[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays – 1st Place: A Post-Shards Tournament Rep

[Smmenen]

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, October 27th - Over the past month or so, Stephen Menendian has been telling us that TPS – The Perfect Storm – is perhaps the best deck in the current Vintage metagame. However, the deck itself has not been gathering many followers. Today’s So Many Insane Plays, however, may change that… Stephen takes his TPS build to the winner’s podium! For detailed in-game analysis, read on!

[xycsoscyx]

Linky?  I assume it's on SCG?

[theLastGnu]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16600.html

[Smmenen]

My mistake.

Thanks for providing the link. 

[Schonkreuz]

I really need to get the address on my card fixed so I can subscribe to the site.

[BC]

You know what this "Post-Shards Tournament Report" didn't have a whole lot of?  Cards from Shards.  You didn't play any, and you ran into maybe 1 Canonist?  Not exactly cutting edge.  Just another in a long line of articles about TPS. 

[Smmenen]

In case you missed it, my finals opponent was playing Tez

[c hurrle]

For what little it's worth, I've tested the Tez vs. TPS match pretty extensively and Steve's experience at the tournament (i.e. rolling Tez like a joint) is the same that I've discovered. TPS beats Tez pretty regularly, usually while Tez is just waiting to untap. It is really frustrating for the Tez player to set everything up perfectly, but not getting that next turn to go unlimited.

[ashiXIII]

I tried to read this article, but my short attention span and I were bored before we even got to the tournament report. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is you may want to cut down on the in depth analysis and details.

[Zieby]

I think it was a great article.

It showed me that when I'm playiong TPS my lines of play are very different then those from Steve.
If I had more time to test and play I would play TPS but you can only play it if you have complete confidance and know the deck by hart.
That is not the case for me. Great to see TPS is still a killer.

Thanks for a nice read.

Arjan

[BC]

In case you missed it, my finals opponent was playing Tez

I did not miss that.  From your report, however, it seemed like Tez never saw the light of day.

I think it was a great article.

It showed me that when I'm playiong TPS...

I guess this is my problem right here.  I don't play TPS and have no interest in doing so.  To me, these TPS articles are pretty uninteresting.  I would personally like to see you experiment with a broader range of decks.  Not just propose them, but actually play them in tournaments.  I'd like to see if you can still win with your build of Blue Stax or something.

[Smmenen]

In case you missed it, my finals opponent was playing Tez

I did not miss that.  From your report, however, it seemed like Tez never saw the light of day.

If it had, that would have probably meant that I would have lost, no ?

I think it was a great article.

It showed me that when I'm playiong TPS...

I guess this is my problem right here.  I don't play TPS and have no interest in doing so.  To me, these TPS articles are pretty uninteresting. 

Even if you have no interest in TPS, my hope is that the matches are interesting nonetheless.   

[Troy_Costisick]

I think it was a great article.

It showed me that when I'm playiong TPS...

I guess this is my problem right here.  I don't play TPS and have no interest in doing so.  To me, these TPS articles are pretty uninteresting.  I would personally like to see you experiment with a broader range of decks.  Not just propose them, but actually play them in tournaments.  I'd like to see if you can still win with your build of Blue Stax or something.

I don't play TPS either, but I do read the articles to get a better understanding of the deck's strategy and board conditions that lead to wins.  As someone who plays against that deck, Steve's articles are a valuable intelegence resource.

Peace,

-Troy

[NicolaeAlmighty]

valuable intelegence resource.

LOL!

Guess it was ok. Yup, I am now even more aware of how "savage" Dark Rituals and the storm mechanic are. Nothing new or interesting here, but who doesn't enjoy reading tourney reports? Gave me something to do on my break aside from Colbert Report...

Good job with the title. If you would have called it "EVEN MORE fun with TPS" I would have skipped it... But the title made me believe I would see something new or innovative... Like... from Shards. Sneaky sneaky...

[Webster]

valuable intelegence resource.

LOL!

