other flash critter he can play before we pass the turn (with an active thalia, critters played on his turn will be tapped--virtual tempo); this turn is all tempo with no investment/value; we are preparing the team to swing for the fences (this is the continuous strategy in general of white weenie based decks, but as you've read we did not always make tempo based plays throughout this write up/game, we've balanced both, that is why I refrain from describing this deck as white weenie and label it D&T and it is the fundamental difference between both decks). We pass it back at this point, the opponent finally activates his krosan verge played 5 turns ago (positive value, but you can't take it with you to the grave) fetching a dryad arbor (blocker) and another land. We pass it and he plays nothing of relevance, we tap his den protector during his endstep and then tap the arbor during our main 1, and then we swing in for the win. This game can also be watched in my previous video of the Christmas matches played yesterday and I think it's actually a very interactive game on many levels not all of which are obvious or apparent in their importance or impact on the game.

I hope you do not assume I mean to eschew value, you can't, you shouldn't and you need not, but it needs to be in balance with tempo. These two things, tempo and value/investment, are what drives the aggro and control role decision cycle, but I'd proffer more so they are the driving theory behind the game, the meta-game (sic), more so than card advantage, curve theory, etc, because all of these things come as a need to assuage one of these two fundamental ideas to drive a game toward the desired endstate by both players. I look at them as a devil (of course that would be tempo) and an angel (yep of course it is) both competing for my soul and I have to madly dance while appeasing both with equanimity and in proportion to my soul's (gamestate in the real and the possible) current state. That's about it, sorry if that's a lot of crap to say something that I think is relatively simple, but I think it's so simple that it often get's ignored and sometimes to player's detriment. I'd also be curious if anyone has a creative way to model this idea theoretically as it would be interesting to see if math/gaming theory generate a non-linear diff eq. that could generate the answers to this given all of the variables and permutations involved with in it.

Anyway, that's about it, hope if it's not enlightening, it's at least interesting and fun to read.

Take it easy all, and I'll throw up a few matches later.

--KB

PS-Forgot to answer my more to follow in regards to Thalia or rather cards that can play a role as both a tempo and investment cards, and it's quite simple: they're the most busted cards in the game. For example ever wonder why planes walkers are so great (+tempo/+value), eternal witness, snapcaster mage, etc. I think you get the idea, but cards that enable positive growth in both tempo and value simultaneously and in a real/non-virtual sense are the best cards in the game and I tend to think this theory helps to explain why. That's to say, I think it's silly for me to tell you that snapcaster is good, but if you apply this theory to say draft or any format, it helps as an assessment/evaluation tool, and while it may not be everyday that you get cards that do both simultaneously and at the point of their resolution, there's a lot of cards that impact one upon resolution and gain or accrue virtual advantage in the other.

Another funny thing about both the concepts of value and tempo is that they drive fundamental human desires for respectively cognitive superiority (ego) and gratification (id), both things in their base are emotional and beyond reason, but hey maybe that's why we come back for more

P.S.S. After a few hours of thinking about it the use of virtual tempo or value (accrual of either commodity over assumed gamestate at a later point) is likely not the correct lexicon. I think in many ways both are highly mutable and can change from one to another, based upon outcome of endstate, in a lot of cases the component I call virtual tempo, is in fact value being actualized from earlier tempo, which I think is a more elegant model to frame this perspective and theory of game play but is slightly more difficult to establish distinguishability between both over a long enough time horizon, therefore the use of "virtual" as a term to describe the effect. In a lot of ways these both are yin and yang, and while they are different, they do overlap continuously and if the proper decisions are made (and of course you need to get lucky) then in harmony as well.

Sensei,

Crucible is likely too slow as well but worth a nod, as running a singleton of this in the deck can give some extra miles against STAX in eternal. But, again, probably too slow and definately not trink mage in eternal, where the card shines in the bomberman archetype, which is not mtgo playable (time), but definitely is IRL.

--KB

Islands are good, people. I promise.

Congrats to the Sensei for today's win. You slew dawts and me and Dr Robert, well deserved.

Congrats to dawts for winning the tournament today.

Congrats to stsung for winning the Christmas event. Well-fought battles.

Sugar Daddy, here is your trophy for the tournament win (the week before last one). Congrats for that.

I have reflected about the ban list.

Bannings

I recommend that the card Natural Order be banned. It is too potent a tutor and too swingy in this format. So many games are determined by which player resolves the Natural Order. Green has access to so many other tutors which search for creatures - Natural Order is just the most broken of them all. Plus, let's be realistic. It's often not a Turn 4 card. The green player will usually sacrifice a mana dork and cast it on Turn 3 if they have it in their opening hand, often finding Primeval Titan which then finds 2 more lands and ramps again, often finding the killer combo Dark Depths + Thespian's Stage. Some colors have some answers to it if they are lucky (for example Hallowed Moonlight and Containment Priest), however they are corner cases. I say "Enough is Enough!". The card Natural Order has been wreaking havoc for 2 years in a row, and now it's time to say farewell to that card.

If you disagree, then I request that Mystical Tutor be un-banned, to be fair. Please also remember that Mystical Tutor has been allowed throughout all of s100's vast history, when Wizards of the Coast maintained the ban list.

Un-bannings

I recommend that the card Sensei's Divining Top be un-banned. It is a fun card to use and not over-powered in this format. It is kept in balance because the 25 minute clock is brutal for those who wish to spin the top repeatedly. It may also help some archetypes which are currently struggling, for example Storm combo which has never been played in a chainsaw tournament. I look forward to spinning the top again. I vote "Yes" for this card.

As noted above, I vote for Mystical Tutor to be un-banned (if Natural Order stays legal).