[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays: Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13642.html

Stephen recently decided to put his money where his mouth was: he rocked up to a Vintage tournament armed with Mana Ichorid. Today's "Insane Plays" looks at two tournaments that asked some interesting questions of Stephen's theoretical analysis of the matchups... and poses some possible workarounds.

[oldbsturgeon]

when reading the article, i had one question that i couldn't figure out how it happened. It was from the side tournament, game two. It seems that on your turn two you brought back an ichorid and a nether shadow. Now i know the one shadow was played off the lotus on turn 1 but how did you manage to have another one in play.
Maybe I am mistaken and that is turn 3 not 2, or it doesn't read how i am reading it.
overall a great article, this is the deck i'm trying out now and love it.
I was never entirely sold on the caverns but I wanted to try them, but sort of felt the way you did after the 3 matches.
One thing I would like you to comment on the way the deck seems to be going over on SCG boards. Personally I found the prospect of turn 2 win less appealing than sealing the game with a more secure turn 3 or 4 win.

[Moxlotus]

Does this mean that Ichorid is the first deck to use the fact that a Magic match is 3 games as part of it's strategy?

What a brilliant idea.

[policehq]

If you're going to plan on losing game 2 anyway, why not at least try to board against Tormod's Crypt?

If you miss, you miss, but at least during matches where you're guessing what the opponent will be using to hate your strategy, you'll have a chance. It doesn't require over-sideboarding to put in Pithing Needles.

(This argument could be applied to Leyline of the Void as well, just substitute "Pithing Needles" for "Chain of Vapors.")

-hq

[Smmenen]

when reading the article, i had one question that i couldn't figure out how it happened. It was from the side tournament, game two. It seems that on your turn two you brought back an ichorid and a nether shadow. Now i know the one shadow was played off the lotus on turn 1 but how did you manage to have another one in play.
Maybe I am mistaken and that is turn 3 not 2, or it doesn't read how i am reading it.
overall a great article, this is the deck i'm trying out now and love it.
I was never entirely sold on the caverns but I wanted to try them, but sort of felt the way you did after the 3 matches.
One thing I would like you to comment on the way the deck seems to be going over on SCG boards. Personally I found the prospect of turn 2 win less appealing than sealing the game with a more secure turn 3 or 4 win.

I guess I hadn’t realized that there was a concerted effort to achieve a turn two win on the SCG boards.   In an article I wrote in Jan, I discussed the theoretical possibility using 4 Mishra’s Factory, but a turn two win is very difficult and improbable.  It requires a turn two Mishra’s Factory a discard of two Ichorids on turn one, and some amazing dredging.   Although I’m sure there are ways to maximize a turn two kill (using 4 baubles, 4 of each combo component, etc) there is no way to make a consistent turn two kill, nor would you want to given the trade-offs it would require.

Does this mean that Ichorid is the first deck to use the fact that a Magic match is 3 games as part of it's strategy?

What a brilliant idea.

If you are using the word ‘strategy’ to mean plan, I would say that this is accurate – but this is not the same thing as saying that we are planning on losing game two – i.e. throwing game two.

If you're going to plan on losing game 2 anyway, why not at least try to board against Tormod's Crypt?

If you miss, you miss, but at least during matches where you're guessing what the opponent will be using to hate your strategy, you'll have a chance. It doesn't require over-sideboarding to put in Pithing Needles.

(This argument could be applied to Leyline of the Void as well, just substitute "Pithing Needles" for "Chain of Vapors.")

-hq

Well, first of all, you misunderstand the idea of the 3 game strategy.    A strategy is a plan.   A plan anticipates possible outcomes.   

The plan – the strategy – is not to lose game two.   It is a contingency operation that says: if we lose game two, then we sideboard in a manner that is designed to target those particular tactics that caused us to lose game two.   
There are two critical reasons not to board that much, if at all, in game two:

1) You don’t know exactly what your opponent will have.  Any guess work makes you likely to over sb, as I demonstrated in the article.