Guess it was ok. Yup, I am now even more aware of how "savage" Dark Rituals and the storm mechanic are. Nothing new or interesting here, but who doesn't enjoy reading tourney reports? Gave me something to do on my break aside from Colbert Report...

Good job with the title. If you would have called it "EVEN MORE fun with TPS" I would have skipped it... But the title made me believe I would see something new or innovative... Like... from Shards. Sneaky sneaky...

Being insulting simply because the article doesn't interest you isn't very productive. It's possible that there are people who aren't such want more information on TPS decks; people who aren't as adept at the achetype as you perceive yourself to be.


I found the article interesting.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

valuable intelegence resource.

LOL!

Guess it was ok. Yup, I am now even more aware of how "savage" Dark Rituals and the storm mechanic are. Nothing new or interesting here, but who doesn't enjoy reading tourney reports? Gave me something to do on my break aside from Colbert Report...

Good job with the title. If you would have called it "EVEN MORE fun with TPS" I would have skipped it... But the title made me believe I would see something new or innovative... Like... from Shards. Sneaky sneaky...

Being insulting simply because the article doesn't interest you isn't very productive. It's possible that there are people who aren't such want more information on TPS decks; people who aren't as adept at the achetype as you perceive yourself to be.

Insulting you say? Apologies to you good, kind sir but what could I possibly say that you would consider "productive"? Would you like me to reference every other TPS list and point out the lack of anything different? It was a tournament report... That's it. A well written tournament report, but just a tournament report none the less. There is no doubt that individuals who play this type of deck enjoyed this just as they enjoyed every other TPS article and report both Smenenenen and others have written but that doesn't mean that the other percentage of the community that has grown tired of repetition should be denied an opinion about this article (even if some perceive it as "insulting").

As for my comment regarding the title... Yeah. I'm not the first to mention it (and they got feedback by the actual author- wowee!) or mention the lack of Shards (save this ghostly Tez character or a random Canonist) but perhaps you are right. To be fair, he didn't say "Post Shards Tourney Report with actual Post Shards cards" so maybe I should have thought twice before referencing such things... I'll try super duper hard to keep you and others like you in mind when voicing my opinion regarding articles. Wait, then it's not quite my opinion is it? Every article ever written is going to have things pointed out to it... Not everyone will want to drop immediately to their knees.

[Webster]

I'll try super duper hard to keep you and others like you in mind when voicing my opinion regarding articles. Wait, then it's not quite my opinion is it? Every article ever written is going to have things pointed out to it... Not everyone will want to drop immediately to their knees.

You could simply say, "Steve, although I grow weary of this subject, and while I didn't actually see anything new/intriguing, it was a good/well-written tournament report."


Steve, regarding fact or fiction, I must say that I've not been very excited about it as you. I've cast it a few times and it's been good much more than not. However, when given the option of playing FoF versus another line of play, I've gone with the different option which worked out for me. I do like being able to merchant scroll for something to put gas in the tank if ancestral is gone and I just want cards which is the case when gifts isn't quite as good.

Perhaps it's just a difference in preference/metagame.

[BigBarn]

...To be fair, he didn't say "Post Shards Tourney Report with actual Post Shards cards"...

Just FYI - I'm fairly certain that the editor makes up the article title names - at least, I know he does for the other articles on that site.

[Vegeta2711]

...To be fair, he didn't say "Post Shards Tourney Report with actual Post Shards cards"...

Just FYI - I'm fairly certain that the editor makes up the article title names - at least, I know he does for the other articles on that site.

If you ship an article with no name or an awful name, he'll change it up. Otherwise you can make your own title up, I know I do with about 90% of my articles.

/thread hijack over

[LordHomerCat]

So wait.  To those complaining about the lack of Shards cards, you want Steve to just play a deck full of Shards cards even though he knows TPS will give him the best chance of winning (his goal).  I mean, how can you ask him not to play what he thinks is the best deck, which he is very good with, which is well positioned in his expected metagame?  He doesn't play in tournaments so that he can play wacky crap and make his readers who have pet decks like nether void and blue stax happy: he plays to do well and because he enjoys it.  So I don't understand how you can be mad at him for playing the deck he thinks is the best choice.

