This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Investigating Combo: A National Qualifier Report. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
When you say abysmal Bant matchup...are you referring to mythic Bant or NL Bant, because I've found NL Bant to be reasonable for Sieve depending on how many O-Rings/Bant Charms they draw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't read anything LaPille. Your brain will thank you later. ----> VICTORY!
I just wanted to say how much I admire your decision NOT to stall near the end there. Too many people have a poor sense of sportsmanship and will do anything to win.
When you say abysmal Bant matchup...are you referring to mythic Bant or NL Bant, because I've found NL Bant to be reasonable for Sieve depending on how many O-Rings/Bant Charms they draw.
I am not experienced with NLBant, but Mythic is the toughest matchup. The problem is they board an average of 7-9 cards, usually 4 Negates and a mix of Oring, Pridemage, and Bant Charm. This makes for very painful games 2 and 3 as they threaten not only our critical combo turn but also they can attack our mana and mines, all while having enough of their own mana to put up a fast clock at the same time.
That bit on cascade got me thinking a bit. It's a tangent, I know (but not totally off-topic!)
I think that part of the problem is that it draws comparisons to things like Vampiric Tutor at all. Cascade isn't the same kind of thing at all. It doesn't add play decisions (or rather it minimally adds play decisions). Cascade adds deckbuilding considerations, a very different kind of thing. It actually does add to the complexity of deckbuilding, though how much is debatable.
The problems with Cascade are thus threefold:
1. The signature, most powerful Cascade card is the face of the hated, dominant deck since Lorwyn rotated. This leads to a perception that Cascade is just plain too powerful. (I say perception because frankly if they had printed Cascade exactly as is but left out Bloodbraid Elf, the perception would be that Cascade is too weak. Mechanics are almost never "overpowered" because power level requires the context of a card. They just printed a mechanic that destroys 3+ permanents per attack in many cases and does so no matter what the defender does and it isn't overpowered, because the cards it appears on aren't overpowered).
2. It's random. It's a lot less random than, say, a coin flip, because you have control over what the table of possible results look like and you can weight it towards specific results during deckbuilding, but during gameplay it is still a random mechanic and losing to a random mechanic is always going to frustrate a segment of MTG players. You could be in a position where any possible cascade beats you, and when it happens to be Blightning for the last 3 damage instead of Maelstrom Pulse to sweep the last blocker, you're *still* going to be frustrated.
3. It's the kind of mechanic that draws comparisons with Vampiric Tutor without actually increasing your decision-making during a game. It doesn't make you have to play with all 60 cards in your deck. It seems like it could. To put it another way, you could just as easily compare Vampiric Tutor to Exalted instead of Cascade, and you'd come up with the same complaints about Exalted, but it would never occur to you to do so.
The American Nightmare: from my experience, while NLB kills a few turns slower, it also cycles through more cards. While Mythic might have an O-Ring or Negate or two, NLB can consistently find multiple pieces of disruption while providing a fast clock.
Drawmeomg: The point was mostly that specific tutors complexify the game, and random tutors simplify it, which I think you understood. I've heard the deckbuilding argument before, but when Owen Turtenwald adds two copies of Pentad Prism to what is otherwise a stock Jund list, you know the deckbuilding aspect of cascade is becoming a little stale. Don't get me wrong, I love that Hypergenesis (RIP!) couldn't play Chrome Mox, but most people playing the deck didn't make that decision, but they benefit from it. Meanwhile, people misplay skill intensive cards like Jace and Vampiric Tutor all the time.
And maybe you're right. I think my main problem is that with cascade, people can make the wrong decision and be rewarded, or make the right decision and be punished. Sure, that's always a factor in magic, but it still irks me as it increases variance unnecessarily, and I hope that Wizards takes the game in the other direction soon.
Cmon... how many times have you "dropped" a card while not shuffling? For me that has been zero times. Even players I see who constantly flick cards in their hand rarely, if ever, drop a card.
If I was the judge I would have made a less lenient decision.
Cmon... how many times have you "dropped" a card while not shuffling? For me that has been zero times. Even players I see who constantly flick cards in their hand rarely, if ever, drop a card.