2) any sbing at all slows you down from your game one goldfish.  That’s a fact of life.   What I discovered is that the most likely T. Crypt is the last minute T. Crypt.   Most of the time it is better to just win game two using the game one plan since that will actually work a surprising amount of the time.   

The reasons to sb:
1) You know your opponent has crypt/leyline

If that’s the case, then you sb with that knowledge, but where you can get tripped up is where I talked about in my article: overestimating the amount of Crypt your opponent has.

What if you know your opp. has Crypt, but you aren’t sure how much?  If you knew they only had 1 Crypt, would that change your answer?  It would for me.

I’m not saying you should give up game two nor am I saying that you shouldn’t sb in game two.   The article explains this very well.   It’s not worth it for me to recap the article here since it explained it so well. 



 

[JR]

Steve,

Good article. My one question is do you think that gemstone caverns is still an effective or necessary sideboard card, considering your board strategy has been changed dramatically? I understand that you don't plan on losing game two, so it stands to reason that you might not bring them in in tandem with CoVs or needles or what have you. While caverns is awesome, and a great find, it seems a tad less useful, as the plan now is to deliberately not over saturate your deck with hate.


Thanks for your response,
JR.

[Methuselahn]

Does this mean that Ichorid is the first deck to use the fact that a Magic match is 3 games as part of it's strategy?

What a brilliant idea.

If you are using the word ‘strategy’ to mean plan, I would say that this is accurate – but this is not the same thing as saying that we are planning on losing game two – i.e. throwing game two.

I don't think Ichorid is the first deck to really use this type of plan.  Many pilots of Dragon, another Bazaar deck, have done something similar by simply adding a few bounce spells from the side during game 2 until they see which hate cards are brought in.  Anti-hate hate is then fine tuned for game 3.  No sense bringing in Null Rods when you find out that they have boarded Needles instead of Crypts. 

I think this type of planning is underused.  I'm not sure why.  The article brings this to light and is a nice read.  Also, Steve covers a lot of play-by-play during the tournaments mentioned, which I'm personally not fond of, but it was decent nonetheless.

[Gekoratel]

I thought I would move my Brainstorm question over here because others may be interested in it as well.

I think there are many reasons to play Brainstorm immediately. The first is that Brainstorm is an amazing draw spell more akin to Ancestral Recall than most realize. I am of the belief that there are any number of ridiculous cards you might see that could just win you the game on the spot. If you see Time Walk, Lotus, Tinker, etc, you’ll often wish you had Brainstormed immediately. You can also plan better and sooner. So the first reason is raw power: you want to find and play raw power now. The second reason is that the “hide my card” rationale doesn’t justify waiting to Brainstorm. You can always hide the card you think they may want to take on top regardless of when you brainstorm. Granted, the card that they may want to take may change depending on what they do, but you can make a pretty accurate guess. The Third reason to Brainstorm now is that you want to get your moxen onto the table before Chalice, yes. The only reason not to Brainstorm is, First, that you may not be sure what you will want to hide. Second, you may not want to play Brainstorm on this turn (by “this turn” I mean both yours and your opponents).

I find this really interesting because it means that I have been playing Brainstorm wrong for a very long time.  Just as a note in my post on SCG I was only referring to the turn 1 Brainstorm.  I never wait on Brainstorm after turn 1 because it usually means I haven't played a land for the turn and with a deck like Pitch Long there are a lot of things I could draw in order to win the game.  I completely agree with your third argument and against any decks with Chalice I will cast Brainstorm main-phase in order to get Moxen into play.  You are also correct about hiding business spells with a main-phase BS.

My question, is it better to have knowledge of what your opponent is playing and what kind of a draw they have or the ability to topdeck into a combination of relevant cards?  For example if your hand has a Mox Pearl do you cast BS and try to hit Mox Sapphire + Time Walk.  There are a lot of combinations of cards that make the main-phase BS tempting, Sapphire->Mystical, Jet->Vamp, Lotus->anything.  When you have the on color Moxen it is certainty correct to go for BS now but I'm still not 100% sure what the play is if you don't.