Anyway, let's say that you can accept his deck choice.  And yet, you are still mad about the lack of post-shards cards.  So, the solution there seems to be that Steve should get mad at his opponents for not playing enough?  Like, if Steve didn't play any shards cards... and most of his opponents didn't play any either... maybe most of the new Shards cards aren't good enough?  Just because you think Mindlock Orb is the best lock piece ever doesn't mean it's true, and if no one was playing many shards cards other than Tez and Canonist, isn't it possible that no one else thought those cards were good enough either?  Why should Steve handicap himself just because some random reader doesn't like TPS for one reason or other and doesn't think anyone should play it?

These complaints are ridiculous.  Steve doesn't play in tournaments because he needs article topics.  He writes reports because his tournament experience is extremely valuable, especially with the level of detail he provides about them to let everyone see why TPS is good and how to play it well.  It's important to see the distinction, in that he is a Vintage Player and writes about it because of that, not the other way around.  If you don't like TPS, then I'm sorry but maybe you should look into it and try and figure out why Steve thinks it is so good, because it's not for no reason.  The last few weeks have been full of 'rogue' lists and things like that, and some readers don't care about blue stax but rather are interested in actual powerful vintage decks (like TPS) and these kinds of articles are exactly what they want.

Steve, as usual your reports are excellent and the level of detail is incredible.  No one else compares.  A good article as always.

[BC]

I didn't mean for this to become an argument.  We're all adults here.  This is not a Legacy site.  As a premium subscriber, I just wanted to voice my opinion about the current article and offer constructive suggestions about what I would find interesting in future articles. 

LordHomerCat, what I gather from your post is that you think people are "mad" at somebody because of the lack of Shards cards, and you don't agree with that philosophy.  That's fine.  However, I did expected more Shards cards to be involved in the report.  The title of the article lead me to that conclusion, and I was not alone.  I obviously don't expect Steve to play a deck full of Shards cards, but I thought he might experiment with one of the decklists he has proposed recently.  For example, I would have been insanely interested in a tournament report in which he played Ad Nauseam Combo (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36720.0). 

I realize that Steve has spent the last few weeks throwing out new decklists with lots of discussion of Shards cards.  That's great.  I enjoyed those articles.  And he certainly has the right to write an article about a tier 1 deck, but he has already covered TPS a lot (3-part primer!).  Anyway, I don't want to ramble too much.  This thread is already over its limit on rambling.  I just want to say that obviously Steve can play whatever he wants at tournaments, but when it comes to writing articles it would behoove him to diversify his subject matter.  And he's usually pretty good about it, just not this week.

[Twaun007]

Swamp
Tolarian Academy
Cabal Ritual
Force of Will
Force of Will
Force of Will
Force of Will

How is this hand a keeper? You mised Black lotus and Minds Desire of the top which lead you to Victory. Man, must.......

In my experiences I have found Grim Tutor to be quite lackluster and I agree with cutting them down to one.  

Thanks for the article.

[yatagirlofchaos]

This is what I pay for. I find tournament reports the most interesting of articles.

[Mr. Type 4]

People will always complain.  In the previous weeks many people complained that Steve's articles about Parfait, Blue Stax and Ad Naus weren't competitive enough, so he writes about a competitive deck and people complain that it's full of old cards.  Whatever.  it's impossible to please everyone, and trying to often leads to mediocrity.

This article is useful to demonstrate that TPS is still very much alive after the changes to the BR list and the arrivial of Shards.  It's almost as if the rest of the metagame changed but it left behind TPS and Ichorid which are mostly unchanged and still savage.  IF you guys want to be able to win tournaments, it's at least somewhat useful to see what other people that won did so you can either imitate or create counter strategies. 

