Texas Magic Zone  

Go Back   Texas Magic Zone > Other Stuff > Gamer Blogs!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2013, 12:44 PM   #21
Cecilia Jupe
Big Mac
Contributor
 
Cecilia Jupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 11,752
Rep Power: 21475106
Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.
Send a message via AIM to Cecilia Jupe
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
deckbuilding is apparently pretty important skill. Owen was playing the best magic in the world but he didn't day 2 GP ft worth because he ruined the decklist paul reitzel built for him. Copying tier 1 lists won't do you any good if you make small changes to ruin them or sideboard to ruin them, which is very common practice among grinders.
i don't understand why you continue to say he ruined the list, after he top 8 the standard open in vegas and a copy of it won the invitational.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Basically, you're failing to communicate and making it worse by not admitting it. Expert has a definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppet Master View Post
Stop being an ass.
Cecilia Jupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 12:48 PM   #22
Cecilia Jupe
Big Mac
Contributor
 
Cecilia Jupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 11,752
Rep Power: 21475106
Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.
Send a message via AIM to Cecilia Jupe
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weazy View Post

In retrospect I like the build a lot. It had a lot of play against a lot of decks.
i've been meaning to write an article / blog post about this concept of a deck "having play". the main premise is many times a deck has the illusion of having play because you have intentionally made it less consistent by including lots of 2 and 3 ofs, not because it actually has play. increased variance in the cards you draw present varied game states that require more decisions, but that quality of a deck doesn't necessarily make it good.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Basically, you're failing to communicate and making it worse by not admitting it. Expert has a definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppet Master View Post
Stop being an ass.
Cecilia Jupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:09 PM   #23
Weazy
Punter
Contributor
 
Weazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kingwood, Texas
Posts: 1,437
Rep Power: 8259089
Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecilia Jupe View Post
i've been meaning to write an article / blog post about this concept of a deck "having play". the main premise is many times a deck has the illusion of having play because you have intentionally made it less consistent by including lots of 2 and 3 ofs, not because it actually has play. increased variance in the cards you draw present varied game states that require more decisions, but that quality of a deck doesn't necessarily make it good.
Good point. What I meant by 'had a lot of play' was that I thought it had a good number of threats that needed to be anwsered and a good number of answers for opposing decks I expected. So maybe I misspoke and should have said I thought it was 'well positioned'?

I undertand your point about going to 2 and 3 ofs and thusly making the deck less consistent. There were cards I just didn't want 4 of because they may have been less than ideal against some decks (eg smiter) but that could be a gap in my building / thought process? I'm still learning a lot so the comments help more than you know. Thanks.
Weazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:15 PM   #24
Cecilia Jupe
Big Mac
Contributor
 
Cecilia Jupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 11,752
Rep Power: 21475106
Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.
Send a message via AIM to Cecilia Jupe
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weazy View Post
Good point. What I meant by 'had a lot of play' was that I thought it had a good number of threats that needed to be anwsered and a good number of answers for opposing decks I expected. So maybe I misspoke and should have said I thought it was 'well positioned'?

I undertand your point about going to 2 and 3 ofs and thusly making the deck less consistent. There were cards I just didn't want 4 of because they may have been less than ideal against some decks (eg smiter) but that could be a gap in my building / thought process? I'm still learning a lot so the comments help more than you know. Thanks.
2 and 3 ofs are fine, especially with interchangeable cards like removal. but if the primary function of lightning strike is to kill opponents creatures, you are probably better of playing 4 mortars before the first lightning strike.

a deck that is half removal half threats doesn't really have a consistent game plan. sometimes the power level of the cards is such that it doesn't matter like MonoBlack devotion, which can draw a bunch of early removal when they don't need it and still be fine. maybe the cards you have are similar i haven't tested many of them. but i think you would be better off going either more controllish (like brad nelson's naya control) or more aggressive.

to build consistent decks you need to look at what the cards do in the worst case situations, not the best case situations.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Basically, you're failing to communicate and making it worse by not admitting it. Expert has a definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppet Master View Post
Stop being an ass.
Cecilia Jupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:19 PM   #25
Spike614
Raze Fear
 
Spike614's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,449
Rep Power: 4063120
Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?Spike614 , waysr?
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecilia Jupe View Post
i don't understand why you continue to say he ruined the list, after he top 8 the standard open in vegas and a copy of it won the invitational.
Why would that change my mind? It's not like I picked this decklist because it won the tournament, I was still calling it shitty when it won the previous tournament. I'm exaggerating when I say he ruined it, since the decklist is like 5 cards different from the old one, but that's obvious if you know what changes he made. I think they are poor changes. devour flesh sucks ass and is the weakest card in the deck.
__________________
<@Anusien> PV: They're just dicks in general. They're actualyl going easy on you by comparison
Spike614 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:26 PM   #26
Weazy
Punter
Contributor
 
Weazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kingwood, Texas
Posts: 1,437
Rep Power: 8259089
Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecilia Jupe View Post
2 and 3 ofs are fine, especially with interchangeable cards like removal. but if the primary function of lightning strike is to kill opponents creatures, you are probably better of playing 4 mortars before the first lightning strike.

a deck that is half removal half threats doesn't really have a consistent game plan. sometimes the power level of the cards is such that it doesn't matter like MonoBlack devotion, which can draw a bunch of early removal when they don't need it and still be fine. maybe the cards you have are similar i haven't tested many of them. but i think you would be better off going either more controllish (like brad nelson's naya control) or more aggressive.

to build consistent decks you need to look at what the cards do in the worst case situations, not the best case situations.
OK. So here's why I went 4 x strike / 2 x mortar - I felt that 4 x strike was better becuase it was hardly ever dead, meaning I felt it could be used as removal for creatures or reach against control decks. Mortars did little against control unless you faced the odd Blood Baron or a bunch of Elspeth tokens and even against elspeth you'd need to overload, which might not be guarenteed with a 24 land deck, giving strike the edge using that line of thought. So, is that just a less than ideal line of thought on my part? I think that where I go wrong is in my evaluation of a card in such a scenario.

