[Deck] Divining Top Combo

[Hyperion]

Chill out people. Keep posts relevant to the discussion topic please.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Since people seem to have some questions about the deck, I figured I'd chime in with my two cents.

In fact I know many people, including myself, who figured that combo not long after seeing the card

Yeah, by now none of us should be surprised about simultaneous innovation.  Additionally, none of us should be surprised when less-established members get patted on the head and nudged towards the newb forum with what are viable ideas.  Let's stay on topic.

It is too improbable that running one Merchant Scroll and one Intuition is optimal

This is quite a statement from someone who offers no argument to follow it up besides the implicit fact that merchant scroll and intuition are competitive t1 level cards.

If I were to give a short answer, it's that you have to strike a balance between tutors and cards that actually draw you cards or produce mana.  I can certainly see running two, but for my playstyle it's a matter of opportunity cost when using mana.

Mind's Desire

I certainly considered this card, but the curve is pretty high already.  Also, this isn't a 'blow your load' deck, it has an uncanny ability to dictate the tempo of the game.  I'd be happy to hear people's testing results with it, but I have too many other cards that need attention first.

Disrupting Shoal

I don't think the deck wants to be any more reactive.

-1 draw spell x
+1 draw spell y

Everyone seems to have good suggestions for what to take in and take out.  It's also rather obvious what effects adding something or subtracting something will have on the general strategy of the deck.  You can make it play more like TPS, or more like Hulk, or more like Mono U.   Mix and match to your meta.

As people have mentioned about meddling mage and seal of cleansing, and etc...now that the list is out there it's pretty easy to punch holes in the deck.  In testing more flexible combo and aggro control decks have a field day with it.

I think the deck was stronger before trinisphere was restricted since its manabase is rock solid, and it could find bounce when it needed to.  If the format speeds up again, I'm not sure if this will stick around.  Maybe some of the suggestions found here will help in that regard.

[Smmenen]

It is too improbable that running one Merchant Scroll and one Intuition is optimal

This is quite a statement from someone who offers no argument to follow it up besides the implicit fact that merchant scroll and intuition are competitive t1 level cards.

If I were to give a short answer, it's that you have to strike a balance between tutors and cards that actually draw you cards or produce mana.  I can certainly see running two, but for my playstyle it's a matter of opportunity cost when using mana.

The argument should be obvious.  Here is the general rule:
* You run a four of becuase you want to see that card every opening hand, and you don't mind seeing two
* You run a three of becuase you want to see this card often, but not in mulitples
* You run a two of becuase its a late game card.
* You run a one of becuase its restricted or a powerful singleton that you can afford to run.

When I see lots of singletons in a deck I see confusion.  One Merchant Scroll and one Intuition, from a design standpoint, can't be optimal unless it has been the product of extreme tuning.  In other words, 2 Intutions or 2 Merchant Scroll is almost cerrtainly better than 1 of each.  You don't have to attack me for that - I thought that these background rules of design were obvious.  That was the point of my opening post.

I wanted to see how you would further tune this deck.  So, if you had to play it agian, what would you play?

[Grand Inquisitor]

Here is the general rule...

These guidelines are loosely derived from the probability of seeing certain cards over the course of a game.  Obviously the deck is configured for what I think this optimal distribution of draws is.  I went on to explain, for example, why I chose more card draw instead of tutors within this context.  I think this gives a better idea of the cards' role in the deck instead of saying I want to run two intution because-

You run a two of becuase its a late game card

Since deck building strategies are sundry, it's difficult to have a general discussion when people impose their specific guidelines without saying so.

[Smmenen]

THey aren't specific guideliness, they are general and suggestive.It's pretty obvious and intuitive to play who play/design alot of magic decks.     Seeing lots of singletons suggested that it is "optimally" tuned, strictly speaking.   There are other reasons to run certain numbers of.  For example, it took me along time to figure out that MeanDeath wants only two Elvish Spirit Guides.  Once I figured that out the deck just "clicked."  

I'm just trying to figure out what needs to be tuned when I see your list and what should be left as is.  You still didn't answer what you would change.

[hulk3rules]

When I see lots of singletons in a deck I see confusion.  One Merchant Scroll and one Intuition, from a design standpoint, can't be optimal unless it has been the product of extreme tuning.  

Who says this isn't the product of extreme tuning?  I know you like to pretend you are the only one that puts effort into making decks- but I know for a fact that Steve Houdlette has been working on this deck since October.

