[Article] Matchup Series Preview: PSYCHATOG v. TNT

[Smmenen]

Here is a preview - a very small portion -  of an upcoming article to whet appitites for the style of article i'll be doing over the next few months leading up to Origins.

MATCHUP SERIES: PSYCHATOG v. TOOLS ‘N TUBBIES
By Stephen Menendian

Type One Tog, like its Extended cousin, has inevitability.  Instead being purchased in the more limited form of Upheaval, it comes in the form of Cunning Wish -> Berserk or Yawgmoth’s Will.  If Tog can manage to survive long enough so that its graveyard has grown fat and plump, then it no longer has to counter each threat.  This is because Tog itself becomes a lethal swing in the space of one turn, or, can act to suck up most of the threats so that the Tog player doesn’t have to counter other threats, on a one for one basis.  

In many ways, Type One Tog can break the “Who’s the Beatdown?”(insert link http://www.curiosity-shoppe.com/magic/Articles/Beatdown.htm ) role if built in a certain way. In the original model presented by Flores, one player must be the beatdown, and the other the control deck.  When a player misunderstands his role and tries to play the other role, they tend to lose the game.  Zvi’s revised model on Brainburst premium’s “Who’s the Beatdown II?” suggests that if someone manages to seize both roles at the same time, that is a devastating advantage and that player will almost always win the game.  Applied to the situation at hand, Tog can wrap itself in the guise of a control deck – but with a careful combination of cards and in the space of a few turns, a Berserking Tog can find its way over the other side of the board for lethal damage.  The aggressive, Aggro-Controlish Tog builds that facilitate an early, lethally Berserked Tog fit that schema.  Recent changes in the Type One archetype, however, have made this possible.    

Take a look at JP Meyer’s design as modified by Team Paragon that Carl Winter piloted to the 2003 Vintage Championship:

First Place: Carl Winter, Hulk Smash
4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
4 Brainstorm
4 Accumulated Knowledge
3 Cunning Wish
3 Duress
2 Merchant Scroll
2 Deep Analysis
3 Psychatog
2 Intuition
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Library of Alexandria
2 Island
2 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
3 Volcanic Island
2 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea

Sideboard:
1 Fire / Ice
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Mind Twist
3 Coffin Purge
1 Lim-Dul's Vault
2 Pernicious Deed
1 Artifact Mutation
1 Naturalize
1 Berserk
3 Red Elemental Blast

This deck could regularly goldfish on turn 5-6.  In many cases, it wouldn’t even have to counter a key opposing threat simply because it was so fast at winning and Duress would fulfill much of that function.  Recent exigencies have motivated a redesign of the deck:

Type One Tog
By JP Meyer
4 Underground Sea
4 Polluted Delta
3 Volcanic Island
2 Tropical Island
1 Island
5 Moxen
1 Black Lotus
4 Wastelands
1 Strip Mine

2 Stifle
2 Duress
1 Mind Twist
4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
1 Gorilla Shaman
1 Pernicious Deed

3 Psychatog
2 Cunning Wish
4 Accumulated Knowledge
2 Intuition
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
4 Brainstorm
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Demonic Tutor

Sideboard:
1 Berserk
3 Red Elemental Blasts
1 Vampiric Tutor
3 Coffin Purge
1 Artifact Mutation
1 Rack and Ruin
1 Crumble
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Fire / Ice
1 Naturalize
1 Library of Alexandria

The deck is built for inevitability and is far more controlish.  The mana denial component has been added and because the focus is now more than just the first half-dozen turns, Duress becomes less important as a way to clear the path to an early victory.  In Type One, mid- to late-game Duresses can often be dead draws – the result is that deck with heavy Duress components generally signal an intent to win quickly.  Cutting down on the Duresses is a sign that the deck is taking a longer view of the game.  With this understanding of the Tog deck in mind, let’s take a look at the TnT deck that is being put up against Tog:

TOOLS ‘N TUBBIES

4 Mishra's Workshop
2 Ancient Tomb
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Forest
1 Mountain
4 Taiga
4 Wooded Foothills
5 Moxen
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Vault/Grim Monolith
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt

4 Juggernaut
4 Su-Chi

4 Pyrostatic Pillar
4 Survival of the Fittest
1 Memory Jar
1 Wheel of Fortune
3 Blood Moon

1 Squee
4 Goblin Welder
1 Anger
1 Karn, Silver Golem
1 Triskelion
1 Platinum Angel

SB:
3 Xantid Swarm
3 Red Elemental Blast
3 Rack and Ruin
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Artifact Mutation

The deck derives its name from the Toolbox decks of Extended that used Survival and a “toolbox” of creatures it might tutor, and from the Workshop “Teletubbies” deck that David Price took to the 2000 and 2001 Magic Invitational that had Su-Chi and Juggernaut.  

In the course of the games I have pulled from Testing, I’ll explain how Flores and Moshowitz pieces tie into this matchup and I’ll explain how this matchup plays out and the ways in which the both decks struggle to win.  I’ll conclude with an examination of potential changes both decks may decide on in order to improve the matchup.  

Here is a game which can illustrates the game plan of the TnT deck and the way in which TnT wins.  My opponent is Joe Bushman, a local who is quite familiar with the Tog archetype and performed very well at Origins, and in our metagame with Tog.  

GAME ONE

My Opening Hand:
Black Lotus
Wooded Foothills,
Ancient Tomb,
Strip Mine,
Su-Chi,
Goblin Welder,
Blood Moon

This kind of hand is really ideal.  It has key early threats, great mid-level threats like Goblin Welder, which tend to win long games, and game breakers like Blood Moon.  Further, the distribution of mana is extremely flexible allowing me to cast whatever I want, whenever.  The Strip Mine is an added bonus to keep the pressure on after I play my first threat.  

Joe is playing first this game:

TURN ONE:
Joe opens the game up with Island and Mox Emerald, which he taps for Time Walk.  He draws, plays Wasteland, and passes the turn.  Evidently, I am thinking, at this point, that he doesn’t have another blue mana source, which makes my Strip Mine potentially stronger.  Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical, that rather than be the control player and attack his mana base first, I should play my threat first, and attack the mana base second.  If anything, that is the lesson from “Where’s the Beatdown?”  

I open my turn with Ancient Tomb and Black Lotus.  I sacrifice Black Lotus for RRR and tap the Tomb for 2.  I play Su-Chi.  It resolves.  I then drop Goblin Welder.  Joe plays Brainstorm and casts Force of Will pitching a Psychatog.  If he had countered the Su-Chi, I’d have had the Welder.  Either way, I’m happy.  

TURN TWO:
Joe is clearly having mana problems because he Wasteland’s my Ancient Tomb and passes the turn.  I intend to make his mana problems worse.

On my turn I draw another Goblin Welder and I attack with Su-Chi sending him to 15 and attempt to Strip his basic Island.  That only draws out Stifle, however.  Foiled!

TURN THREE:
Joe is now desperate and he casts Accumulated Knowledge for 1 and passes the turn.  

I draw Wheel of Fortune on my turn.  I attack him down to 11.  I drop Wooded Foothills and find Taiga.  Good thing he used the Stifle on my Strip Mine, or else I might be denied access to colored mana for the foreseeable future.  I tap my Tiaga for Goblin Welder.  He Force of Wills my Welder pitching a third Force of Will.  
 
TURN FOUR:
Joe does absolutely nothing.  On my turn I drew Ancient Tomb.  I swing him down to 7 life.  I tap the Taiga and the fresh Tomb and drop Blood Moon.  At this point Joe scoops.  
It’s obvious that Joe had severe development problems, but I posted this game to illustrate a few principles of the matchup.  The first is that TnT can drop a large creature on turn one.  More usually this is done through Mishra’s Workshop and a Mox.  In this case, I had the superior combination of Black Lotus and Ancient Tomb.  The tomb allows me to cast Blood Moon, as in this game, as well as Pillar and Survival.  The principle of the game play is rather straightforward: play a threats and follow it up with disruption or game breaking spells which create tremendous or virtual card advantage.