The deck was a bit schozphrenic in terms of creatures / removal and that's probably a good reflection of how I approached the process of trying to build a swiss army knife of a deck that ended up less efficient / streamlined that it might have been if i went all in Naya Control or Naya Aggro. I thought that landing somewhere in the middle was where I wanted to be, thus my final list.

I tried the Brand Nelson build but found it weak to control, which I expected to see a lot of in Dallas. And indeed, it was there. I tested my version against Esper and UW and really liked the match up and I think that's what pushed me into the midrange mess I piloted.

Last edited by Weazy; 12-19-2013 at 01:27 PM.
Weazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:41 PM   #27
Cecilia Jupe
Big Mac
Contributor
 
Cecilia Jupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 11,752
Rep Power: 21475106
Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.
Send a message via AIM to Cecilia Jupe
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Why would that change my mind? It's not like I picked this decklist because it won the tournament, I was still calling it shitty when it won the previous tournament. I'm exaggerating when I say he ruined it, since the decklist is like 5 cards different from the old one, but that's obvious if you know what changes he made. I think they are poor changes. devour flesh sucks ass and is the weakest card in the deck.
why would i listen to you about the weakest card in the deck when owen has probably played 10x as many matches with the deck as you? do you really think you are that much better a deck builder than him that you could overcome his vastly greater experience? it looks to me that devour flesh is much better in the mirror than any of the other options, and with the rise of blood baron following GP DFW, it makes sense to play more.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Basically, you're failing to communicate and making it worse by not admitting it. Expert has a definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppet Master View Post
Stop being an ass.
Cecilia Jupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:49 PM   #28
Cecilia Jupe
Big Mac
Contributor
 
Cecilia Jupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 11,752
Rep Power: 21475106
Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.Cecilia Jupe is untouchable.
Send a message via AIM to Cecilia Jupe
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weazy View Post
OK. So here's why I went 4 x strike / 2 x mortar - I felt that 4 x strike was better becuase it was hardly ever dead, meaning I felt it could be used as removal for creatures or reach against control decks. Mortars did little against control unless you faced the odd Blood Baron or a bunch of Elspeth tokens and even against elspeth you'd need to overload, which might not be guarenteed with a 24 land deck, giving strike the edge using that line of thought. So, is that just a less than ideal line of thought on my part? I think that where I go wrong is in my evaluation of a card in such a scenario.

The deck was a bit schozphrenic in terms of creatures / removal and that's probably a good reflection of how I approached the process of trying to build a swiss army knife of a deck that ended up less efficient / streamlined that it might have been if i went all in Naya Control or Naya Aggro. I thought that landing somewhere in the middle was where I wanted to be, thus my final list.

I tried the Brand Nelson build but found it weak to control, which I expected to see a lot of in Dallas. And indeed, it was there. I tested my version against Esper and UW and really liked the match up and I think that's what pushed me into the midrange mess I piloted.
mortars being a dead card against control doesn't matter. lightning strike is a dead card against control. they both have narrow uses (opponent at 3 vs opponent with blood baron) that don't matter too much. sure it "feels bad" getting your opponent to 3 with mortars in hand, and i suppose it "feels less bad" to lose to a blood baron with lightning strike in hand. choosing one over the other because of these narrow situations is exactly what i'm talking about when i said to look at cards at their worst case vs best case: you are looking at best case in a matchup and comparing, where i look worst case (both are dead) and dont' see any difference. so i would let other matchups dictate what i want to play in that spot.

boros charm doesn't seem very good here either. protecting your 3 and 4 drops is much harder than protecting 1 and 2 drops.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike614 View Post
Basically, you're failing to communicate and making it worse by not admitting it. Expert has a definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppet Master View Post
Stop being an ass.
Cecilia Jupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:51 PM   #29
binger
You know who this is
Repeat Contributor
 
binger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 44,477
Rep Power: 21475760
binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.binger is untouchable.
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Jose and Will are two of the best deckbuilders in the world.
__________________
Disclaimer: I'm serious.

 
binger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 01:56 PM   #30
Weazy
Punter
Contributor
 
Weazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kingwood, Texas
Posts: 1,437
Rep Power: 8259089
Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?Weazy , waysr?
Default Re: The Chronicles of Weazy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecilia Jupe View Post
mortars being a dead card against control doesn't matter. lightning strike is a dead card against control. they both have narrow uses (opponent at 3 vs opponent with blood baron) that don't matter too much. sure it "feels bad" getting your opponent to 3 with mortars in hand, and i suppose it "feels less bad" to lose to a blood baron with lightning strike in hand. choosing one over the other because of these narrow situations is exactly what i'm talking about when i said to look at cards at their worst case vs best case: you are looking at best case in a matchup and comparing, where i look worst case (both are dead) and dont' see any difference. so i would let other matchups dictate what i want to play in that spot.

boros charm doesn't seem very good here either. protecting your 3 and 4 drops is much harder than protecting 1 and 2 drops.
Ok. I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm not being agnostic becuase I'm the one building / piloting the deck. So I'm suffering from not seeing the bad side of my 'snowflake'. Ha ha ha.
Weazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.