You can also plan better and sooner. So the first reason is raw power: you want to find and play raw power now.

I agree with your raw power assessment because if you do BS into a solid combination of cards then you have effectively speed yourself up by a turn where you would have been hurt by waiting on the Brainstorm.  I disagree with your statement about being able to plan better because I think the main advantage of waiting on Brainstorm is the extra information that you get.  For example if your playing combo against Gifts; if they have Merchant Scroll->Force then thats going to change the way you stack your BS.  If you cast it main-phase you wouldn't have the knowledge that your opponent definitely has Force and therefore the card on top of your library may be incorrect.

Thanks for answering my questions because I find this topic to be very interesting.

[technogeek5000]

this might be a stupid remark (as i am not a premium member on Starcity so it might already have been brought up) but has anyone tried using contagion in the board to stop fish kindo-decks... or is the aggro matchup good enough already.

[dicemanx]

I'll C/P my response in the SCG feedback forums - hte TMD forums would generate better discussion instead:

A very interesting article - it addresses a very important point about SBing and what you term as "the Fear". Aside from Ichorid, it is something that is likewise importnat to understand as a WGD player, because it is very tempting to be overconcerned about what your opponent is capable of doing to stop you when a combo deck should focus on its strengths (the combo itself) to win games.

I'm not entirely sure about matt (Brian?) Bobek's game 2 strategy. WGD does do something similar - it has to try and see what quantity of cards the opposing deck SBs in (and whether your opponent happens to take chunks of 4 cards at a time - perhaps tipping you off about things like Leyline, which is more likely to come in 4s), and also use game 2 to see exactly what those cards happen to be. However, I would also consider bringing in up to 4 Chains of Vapor blindly if your opponent is Sbing in 4+ cards against you, and bring out your pure defensive disruption component: Leylines (you are playing 4, correct?).

I'd suggest this for a couple of reasons - the first is that you don't want to be potentially sacrificing game 2 unnecessarily. Using game 2 to determine what your opponent SBed in is nice, but its another thing altogether to actually exploit that and turn it into a win game 3. Even if you know that Leyline, for instance, is coming in game 3, you're still in for a tough, long struggle on average. Secondly, if your opponent is SBing in heavily, you can make the assumption that your opponent's strategy has switched from a more aggressive role to a defensive role. This allows you to cut back on your disruption that addresses the aggressive role - Leyline in particular - and focus on disruption that has a dual role of attack (discard and CotV to further your Ghoul plan) and defense (discard and CotV again). Leyline doesn't contribute to your Ghoul plan apart from using it to slow your opponent's offensive strategy - you can even assume that he will use his mulligan, tutors, or Brainstorms to play a defensive role, so the threat of him being aggressive diminishes.

I mention these things because this is exactly what WGD does in anticipation of games 2 and 3. Paradoxically, when the hate increases in game 2, that might actually *favor* WGD - how often have I seen opponents do something like mull to 5, play 2x Crypt turn 1 and a land, but have no business for the next 7 turns while I develop my mana base and draw cards with Squee/Bazaar or DAs. "The Fear" here has struck the opponent, much the same way it can strike the combo player himself. However, to make such plans succeed from the combo player's perspective, he must have the tools to defeat the hate and contingency plans in case his initial plan is stopped.

This leads to my next point - perhaps your SB/maindeck strategy isn't optimal. You elected to eschew the manaless version in favor of a mana version that gives you the tools to fight through hate. Perhaps, however, you should be using more aggressive tools to fight hate, like Ashen Ghouls, Putrid Imps, or even Mishra's Factories? This creates one interesting positive - when you draw hands full of answers, there might not be any relevant threats to answer. But if your "answers" are actually threats, you can put more pressure on your opponent instead of waiting to draw into your relevant business. This kind of approach is what using, for instance, transformational SBs involves - instead of slinking into a defensive shell in preparation for the post SB onslaught, you stay aggressive post SB, and you actually *set yourself up* for future matches because opponents will limit the kinds of cards or the amount of SB cards that they bring in against you. For example, Extirpate might be amazing against the current manaless/mana versions, but are they so hot versus Ashen Ghoul/Imp versions? Needle might be important in containing a Tormod's Crypt, but if you are set to bring back 1-2 Ghouls or cast an Imp and are beating for 2, might that not put pressure on the opposing deck to Crypt early and open the floodgates for you afterwards?