If I was the judge I would have made a less lenient decision.
Happens to me once in a while. I don't think it is as rare to have a clumsy moment as you think it is.
I think there's a distinct difference between stalling by playing and stalling by not playing. Sideboarding in the Firewalkers and generally trying to get the game go long is a completely viable and fair tactic, as long as you're not stalling with unnecessary game decisions and things like that.
Viable and fair, but not effective. Had I brought in the Firewalkers, what was I taking out? Bringing in any non artifact hinders the combo. Thus, if I brought in Firewalkers against Jund, I would be all-in on the drawing plan, and denied the ability to simply win. It has negative EV unless I'm actively trying to stall.
@dragonstorm81: I can understand where you're coming from, but I was running on a good four hours of car sleep and was looking over my opponent's board. All the land in my hand was flipped to the front, and I dropped the frontmost card. I'm not usually one to drop cards, but I'm not one to misrepresent things, either.
Good report. As others have said, props on the not stalling and actually trying to play it. REspect
Burek you hit the nail on the head
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The true mind can weather all the lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can tough the poison of hatred without being harmed. Since beginning-less time, darkness thrives in the void but always yields to purifying light.
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.
The U/W Control player you played sounded cocky and arrogant. It also sounds like he was playing U/W Tapout (you said he was tapping out a lot) or he really just doesn't know how to run his deck.
The only thing I take issue with in the article is this sentence: "Control decks are the reason to be running this deck..." (meaning Time Sieve Combo)
I play a counter-heavy U/W Permission build, and have had very very good stats against Time Sieve. Do I win all the time? Of course not. But I am sure not losing 75% of the those games. I think that saying that "Control" is a good matchup for Time Sieve is a little too narrow. We are seeing an outgrowth of different types of Control decks now, from Tapout to Permission to splashing for red or black for burn/removal to UWR Planeswalker, etc. A sweeping generalization about "Control" seems to be a bit off to me. I think that (just like everything else in MtG, as well as life in general) it's very situational. A deck that is light on counters and ORings is going to fall to Time Sieve. A deck that can neutralize Tezz/Time Sieve/Vaults is in better position. I know, it's a bit nit-picky, but I thought I'd point it out.
Cmon... how many times have you "dropped" a card while not shuffling? For me that has been zero times. Even players I see who constantly flick cards in their hand rarely, if ever, drop a card.
If I was the judge I would have made a less lenient decision.
I personally have not dropped a card from my hand. BUT, it is all about INTENT. If you honestly think that the other player is trying to manipulate you, that's one thing. But if I am sitting across the table from a cordial opponent (and, with some exceptions, most are) then I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, we are in competition, but when push comes to shove this is a GAME. The only time I ever make a stink about taking a card back that has been dropped onto the table is when I am playtesting against friends in a casual atmosphere. And it is specifically for this reason. There are people who are going to yell for a judge if you accidentally drop a card you didn't intend on dropping, and then it becomes a big issue. So we are tough on each other in testing in hopes that it teaches us to figure out how to avoid mishaps on game days.
You need to reevaluate your deck list. You "fizzled" and had to win with plan B more often than you went off. I'll post my list that I play online for you when I have access to it.
Hey Caleb! I didn't know you where writing for this site. It's Alex from the Ashland Underground.
Great article! Time Sieve was one of the decks I thought about running at the Fargo PTQ this weekend, but I had to make a metagame choice and run a homebrew RDW (I <3 Forked Bolt so much against Cobras and Heirarchs). The complete lack of removal and interaction with the opponent Time Sieve means you can auto loose to explosive Mythic and Naya Conscption starts.
I like the deck but I realize it has two big weaknesses: your skill level with the deck and your opponent's knowledge of the deck. If you do something out of order (Mine vs Bauble or not saving a borderpost for turn 3, etc) or if your opponent know they only have to attack Tezz and counter Opens it gets alot tougher. So many opponents screw up the right plays because people don't test with or against the deck as the game against your Jund opponent shows.
