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

[zeromancer]

I would have cast Jar first here, because you would have been able to cast the tinker the turn after if Jar was forced (same goes for fact or fiction if you draw into a mana source).

[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.   

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.

Absolutely it is!   The metagame was completely shaped by the presence of multiple Tez decks, many of which showed up in top 8.   I don't get why you don't see this. 

[BC]

Absolutely it is!   The metagame was completely shaped by the presence of multiple Tez decks, many of which showed up in top 8.   I don't get why you don't see this. 

I would have been interested in seeing some of those Top 8 decklists.  Perhaps a broader analysis of the metagame at this tournament would have satisfied my hunger for post-Shards goodness.  As it is written, however, it doesn't address the issue too much other than to say that these decks were present.

[Schonkreuz]

I don't understand what all of the complaining is about. The title of this topic is -A Post-Shards Tournament report- and that is exactly what it is. He didn't say it was going to be any sort of hardcore break down of Tez decks or anything like that. Just a report AFTER shards is legal. There are bits of shards throughout the report, and I recall many Tez decks at the event. If you want a more in depth analysis of shards decks perhaps you should personally ask the people that played them at the event to write up something.

[GrandpaBelcher]

Absolutely it is!   The metagame was completely shaped by the presence of multiple Tez decks, many of which showed up in top 8.   I don't get why you don't see this. 

I would have been interested in seeing some of those Top 8 decklists.  Perhaps a broader analysis of the metagame at this tournament would have satisfied my hunger for post-Shards goodness.  As it is written, however, it doesn't address the issue too much other than to say that these decks were present.

[Sports Center Update theme]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36768.0

Steve, I thought this article was really good and a nice change of pace from the previous deck explorations.  Conscious readers can glean a lot of information from a tournament report beyond just a decklist and an entertaining day's story.  Perhaps to appease readers who look for more subjects beyond your own deck, you could give a paragraph explanation on the deck or archetype you face each round, which you'd be especially able to do here since you have access to the decklists.  Just a little, "My opponent, Twaun, was playing the current build of GWS BUG Fish, which strives to blah in general and blah in particular against my deck.  I know I'll have to guard against blah, but my blah and blah will help me blah."  That way you'd be able to look at the metagame beyond your deck.  Thanks for the articles, and keep up the good work.

Also, I wonder about that four Force of Will hand.  Yes, you have double counter, but you're in prayer mode after that and might only get two useful Forces that game.  It seemed very awkward.

[Smmenen]

Absolutely it is!   The metagame was completely shaped by the presence of multiple Tez decks, many of which showed up in top 8.   I don't get why you don't see this. 

I would have been interested in seeing some of those Top 8 decklists.  Perhaps a broader analysis of the metagame at this tournament would have satisfied my hunger for post-Shards goodness.  As it is written, however, it doesn't address the issue too much other than to say that these decks were present.

There were 3 Tez decks in the top 8, and an Ad Nauseam deck.   All you had to do was ask, and the top 8 lists shall be yours!

Also, I wonder about that four Force of Will hand.  Yes, you have double counter, but you're in prayer mode after that and might only get two useful Forces that game.  It seemed very awkward.

I edited my article several times, and I cut a line in one of the drafts in which I said, roughly: "This hand is a bit risky, but it's simply too interesting to mulligan."

I think I cut that line because I concluded that it wasn't really that risky.   I went into MWS, set up that hand, and pretended like I was playing out that same game a couple of times.   The reason that hand really isn't that risky is that you actually have a functional mana source and a Ritual.   If you draw unplayable blue spells, you have more Force of Willing ability. If you draw unplayable black spells, it only takes a single mana source for them to all come on line.   

Finally, it is a totally unexpected hand for you to have, so it will likely ensnare am opponent  expecting something very different. 

As a side note, I agree that I misplayed my hand in game 1 of round two.   I probably should have played Fact or Jar there, as you all stated. 

[BC]

...Perhaps to appease readers who look for more subjects beyond your own deck, you could give a paragraph explanation on the deck or archetype you face each round, which you'd be especially able to do here since you have access to the decklists.  Just a little, "My opponent, Twaun, was playing the current build of GWS BUG Fish, which strives to blah in general and blah in particular against my deck.  I know I'll have to guard against blah, but my blah and blah will help me blah."  That way you'd be able to look at the metagame beyond your deck...

This is a pretty good, constructive idea.  Thanks for trying to help rather than just telling me (and those that share my opinion) that we're being unreasonable assholes.

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

I really don't get why so many people are just jumping on every topic, every article and every post steve makes like if it was a pink pony they need to ride.
If you don't like his articles, stop reading them and be quiet or if you have serious, constructive critisism to add, be polite, please. A good example of that is to begin the sentence with: "I'd be interested in knowing..." or "did the shards cards impact..." or "how many decks in the top8 had shards in them?" Asking is always a great way to get what you want.
Things like "OMG it's fraud, you write 'post shards' but don't run the new cards! it's a waste of time!" are very immature and useless in my opinion.
If you want to read exactly what you have in mind I think you'll have to win tournaments yourself and then write your own articles. There you go.
/end rant

[TheOrangePet]

Thanks Steve. Another insightful article, despite the naysayers.

I am terrified of Ichorid, and refuse to go below 8 anti-Ichorid cards.

Why is this? I for one, am extremely curious to know which build of Ichorid incites this reaction. It seems to me that Ichorid is mostly unchanged post-Shards. This must mean you're basing your opinion on previous builds. If you don't mind sharing, which build are you advocating as "optimal" post-Tez? Thanks.