It might turn out to be the case that Ghoul/Imp is even weaker. However, it hasn't been given a fair enough treatment in my opinion, and there have already been reports of such approaches doing reasonably well (TMD tourney reports section).

I have one more concern: Gemstone Caverns. This is one card that most Canadian players would probably never play in their Ichorid decks. One thing about the Canadian versus US style of deckbuilding that has been pointed out to me (if you allow for a gross generalization here), and that I also noticed independently in some scenarios, is that the US builds tend to be much more focused and built for speed and early game consistency, but the Canadian builds tend to favor flexibility and allow for contingency plans so as to not succumb to any one archetype or strategy - how we build decks like WGD, Bomberman/Fish, Gifts etc is a reflection of that, and we're often criticized for it. What approach is best I cannot answer; however, with respect to a card like Caverns, you might be overdoing it. You are playing more of a long term game post SB (even if you keep your combo in) and are going to be dependent on your draw phase to find you the colored mana sources in a relatively short period of time. Sacrificing permanent 5C mana slots for conditional turn 0 5C mana that involves a card investment (one that you certainly don't want to be making in a lot of games - you already had plenty of examples, even if they didn't involve Caverns) but more importantly compromises your ability to find your critical mana deeper into the game. I'm not entirely sure what game you can cite in your article where Caverns made any difference, or what games from testing illustrated that their benefit far outweighed the downside.

[Smmenen]

One thing about the Canadian versus US style of deckbuilding that has been pointed out to me (if you allow for a gross generalization here), and that I also noticed independently in some scenarios, is that the US builds tend to be much more focused and built for speed and early game consistency, but the Canadian builds tend to favor flexibility and allow for contingency plans so as to not succumb to any one archetype or strategy - how we build decks like WGD, Bomberman/Fish, Gifts etc is a reflection of that, and we're often criticized for it. What approach is best I cannot answer; however, with respect to a card like Caverns, you might be overdoing it.

Actually, I think this is a feature of my deck design versus the rest of the world.   When you say “you’ve been criticized” – I think what you are reading is my writing criticizing this approach.   I have come to realize that I favor decks that are geared toward early game consistency and focus at the expense (one might say, although I wouldn’t) of mid-game flexibility and more mid-game options.   Consider:  Brassman Gifts in all its iterations versus Meandeck Gifts, Pitch Long over Grim Long, and essentially every other Ichorid list than the one’s I’ve proposed. 

I think part of it is that I design decks from an intra-subjective point of view.   Although I begin my testing against control decks, I tweak and tune based upon my own internal dialogue about whether a deck can handle Grim Long and Stax.   Hence, my design choices favor early game speed and consistency and focus at the expense of dead draws that combo in the midgame and mid-game cards generally.   

In short, I think your generalization is less Canada v. the world, then Menendian v. the world.   

Note: that I'm surprised you continue to talk about Gemstone Caverns - as you can see in the article, I no longer run it.

Iand bring out your pure defensive disruption component: Leylines (you are playing 4, correct?).

How closely did you read the article (or my previous one on Ichorid?)

See this: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13525.html

[dicemanx]

Note: that I'm surprised you continue to talk about Gemstone Caverns - as you can see in the article, I no longer run it.

You made what appears to be an impromptu SB switch, but no rationale is offered why the Gemstone Caverns were dropped entirely. You do focus on the Ichorid's role/strategy behind games 2 and 3, and we can infer why Caverns are not part of that plan - you plan on winning game 3 when you're on the *play* and Caverns is useless. However, that approach means that you're almost ready to be sacrificing game 2 entirely if your opponent draws into some specific SB hate - a sacrifice that I argue isn't necessary. In other words, you're jumping from one extreme (your initial overSBing and caving in to the "fear") to the other extreme, where your bravado (for lack of a better term) could lead to an unnecessary sacrificing of game 2's.