Sup Alex. Very much agreed on the Bant matchups, and yeah, forked bolt is pretty good right now. Last FNM I took a homebrew turbo bant deck and went 4-1, losing to mythic 1-2. I think I'll overload my sideboard with paths and bant charms, next time.
As for Time Sieve, I've been thinking about running Zealous Persecution to punish the accelerant-heavy draws of Mythic and maybe steal more games I have no right winning with thopter foundry. I know from playing master of etherium alongside foundry in the old ext (rip), that suddenly doubling your attacking power really messes with the opponent's math. Still, it's just theory at this point.
I have much less faith in judges than the author of this article. The truth is judges are people too, and they can screw up too. I've had more incorrect calls than correct ones. Granted, it was FNM, and my experience is atypical, but the article itself shows that judges struggle with calls.
Switching what land you play doesn't pass priority at all, so it's silly that you shouldn't be allowed to finalize what land you want to play. There is no potential at all for unfair advantage, because the other player wouldn't make a decision about it anyway. And I'm not some casual player who likes the game loosey goosey either, I lock people's Bloodghasts to their graveyards if they forget even for a second. (I've found it makes them pretty angry.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Target creature loses shroud until end of turn.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some people just love Jace a little too much
I am not experienced with NLBant, but Mythic is the toughest matchup. The problem is they board an average of 7-9 cards, usually 4 Negates and a mix of Oring, Pridemage, and Bant Charm. This makes for very painful games 2 and 3 as they threaten not only our critical combo turn but also they can attack our mana and mines, all while having enough of their own mana to put up a fast clock at the same time.
I think that part of the problem is that it draws comparisons to things like Vampiric Tutor at all. Cascade isn't the same kind of thing at all. It doesn't add play decisions (or rather it minimally adds play decisions). Cascade adds deckbuilding considerations, a very different kind of thing. It actually does add to the complexity of deckbuilding, though how much is debatable.
The problems with Cascade are thus threefold:
1. The signature, most powerful Cascade card is the face of the hated, dominant deck since Lorwyn rotated. This leads to a perception that Cascade is just plain too powerful. (I say perception because frankly if they had printed Cascade exactly as is but left out Bloodbraid Elf, the perception would be that Cascade is too weak. Mechanics are almost never "overpowered" because power level requires the context of a card. They just printed a mechanic that destroys 3+ permanents per attack in many cases and does so no matter what the defender does and it isn't overpowered, because the cards it appears on aren't overpowered).
2. It's random. It's a lot less random than, say, a coin flip, because you have control over what the table of possible results look like and you can weight it towards specific results during deckbuilding, but during gameplay it is still a random mechanic and losing to a random mechanic is always going to frustrate a segment of MTG players. You could be in a position where any possible cascade beats you, and when it happens to be Blightning for the last 3 damage instead of Maelstrom Pulse to sweep the last blocker, you're *still* going to be frustrated.
3. It's the kind of mechanic that draws comparisons with Vampiric Tutor without actually increasing your decision-making during a game. It doesn't make you have to play with all 60 cards in your deck. It seems like it could. To put it another way, you could just as easily compare Vampiric Tutor to Exalted instead of Cascade, and you'd come up with the same complaints about Exalted, but it would never occur to you to do so.
The American Nightmare: from my experience, while NLB kills a few turns slower, it also cycles through more cards. While Mythic might have an O-Ring or Negate or two, NLB can consistently find multiple pieces of disruption while providing a fast clock.
Drawmeomg: The point was mostly that specific tutors complexify the game, and random tutors simplify it, which I think you understood. I've heard the deckbuilding argument before, but when Owen Turtenwald adds two copies of Pentad Prism to what is otherwise a stock Jund list, you know the deckbuilding aspect of cascade is becoming a little stale. Don't get me wrong, I love that Hypergenesis (RIP!) couldn't play Chrome Mox, but most people playing the deck didn't make that decision, but they benefit from it. Meanwhile, people misplay skill intensive cards like Jace and Vampiric Tutor all the time.