[dicemanx]

Steve, even though some articles don't always garner the same level of interest, I am always appreciative of the hard work and research that goes into writing them. I'm usually a big fan of tourney reports and match-up analyses backed by actual game logs regardless of what decks are being used or discussed because I'm much more interested in scrutinizing the the evidence rather than reading the conclusions; however, I really enjoyed reading about your approaches to Parfait and Stax.

[Smmenen]

Thanks Steve. Another insightful article, despite the naysayers.

I am terrified of Ichorid, and refuse to go below 8 anti-Ichorid cards.

Why is this?

The Ichorid decks piloted by teammates at top tournaments always seem to be in contention.

If I (or anyone) is serious about winning a tournament, as opposed to merely performing well, you must be able to beat Ichorid in top 8.    Because I expect at least one Ichorid in any medium to large sized Top 8, and probably more, I spare no expense to beat it.   In my experience, 7 dedicated anti-Ichorid cards is not enough, but 8 has been.


Thanks Peter.

[Sibib]

Good day mister Menendian,

I' from Québec City, in an aggro oriented meta, and I want to stop playing Landstill to try TPS instead. What should I need to change to your list to help me win my matchs against decks like Merfolk, BUG fish, R/G Beats and Bomberman ?

Last tournament, with landstill, I won 2 matchs against Mono-Red Stax and 1 agianst dragon, and lost 1 to dredge, 1 to dragon (oath in sideboard) and 1 to a UW faerie/canonnist.

Here's the meta of our last tournament, and the top 8.

Voici la Metagame Breakdown:
3 Tezzeret
1 Cerebral Assassin
3 R-G Beatz
1 Mono-Red Control
1 Merflok
1 UBG Fish
1 UWB Fish
3 Suicide Black
2 Dragon
3 Long
4 Workshop Aggro
4 Bomberman
1 Goblin R-B
1 U-W Control
1 High_Tide_Timespiral combo
1 Madness B-R
1 B-W Fish
2 Suicide B-G
3 Painter
2 Dredge
3 Oath (1 Tyrant, 2 Angel)
1 U-B fish
1 WW
1 WG aggro
1 SX
1 Landstill
1 Sligh
1 DrainTendrils
1 Kavu_predator
2 Autre


Top8 :
Simon Cliche-Lamoureux (Merfolk) vs Joel Neveu (Taïga)
Philippe Gareau (Mono-Red Control) vs Ugo Rivard (Mind of the Seeker)
Karl Linteau (BUG Fish) vs Samuel Vaillancourt (Cerebral Assassin)
Simon Guérette (Tezzeret) vs Ian Sauvé (Mind of the Seeker)

You are talking about some change in your sideboard against an aggro meta, can you tell us what those change are ?

Thank you very much in advance for your time, I really appreciate your articles, I'm a premium member only to read you.

Sorry for my english.

[Smmenen]

Good day mister Menendian,

I' from Québec City, in an aggro oriented meta, and I want to stop playing Landstill to try TPS instead. What should I need to change to your list to help me win my matchs against decks like Merfolk, BUG fish, R/G Beats and Bomberman ?

Last tournament, with landstill, I won 2 matchs against Mono-Red Stax and 1 agianst dragon, and lost 1 to dredge, 1 to dragon (oath in sideboard) and 1 to a UW faerie/canonnist.

Here's the meta of our last tournament, and the top 8.

Voici la Metagame Breakdown:
3 Tezzeret
1 Cerebral Assassin
3 R-G Beatz
1 Mono-Red Control
1 Merflok
1 UBG Fish
1 UWB Fish
3 Suicide Black
2 Dragon
3 Long
4 Workshop Aggro
4 Bomberman
1 Goblin R-B
1 U-W Control
1 High_Tide_Timespiral combo
1 Madness B-R
1 B-W Fish
2 Suicide B-G
3 Painter
2 Dredge
3 Oath (1 Tyrant, 2 Angel)
1 U-B fish
1 WW
1 WG aggro
1 SX
1 Landstill
1 Sligh
1 DrainTendrils
1 Kavu_predator
2 Autre


Top8 :
Simon Cliche-Lamoureux (Merfolk) vs Joel Neveu (Taïga)
Philippe Gareau (Mono-Red Control) vs Ugo Rivard (Mind of the Seeker)
Karl Linteau (BUG Fish) vs Samuel Vaillancourt (Cerebral Assassin)
Simon Guérette (Tezzeret) vs Ian Sauvé (Mind of the Seeker)

You are talking about some change in your sideboard against an aggro meta, can you tell us what those change are ?

Thank you very much in advance for your time, I really appreciate your articles, I'm a premium member only to read you.

Sorry for my english.

I would maybe cut the mainboard Misdirection for a Hurkyl's Recall.   Beyond that, I wouldn't change anything.   The most important thing is to practice the matchups so you have a sense of how they work.  If you have decklists for RG beatz and BUG Fish, load them up onto MWS and two-fisted test so you get a feel for the ebb and flow of the match, and an appreciation of what to expect.   

The most important thing with TPS is experience, tight play, and confidence.  If you lack any one of those three you will be in trouble.  You need experience so that you have guidance as to how to proceed in unfamiliar situations.  You need tight play because TPS is sometimes a razer's edge deck.   The difference between winning and losing can come down to a small play.    Finally, you need confidence because otherwise you will need to rely on your deck and topdecks to give you wins.  If you are not confident in your deck, you will mulligan too much, make unneeded risks in order to do what you think you need to do to win games, and will over-sideboard.   

[jamestosetti]

Tps is the only type 1 deck I like to play so I love seeing coverage on this deck.Congrats on the win and Fact or fiction is killer.