[Zherbus]

I can't wait for the rest, this is the kind of comprehensive shit people should be writing.

[Saucemaster]

Well, you know how much I love these articles.  I think they actually provide a very useful service to the Type 1 community beyond simply giving people who haven't playtested a feel for any given matchup: they also provide a sort of public repository of testing results that we can reference when the inevitable debates spring up around which deck has the edge in a particular matchup.  Great article, as usual.

[Ric_Flair]

Steve's emergence as the PREMIERE strategy writer in the game is one of the most important developments of the year.  Congradulations Steve.  I look forward to the rest.

[Kerz]

Steve's emergence as the PREMIERE strategy writer in the game is one of the most important developments of the year. Congradulations Steve. I look forward to the rest.

Lol Tony.. Don't give him any bigger head than he already has...

I think using this game as an example may have been off (a sigle su-chi beating on a landscrewed Hulk..sigh) but I have to admit I like your style of writing, and the way you map out the entire game. This greatly benefits type one, gives people insight who might not be able to test every match.

[Eastman]

Steve's emergence as the PREMIERE strategy writer in the game is one of the most important developments of the year.  Congradulations Steve.  I look forward to the rest.

I completely agree.

Even in the cases where I disagree with Steve he is generating useful and productive discussion - and he is usually right on. Thanks.

[rvs]

I'd like to see what the Hulk player's hand was at the start of the game. It just seems he didn't keep a very good hand.

Anyway, looking forward to the rest of it.

Also, when exactly is Origins anyway?

[Zherbus]

FYI, he has matches of Tog smashing face too, so don't think this is going to be a Rakso-esque '<Deck A> is better than <Deck B>' article. In fact, this post is just a teaser for a much grander completed product.

[rvs]

FYI, he has matches of Tog smashing face too, so don't think this is going to be a Rakso-esque '<Deck A> is better than <Deck B>' article. In fact, this post is just a teaser for a much grander completed product.

I'm sure he has, but that doesn't mean the Hulk player in this particular game kept a horrible hand. So my question stands: What did he keep?

[Zherbus]

I think that is also is in the final product.

[Hyperion]

I look forward to reading the rest too. The "Who's the Beatdown" article by Mike Flores is a classic and I refer to it whenever possible when discussing matchup analyses and trying to figure out sideboarding and play strategies, so I am glad to see it employed here as well.

TNT is one of my favorite decks, so I hope you decide to write future articles on it in other matchup analyses.

[Nameless]

My only problem here is that while he takes the time to say that his opponent is good at the deck, he also just pitched a FoW to another FoW, while mana shafted.  That is NOT a good player.  So, in his defense, I too would very much like to see what was in that hand that certainly doesn't appear to have been very good at all.  I mean maybe he didn't have another Blue card to pitch, I don't know, but it looks bad at the moment and I'd kinda like to know what was going on.

While I do happen to like Steve's writing, in general, I'll also say from the flip-side that I don't care at all for play-by-plays unless they are in a tournament report.

Why?

They don't prove anything.  Anybody during the course of any match or tournament can get a bad hand, or even a normal hand vs. an opponent who got an incredibly lucky draw.  Individual matches prove almost nothing at all.

If you want to express good solid points in strategy then don't give me a play-by-play from a single game, give me a solid choice to do when faced with a given siutation, and then use evidence from several games and matches to back it up.  That's all I'm asking.

Again, don't get me wrong here.  I'm not bashing Steve at all, I'd just like to see more specific information; more details, if you will.  Details are what make the difference.  How many times did you shuffle this game before the last one?  Did you even play any before this one, or is this the first you've played since you literally put the cards together?  Did you pile shuffle?  Are your sleeves new, so that you aren't getting draws based on how you had the cards stacked in sticky old sleeves rather then actually being random?  What time of the day is it?  Are both you and your opponent thinking clearly and not suffering from any distractions like a lack of sleep, hunger, or general irritation at life?  Every single one of those things has an affect on that game we are reading about.  That one single game had a hundred other factors affecting its outcome above and beyond what decks are facing each other, the cards in them, and the people playing them.