And maybe you're right. I think my main problem is that with cascade, people can make the wrong decision and be rewarded, or make the right decision and be punished. Sure, that's always a factor in magic, but it still irks me as it increases variance unnecessarily, and I hope that Wizards takes the game in the other direction soon.
If I was the judge I would have made a less lenient decision.
Happens to me once in a while. I don't think it is as rare to have a clumsy moment as you think it is.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
Viable and fair, but not effective. Had I brought in the Firewalkers, what was I taking out? Bringing in any non artifact hinders the combo. Thus, if I brought in Firewalkers against Jund, I would be all-in on the drawing plan, and denied the ability to simply win. It has negative EV unless I'm actively trying to stall.
@dragonstorm81: I can understand where you're coming from, but I was running on a good four hours of car sleep and was looking over my opponent's board. All the land in my hand was flipped to the front, and I dropped the frontmost card. I'm not usually one to drop cards, but I'm not one to misrepresent things, either.
^Oh, and I like Burek's examples.
Burek you hit the nail on the head
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.
The U/W Control player you played sounded cocky and arrogant. It also sounds like he was playing U/W Tapout (you said he was tapping out a lot) or he really just doesn't know how to run his deck.
The only thing I take issue with in the article is this sentence: "Control decks are the reason to be running this deck..." (meaning Time Sieve Combo)
I play a counter-heavy U/W Permission build, and have had very very good stats against Time Sieve. Do I win all the time? Of course not. But I am sure not losing 75% of the those games. I think that saying that "Control" is a good matchup for Time Sieve is a little too narrow. We are seeing an outgrowth of different types of Control decks now, from Tapout to Permission to splashing for red or black for burn/removal to UWR Planeswalker, etc. A sweeping generalization about "Control" seems to be a bit off to me. I think that (just like everything else in MtG, as well as life in general) it's very situational. A deck that is light on counters and ORings is going to fall to Time Sieve. A deck that can neutralize Tezz/Time Sieve/Vaults is in better position. I know, it's a bit nit-picky, but I thought I'd point it out.
And as for this:
I personally have not dropped a card from my hand. BUT, it is all about INTENT. If you honestly think that the other player is trying to manipulate you, that's one thing. But if I am sitting across the table from a cordial opponent (and, with some exceptions, most are) then I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, we are in competition, but when push comes to shove this is a GAME. The only time I ever make a stink about taking a card back that has been dropped onto the table is when I am playtesting against friends in a casual atmosphere. And it is specifically for this reason. There are people who are going to yell for a judge if you accidentally drop a card you didn't intend on dropping, and then it becomes a big issue. So we are tough on each other in testing in hopes that it teaches us to figure out how to avoid mishaps on game days.
TBD...
Great article! Time Sieve was one of the decks I thought about running at the Fargo PTQ this weekend, but I had to make a metagame choice and run a homebrew RDW (I <3 Forked Bolt so much against Cobras and Heirarchs). The complete lack of removal and interaction with the opponent Time Sieve means you can auto loose to explosive Mythic and Naya Conscption starts.
I like the deck but I realize it has two big weaknesses: your skill level with the deck and your opponent's knowledge of the deck. If you do something out of order (Mine vs Bauble or not saving a borderpost for turn 3, etc) or if your opponent know they only have to attack Tezz and counter Opens it gets alot tougher. So many opponents screw up the right plays because people don't test with or against the deck as the game against your Jund opponent shows.
As for Time Sieve, I've been thinking about running Zealous Persecution to punish the accelerant-heavy draws of Mythic and maybe steal more games I have no right winning with thopter foundry. I know from playing master of etherium alongside foundry in the old ext (rip), that suddenly doubling your attacking power really messes with the opponent's math. Still, it's just theory at this point.
Switching what land you play doesn't pass priority at all, so it's silly that you shouldn't be allowed to finalize what land you want to play. There is no potential at all for unfair advantage, because the other player wouldn't make a decision about it anyway. And I'm not some casual player who likes the game loosey goosey either, I lock people's Bloodghasts to their graveyards if they forget even for a second. (I've found it makes them pretty angry.)