As far as the title goes - Steve definitly played against lots of Shards cards.  I know Tiffany had Cannonists, seveal people had Tez's. 

[NicolaeAlmighty]

I didn't mean for this to become an argument.  We're all adults here.  This is not a Legacy site.  As a premium subscriber, I just wanted to voice my opinion about the current article and offer constructive suggestions about what I would find interesting in future articles. 

LordHomerCat, what I gather from your post is that you think people are "mad" at somebody because of the lack of Shards cards, and you don't agree with that philosophy.  That's fine.  However, I did expected more Shards cards to be involved in the report.  The title of the article lead me to that conclusion, and I was not alone.  I obviously don't expect Steve to play a deck full of Shards cards, but I thought he might experiment with one of the decklists he has proposed recently.  For example, I would have been insanely interested in a tournament report in which he played Ad Nauseam Combo (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36720.0). 

I realize that Steve has spent the last few weeks throwing out new decklists with lots of discussion of Shards cards.  That's great.  I enjoyed those articles.  And he certainly has the right to write an article about a tier 1 deck, but he has already covered TPS a lot (3-part primer!).  Anyway, I don't want to ramble too much.  This thread is already over its limit on rambling.  I just want to say that obviously Steve can play whatever he wants at tournaments, but when it comes to writing articles it would behoove him to diversify his subject matter.  And he's usually pretty good about it, just not this week.

Well said.

Now, let's try this again (keeping everybody's feelings in mind [though I am still yet to be shot down by the actual author whom definitely knows much about criticism*]). Ahem--

Steve, although I grow incredibly weary of this subject, and while I didn't actually see anything new/intriguing, it was a well-written tournament report.

*Not sarcasm.

[Smmenen]

I appreciate all of the feedback.  I thought that writing about TPS would mix things up a bit.  I also think that it is a great deck choice for lots of players out there who are stuck in Mana Drain metagames, but who are interested in winning some tournaments.   

The bad news is that I will be writing about TPS periodically, but rest assured -- for those of you who don't care about TPS -- I will be writing about many different topics in the near future.   I hope that even if you don't care for TPS, you find the analysis interesting. 

[ashiXIII]

So wait.  To those complaining about the lack of Shards cards, you want Steve to just play a deck full of Shards cards even though he knows TPS will give him the best chance of winning (his goal).  I mean, how can you ask him not to play what he thinks is the best deck, which he is very good with, which is well positioned in his expected metagame?  He doesn't play in tournaments so that he can play wacky crap and make his readers who have pet decks like nether void and blue stax happy: he plays to do well and because he enjoys it.  So I don't understand how you can be mad at him for playing the deck he thinks is the best choice.

Anyway, let's say that you can accept his deck choice.  And yet, you are still mad about the lack of post-shards cards.  So, the solution there seems to be that Steve should get mad at his opponents for not playing enough?  Like, if Steve didn't play any shards cards... and most of his opponents didn't play any either... maybe most of the new Shards cards aren't good enough?  Just because you think Mindlock Orb is the best lock piece ever doesn't mean it's true, and if no one was playing many shards cards other than Tez and Canonist, isn't it possible that no one else thought those cards were good enough either?  Why should Steve handicap himself just because some random reader doesn't like TPS for one reason or other and doesn't think anyone should play it?

These complaints are ridiculous.  Steve doesn't play in tournaments because he needs article topics.  He writes reports because his tournament experience is extremely valuable, especially with the level of detail he provides about them to let everyone see why TPS is good and how to play it well.  It's important to see the distinction, in that he is a Vintage Player and writes about it because of that, not the other way around.  If you don't like TPS, then I'm sorry but maybe you should look into it and try and figure out why Steve thinks it is so good, because it's not for no reason.  The last few weeks have been full of 'rogue' lists and things like that, and some readers don't care about blue stax but rather are interested in actual powerful vintage decks (like TPS) and these kinds of articles are exactly what they want.