You see what I mean?  Details details details...  Nobody really does this the way it's needed.  I'd just like somebody to give you all of the information before you start walking around saying X is better then Y, when nobody even considered how Z played into it all.

[Hyperion]

Nameless - in theory that would be nice, but in practice it's easy to go overboard to the extent where the article would be so bogged down in minute details that it would lose sight of the "big picture" and risk becoming boring and long-winded as a result. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is little more than filler material, and I would rather that the author just get to the important points rather than hearing about how many times they pile shuffled or how many days old their sleeves are.

I can't speak for other people, but when I read strategy articles I assume the players involved are fully familiar with the decks they're playing unless stated otherwise...otherwise, someone with a good track record like Stephen wouldn't publish it in the first place.

[Saucemaster]

I don't care at all for play-by-plays unless they are in a tournament report....  They don't prove anything.  Anybody during the course of any match or tournament can get a bad hand, or even a normal hand vs. an opponent who got an incredibly lucky draw.  Individual matches prove almost nothing at all.

If you want to express good solid points in strategy then don't give me a play-by-play from a single game, give me a solid choice to do when faced with a given siutation, and then use evidence from several games and matches to back it up.  That's all I'm asking.

I disagree, though this is getting slightly off topic.  If Steve's matchup analyses consisted *solely* of play-by-plays, you'd have a point.  But they don't.  They consist of solid strategy points expressed via real examples found in real games.  It's the matchup-analysis version of quoting a source.  And he DOES give evidence from several games--see his massive Long.dec articles, which I assume this article will mirror (in slightly lesser form) when it's finished.

There's also something to be said for watching someone else's thought process as they work through a few actual games.  There's a concreteness and a specificity that actual game logs can give--when properly selected and annotated--that nothing else can really match, and I very much appreciate that.

Details are what make the difference.  How many times did you shuffle this game before the last one?  Did you even play any before this one, or is this the first you've played since you literally put the cards together?....  

You see what I mean?  Details details details...  Nobody really does this the way it's needed.  I'd just like somebody to give you all of the information before you start walking around saying X is better then Y, when nobody even considered how Z played into it all.

To a certain degree I sympathize with this, but there are problems with this in a few different ways.  As Hyperion mentioned, at some point these details overwhelm any real content in the article, but on a larger scale, this goes to an entirely different issue: before an article of this sort will mean a damn thing to anyone, the readers are going to have to give the author a certain degree of credit.  If you honestly think that Steve and his opponent may have never put these cards together before, stayed up drinking all night, used sticky old sleeves, and played during the commercial breaks in the latest Jerry Springer, then there's no point reading the article in the first place.  The reader is just going to have to trust certain things about the author's playtesting in an article like this.  And again, the entire point of the article is precisely to illustrate certain meaningful tactical and strategic considerations in a particular matchup; the play-by-play is designed to accentuate and frame this, so excess detail will simply detract from the article's effectiveness.

All of this is what made the Long.dec articles such exemplary pieces of writing; I think that until Steve rolls out the finished product we should just give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Nameless]

Fair enough, you all make solid points.  As I mentioned earlier, I wasn't trying to bash Steve in any way, I just wanted to know more details, enough to stretch out over a few little sentences, but not so much that it would take several lines to explain.  Just a little blurb somewhere in the middle to fill in gaps other writers, including Steve in the past, has left unfilled.  That's all.

Point is, I wasn't trying to say that I didn't give Steve his credit, I do happen to think he's a good writier, and that much is obvious by all the people who jumped up here to make sure he didn't get badmouthed.     This is a good thing.  I was just saying that I'd like those 3 or 4 extra sentences that add a little more background for me, and while it might take just a few extra seconds to write, I seriously doubt anybody who's reading the articles would complain.  Just a small point that I think he could improve on, and one more area where he'd set himself up better then the rest of the authors all over the internet.