[Dr_Tongue]

Have you ever considered/used Show and Tell in the deck?The sheer casting cost of FS makes this a U1 drop under the Helm. Turn 1 SDT/Helm followed by this looks 'fun' but I don't know if you've ever tested it.It gets around a Meddling Mage in play too although thats just a random note I saw while testing with it.

[Eastman]

When I see lots of singletons in a deck I see confusion. One Merchant Scroll and one Intuition, from a design standpoint, can't be optimal unless it has been the product of extreme tuning.

I completely agree with this argument in general. GI may recall me bringing up just this point in person on SEVERAL occassions (in fact steve, I think the first time i said this was in reference to a 'your mother' decklist years ago, and you'll recall I've argued ever since...) There is no reason to be running 1ofs of unrestricted cards (with the exception of combo pieces).

After these years of arguing I've conceded that Merchant Scroll in particular can be an exception to this rule because it is a card that you NEVER want to see in multiples, under any circumstances. Merchant Scroll can be seen as restricted in a way because should you have 2 in a hand, only one is really useful (that is, only one can get Ancestral).

Who says this isn't the product of extreme tuning? I know you like to pretend you are the only one that puts effort into making decks- but I know for a fact that Steve Houdlette has been working on this deck since October.

But let's not pretend that anyone in this format puts in the effort it would require to make a decision between two similar effects in one slot. I'm not trying to make light of the work Steve does, being his teammate I know very well how much effort tuning requires, but to decide a minor change in a slot such as this based on test games is really impractical. This is one situation where the theoretical discussion is probably our best method of solution.

[Grand Inquisitor]

It's pretty obvious and intuitive to play who play/design alot of magic decks

This sentence looks very confusing to me.

What I mean about these:

* You run a four of becuase you want to see that card every opening hand, and you don't mind seeing two
* You run a three of becuase you want to see this card often, but not in mulitples
* You run a two of becuase its a late game card.
* You run a one of becuase its restricted or a powerful singleton that you can afford to run.

is that it's certainly one way to look at , but that it's certainly not general in a way that can be widely applied.  For example, I don't think you'd argue that Elvish Spirit Guide is a late game card in Meandeath.  I would say that the reasons to run one, or two, or whatever of something are extremely nuanced to the specific deck you're building, your playstyle with the deck, and the metagame you're playing in.

Then again, I don't build a lot of decks.

Have you ever considered/used Show and Tell in the deck?The sheer casting cost of FS makes this a U1 drop under the Helm

One thing that people should realize is that this isn't really a Future Sight deck.  It just so happens that it's a really powerful card advantage tool if you don't have anything else.  In fact, hands with: Lotus, land, mox, future sight, aren't even the more powerful hands this deck can get.  This is because you don't usually have the resources to abuse an early Future Sight.  Usually Future Sight is the last part of the combo to come down, and this makes Show and Tell a little premature for your strategy most of the time.

[Saucemaster]

Who says this isn't the product of extreme tuning?  I know you like to pretend you are the only one that puts effort into making decks- but I know for a fact that Steve Houdlette has been working on this deck since October.

I'm not sure how I became The Menendian Apologist, but I think what Steve was trying to say was that it might very well BE the product of extreme tuning, but that until the deck's designers comment on what they'd change and what they'd keep as is, it's hard to know whether it's untuned or VERY tuned.

At any rate, the deck is interesting, and pretty solid--it sure was a bitch and a half to play against at Syracuse.  Also, I'd like to say that comments like this:

I think the deck was stronger before trinisphere was restricted since its manabase is rock solid, and it could find bounce when it needed to. If the format speeds up again, I'm not sure if this will stick around. Maybe some of the suggestions found here will help in that regard.

...are very refreshing in their honesty.  Thanks to GI and co.

Oh, and to the people talking about cutting Helms: they were pretty key, even without Future Sight or Top, in most of the deck's games that I saw.  Most opposing decks can't abuse it to nearly the same degree that this deck can.

[Smmenen]

Exactly, and they still haven't said what they would change about it.  Please?  A tournament experience can bring out hidden flaws or things that should be improved.  

The guys who played this deck were mostly in the contention even toward the late rounds.  One made top 8 and I know at least one other was in the top 25 or so.  And I think another was too.  I'd like to hear what you found ineffective/inefficient and what you would have changed if you had to do it over.