Steve, as usual your reports are excellent and the level of detail is incredible.  No one else compares.  A good article as always.

Huh? What? I think the easiest solution is to not use a misleading title.

[Smmenen]

The title is not misleading.   I played against a Tez deck in the finals in a field of Shards decks, with many Tez decks and multiple decks running Canonist, among other Shards cards.   To say that I didn't "learn" anything unless I actually faced a Tezzeret is misleadling because if Tez hits play I'm probably going to lose.   The point is to see how TPS fares in the Shards metagame.   My view is that it is VERY good because it is so good against Tez decks, and all of the other top Drain decks.   

[ashiXIII]

The title is not misleading.   I played against a Tez deck in the finals in a field of Shards decks, with many Tez decks and multiple decks running Canonist, among other Shards cards.   To say that I didn't "learn" anything unless I actually faced a Tezzeret is misleadling because if Tez hits play I'm probably going to lose.   The point is to see how TPS fares in the Shards metagame.   My view is that it is VERY good because it is so good against Tez decks, and all of the other top Drain decks.   

Technically, the title fits the article. However, it does imply that Shards has actually some impact on the metagame in this tournament, which isn't really the case here. It's not really difficult to understand why some people would see the title and think that Shards cards would pop up somewhere in the report other than, "She played a Cannonist but it didn't matter." or "My opponent had a Tezzeret in his deck."

But now we're just getting into an argument of semantics.


Anyhow, Round 2, Game 1. Why go for the first turn Tinker here over the FoF? It seems to me that leading with FoF is going to let you win a lot more often than leading with Tinker.

[JACO]

Anyhow, Round 2, Game 1. Why go for the first turn Tinker here over the FoF? It seems to me that leading with FoF is going to let you win a lot more often than leading with Tinker.

Just so the other people in this thread are clear what you're talking about, in round 2 game 1 Steve is on the play against Painter, and keeps an opening hand of:
Mana Vault
Mox Sapphire
Tolarian Academy
Tinker
Imperial Seal
Fact or Fiction
Memory Jar

Steve's opponent mulligans to 6, and Steve leads with Academy, Sapphire->Vault->Tinker (saccing Vault), trying to go all in with Colossus, and his opponent ended up Force of Willing the Tinker (Steve manaburns as well). I also think that leading with Tinker is the incorrect play here.

For one, if you play Tinker and it's countered, you're left with two blue mana sources on the table, shutting off the rest of your hand. A black land top deck would enable Imperial Seal, which puts another relevant play at least 2+ turns away. Drawing a 0 casting cost Mox (or Mana Crypt, or Sol Ring) would power up Tolarian Academy further, enabling the higher casting cost spells in hand.

Second, if your opponent has a Force of Will, and see that you've expended more than half of your opening hand (including tapping the one time use Vault) to play Fact or Fiction on the first turn, they're going to surmise that you're digging for business or mana, and will probably counter it (if they had Force in their opening hand). If they don't have the Force, then you're probably going to win anyway, similarly to how you're hoping to just win on the back of an uncountered Tinker for Colossus on the first turn.

The difference is, if you cast Fact or Fiction on the first turn, and it is countered, you still have the available mana sources on board to be able to cast Tinker the very next turn, which is still before they'll have Mana Drain online (barring Black Lotus, and assuming they still have Mana Drain in hand after pitching a blue card to Force of Will your first threat). Now if you lead with Tinker, your next relevant spells in your hand cost more mana, and you're farther away in turns from resolving any of them, allowing your opponent the window of opportunity to get back into the game.

If the first turn Tinker or Fact resolves, you're almost definitely going to win the game within two turns. The difference in mana between the two plays is small, but leading with Fact (barely) enables you to take better advantage of your available mana, cards in hand, and possible topdecks. Going all in on Tinker also opens you up to the possibility of your opponent having one of his likely 2 possible bounce spells in his deck (the odds are small, but this is still a non-trivial possibility that could potentially lose you the game).