[Dante]

Yes, details, details are key, but try not to lose the forest for the trees.  

In this case, the main principle to be learned is that when a TnT deck is faced with first turn options of laying down a clock or laying disruption vs a control/hulk deck, it needs to lay down the clock (assuming it's a real clock, not Solemn Simulacrum) first, not disruption.  (of course the control player should have forced the su-chi.  This would have pushed the beat down from starting until turn 3 instead of turn 2, and that's assuming Steve drew another artifact to weld).

Dante

Not sure why, but you made the same post twice. I deleted the earlier one.

Hyperion

[Smmenen]

I've heard that the article is going up Monday.

Steve

[Triple_S]

Excellent article segment, I like the focus upon TnT.  I would love to see a similar article focusing on either Vengeur Masque or Tainted Mask against one of these decks.

[Smmenen]

How about Spoils Mask?

Spoils Mask v. Tog is probably going to be the next article.

Steve

[Azhrei]

What I don't understand is why I very rarely seem to see Hulk anywhere. Maybe I'm not looking ard enough, but the deck was unheard of until GenCon, won out in a couple different tournaments, and then sort of faded into semi-obscurity again.

Do people hate Bruce Banner THAT much, or what? Makes no sense to me.

[Hyperion]

You can find Steve's article here

Comments I have:

1.

Game Two

[...] In this game, I was forced to mulligan to six.

Here is my opening hand:
Mishra's Workshop
Wooded Foothills
Taiga
Survival of the Fittest
Survival of the Fittest
Pyrostatic Pillar

On my turn I draw my needed acceleration: Mana Crypt. I decide to fetch out a my Forest to play Survival of the Fittest, in the hope that I'll draw a creature on the following turn and thin my deck at the same time. It may be that I should play Pillar instead because that is a potentially a bigger long term threat - but that point is moot because he Stifles my fetchland.

A point I wanted to address about this game is something that was discussed later on in your the article, but not here:

I draw Wooded Foothills. At this point I could play the Foothills and break it for non-wasteable land. Such a plan is not a bad idea. However, if he has one of his two Stifles, then I am set back even further in tempo. At the least, if he plays a Wasteland and Wastes, a Taiga then we will both end up in the same position as we did before. But if he Stifles my fetch, then I am essentially losing another turn before I can get a threat, but he'll be another turn ahead in land development.

which was the order in which you use which mana sources against decks running Islands . If your opponent goes first and you see the Island,  the better play more often than not seems that it should be to assume he has Stifle and play the Taiga first - the potential downside is that he could Waste it next turn, but it overall seems like the safer play. If he's able to Stifle your fetchland next turn, then he can't have UU up for Mana Drain -if you assume you're playing against deck running it - whereas using his Stifle on your turn 1 didn't interfere with his potential mana investment on his turn 2. However, this strategy shouldn't be unique to TNT.

2.

Unfortunately, Joe Cunning Wishes up Artifact Mutation! And casts it on my Angel making six tokens, four of which he uses to block my Su-Chi! How strong! I used the Angel to evade the Deed activation, but he took advantage of that to gain some pretty savage card and board advantage

I assumed this was a typo, but he obviously should have gotten seven tokens.

3.

Altering the numbers of games two and three requires that TnT execute its game plan well, so that Tog's answers are either too slow, or ineffective. At the very least TnT is going to want three Red Elemental Blast, and perhaps a fourth Blood Moon as well.

I was curious as to how you decided to make room for the REBs after sideboarding, as nothing is really terrible against Hulk. The most expendable cards I could think of would be the draw-7's in your build and perhaps Platinum Angel - though its evasion and high CC make it attractive for getting around a resolved Tog and avoiding dying to Pernicious Deed, respectively.

4. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I liked the constant referenes to Flores' "Who's the Beatdown". Nice work, and I look forward to the next article.