If we consider a more "middle-ground" approach, then Gemstone Caverns could end up being a consideration again.

In short, I think your generalization is less Canada v. the world, then Menendian v. the world.   

Possibly, although I believe that many have adopted your approach to their detriment.

We see a very similar occurrence in teaching a Verbal reasoning prep course to help student tackle difficult passages on standardized tests like the LSAT or MCAT. You can teach a very systematic approach to critical reading (reading for "structure and purpose", not detail), but ultimately there are some subtleties that high performing critical readers pick up on, that are ultimately associated with a certain degree of comprehension and evaluation (even though the critical reading exercise is billed as not focusing on comprehension!).

It's the same idea with your approach - you are aware of a number of subtleties that you might not even be consciously aware of, and yet they permit you to succeed almost in spite of your approach. Others who try to emulate you may find themselves falling way short, wielding a deck that was inadequately matched for their meta or unable to fight through certain archetypes or individual cards.

A perfect example is Meandeck Oath - its initial success was virtually unmatched, even though people ended up using your exact builds. and tried to emulate your strategies. You were simply ahead of the curve and you exploited the idea that something radically new/unseen is sometimes a better option than playing something established. This is where I feel your greatest strength lies - in the ability to come up with something that might be objectively weak in the long run, but in the short run it is a powerhouse because people don't know how to fight effectively against it. We've seen this happen when you did well with things like Doomsday, oath, Ichorid, and even Long.

That's not to say that your approach (if we go with the Menendian vs the World scenario) is not objectively best, but for the time being it does produce some easy targets when it comes to people blindly following your advice. It's just like the person who thinks that following a set of instructions for a critical reading exercise will result in improved MCAT/LSAT scores without a comprehension component: why the approach exists, what it is founded on, how it can be changed/modified/customized to imcrease positive output etc. 

[Smmenen]

Note: that I'm surprised you continue to talk about Gemstone Caverns - as you can see in the article, I no longer run it.

You made what appears to be an impromptu SB switch, but no rationale is offered why the Gemstone Caverns were dropped entirely. You do focus on the Ichorid's role/strategy behind games 2 and 3, and we can infer why Caverns are not part of that plan - you plan on winning game 3 when you're on the *play* and Caverns is useless. However, that approach means that you're almost ready to be sacrificing game 2 entirely if your opponent draws into some specific SB hate - a sacrifice that I argue isn't necessary. In other words, you're jumping from one extreme (your initial overSBing and caving in to the "fear") to the other extreme, where your bravado (for lack of a better term) could lead to an unnecessary sacrificing of game 2's.

If we consider a more "middle-ground" approach, then Gemstone Caverns could end up being a consideration again.

This is a fair question.

I want to be absolutely clear.  I've stated this several times already in this thread: the plan is NOT to assume you are going to lose game 2.    The point I was makimng is that game two should be a fishing exhibition - you should try to stick as much to game one as possible.  If you lose, then you know exactly what you need to attack G3.  If you win, then there is no game three.  I think part of the reason to take this approach is this: In small metagames it is more likely that you can win playing game 1 again with minimal sbing (maybe just 4 needles or something) to retain your g1 win percentage than you can win by packing in alot of anti- Ichorid hate. 

It is true that Caverns could still fit into this plan, but the reasons you already cited in this thread - if it isn't in your opening hand, all the rest of the caverns are dead - in addition to the reason that the sideboard space is very tight - means that I am not so convinced that it is really worthy of a slot. 

In short, I think your generalization is less Canada v. the world, then Menendian v. the world.   

Possibly, although I believe that many have adopted your approach to their detriment.

We see a very similar occurrence in teaching a Verbal reasoning prep course to help student tackle difficult passages on standardized tests like the LSAT or MCAT. You can teach a very systematic approach to critical reading (reading for "structure and purpose", not detail), but ultimately there are some subtleties that high performing critical readers pick up on, that are ultimately associated with a certain degree of comprehension and evaluation (even though the critical reading exercise is billed as not focusing on comprehension!).

It's the same idea with your approach - you are aware of a number of subtleties that you might not even be consciously aware of, and yet they permit you to succeed almost in spite of your approach. Others who try to emulate you may find themselves falling way short, wielding a deck that was inadequately matched for their meta or unable to fight through certain archetypes or individual cards.

Interesting analogy - but I'm not sure how much it holds.   Just to be clear, you are saying that my awareness of these subtleties (conscious or not) allows me to fight metagames or cards/archetypes that emulators may not be able to?   

I think it's actually both simpler than that and more complex at the same time.  Let me explain with your example:

A perfect example is Meandeck Oath - its initial success was virtually unmatched, even though people ended up using your exact builds. and tried to emulate your strategies. You were simply ahead of the curve and you exploited the idea that something radically new/unseen is sometimes a better option than playing something established. This is where I feel your greatest strength lies - in the ability to come up with something that might be objectively weak in the long run, but in the short run it is a powerhouse because people don't know how to fight effectively against it. We've seen this happen when you did well with things like Doomsday, oath, Ichorid, and even Long.

That's not to say that your approach (if we go with the Menendian vs the World scenario) is not objectively best, but for the time being it does produce some easy targets when it comes to people blindly following your advice. It's just like the person who thinks that following a set of instructions for a critical reading exercise will result in improved MCAT/LSAT scores without a comprehension component: why the approach exists, what it is founded on, how it can be changed/modified/customized to imcrease positive output etc. 

I think what you overcomplicating matters (and hence it is simpler than what you say) with your analogy.   Here is how I'd put it: you can teach how to play a deck in terms of the core instructions - but you can't *make* someone a good magic player.    A bad magic player who reads my articles might be able to win games and make 60-80% of the good plays, but that won't make them play the deck at the upper range.

I think what you say is oversimplfying (and hence it is more complicated than what you say):  Your discussion takes a look at a snapshot of a deck at a particular point in time.   Consider my extensive discussion of MD Oath in this article.   My point is that my teammates were making a mistake in their criticism - and I think you are falling prey to that same problem: the assumption that decks remain static.  Consider your own Gifts list - it is constantly in flux, changing from month to month and metagame to metagame.   Every single deck becomes weaker as people learn how to play against it.   I think, perhaps, there is an illusion that the decks I play, to a greater extent than normal, have a short shelf life.  But that's because I abandon them - I don't take the next step of adjusting them as the metagame adjusts.   Most people stick with a deck they have success with.   I believe I could have continued to adjust many of those decks, but I chose not to.   This is because I have a responsibility, in my view, to try to develop new decks.   I get paid to do that. 

There are lots of other reasons to suspect that my analysis here is true: one reason is that the best players aren't going to be piloting the decks I recommend.   Many of the best players will read my articles, but they will form their own ideas about what to play, as they should.   Thus, the "mass" of players who are going to be reading my articles and port decks probably are not in the upper tier of Vintage players.  Of course they aren't going to be performing as well as the best players in the format.    Thus, it may appear that my decks are weaker or that there is some narrowness to the strategies I offer, but I don't think that is really the case.  That is not to say that I don't "build-in" weaknesses.   My discussion of Oath reveals that I do. 

[dicemanx]

I want to be absolutely clear.  I've stated this several times already in this thread: the plan is NOT to assume you are going to lose game 2.    The point I was makimng is that game two should be a fishing exhibition - you should try to stick as much to game one as possible.  If you lose, then you know exactly what you need to attack G3.  If you win, then there is no game three.  I think part of the reason to take this approach is this: In small metagames it is more likely that you can win playing game 1 again with minimal sbing (maybe just 4 needles or something) to retain your g1 win percentage than you can win by packing in alot of anti- Ichorid hate.

If you don't SB in solutions that are flexible enough to take care of a wide variety of post SB threats, you are sacrificing game 2 in the event that they draw into those threats. That doesn't mean that you have to overSB. I'd consider adding bounce (CoV) if you're not sure, as bounce is quite flexible. If the match goes to game 3, you can SB with more precision.

Interesting analogy - but I'm not sure how much it holds.   Just to be clear, you are saying that my awareness of these subtleties (conscious or not) allows me to fight metagames or cards/archetypes that emulators may not be able to?   

Yes - if both you and your emulator debuted a deck in an event, you're by far more likely to succeed than the emulator. This has less to do with the deck in question, which could be "objectively weak", but it is ideal for perhaps that one event or at least in the short run in the hands of someone who has an understanding of certain subtleties, which go beyond mere tight technical play.

I think what you say is oversimplfying (and hence it is more complicated than what you say):  Your discussion takes a look at a snapshot of a deck at a particular point in time.   Consider my extensive discussion of MD Oath in this article.   My point is that my teammates were making a mistake in their criticism - and I think you are falling prey to that same problem: the assumption that decks remain static.  Consider your own Gifts list - it is constantly in flux, changing from month to month and metagame to metagame.   Every single deck becomes weaker as people learn how to play against it.   I think, perhaps, there is an illusion that the decks I play, to a greater extent than normal, have a short shelf life.  But that's because I abandon them - I don't take the next step of adjusting them as the metagame adjusts.   Most people stick with a deck they have success with.   I believe I could have continued to adjust many of those decks, but I chose not to.   This is because I have a responsibility, in my view, to try to develop new decks.   I get paid to do that.

Actually, I don't believe that I'm falling prey to the same problem - as you indicate thereafter, I am certainly not in the camp that has faith that a "best version" exists (and hence decks are never "static"). I think that one of the reasons many don't succeed is that they *are* in pursuit of the "best build", and they do look up to you and other talent on this site to offer such guidance that perhaps would replace some or any hard work that would need to be done on their part. Quite a few would rather not go through that process, and would be satisfied with the end product. How many times have we seen, on this site, people citing success at tourneys as some definitive proof that one version of an archetype is superior than another or that a particular card choice is best. Maybe in some circumstances the evidence does support such an assertion, but I think the better players are well aware that what might be ideal one day isn't necessarily going to be good the next day. They are also wary of caving in to phantom threats (the "fear" you talked about previously), just as you were wary of worrying about Platinum Angel when trying to persuade teammates of the power of the Oath archetype once Orchards were an option, or came to the realization that Ichorid was worried about the wrong things post SB and didn't have an effective SB plan in your matches.

The bottom line is that many are not too interested in the process, and they are asking the worng questions (search for "ideal" builds) as Brassman put it over IRC when I talked to him the other day. The purpose of my previous analogy is to underline exactly that first point - if you don't understand the process that was used to generate the answers (or the strategies used for critical reading exercises), you are not aware of certain subtleties which limits the extent of your success.

[policehq]

I guess I hadn’t realized that there was a concerted effort to achieve a turn two win on the SCG boards.   In an article I wrote in Jan, I discussed the theoretical possibility using 4 Mishra’s Factory, but a turn two win is very difficult and improbable.  It requires a turn two Mishra’s Factory a discard of two Ichorids on turn one, and some amazing dredging.   Although I’m sure there are ways to maximize a turn two kill (using 4 baubles, 4 of each combo component, etc) there is no way to make a consistent turn two kill, nor would you want to given the trade-offs it would require.

I think it's unfair to say that Baubles are only added to provide a potential turn 2 kill. When I play lists that have 4-8 Baubles, I find myself able to resolve 1-2 more Cabal Therapies before my turn 3 Dread Return, and Baubles offer protection against Pithing Needle and Wasteland, which Petrified Field does not do.

I'm not sure that Baubles are the right direction to go, because I think the 'pre-sideboarding' strategy of adding mana to the maindeck is more important at the moment, and space is tight even without mana, but when I was testing Baubles to try and find a way to maximize turn 2 kill potential, I found that my turn 3 kills were a lot more secure and protected against Bazaar hate, graveyard hate, and counter/bounce.

-hq