Well, I guess I am going to ptq this Saturday for only the second time ever. I am going to play a deck that has around a 10% chance of a turn one win. I have been following the extended metagame ever since Worlds, but I hadn't planned on playing any ptqs. The format is pretty wide open but none of the decks really excite me. Doran Rock is cute. Next Level Blue is great if you like control. Aggro is thriving, with R/B Goblins, Doran (5/5s on turn 2 are aggro), and Zoo being viable. Combo has several winning decks, with TEPS, Dragonstorm, Hulk, and you can probably throw Ichorid in there as well if it's not a category of its own.
I think a big part of the problem for me is that I am just not that excited by Constructed competition. So much preparation is necessary for me to play any deck well. So much of high level Constructed is pattern recognition. Correct play is very difficult. I have a tendency to go to a tournament unprepared and have to think through too many situations. This probably sounds like a complaint about the amount of time I have to prepare but really it is more complex than that. Even if I had the time to prepare a gauntlet of 5 decks and play sets of 10 with them, I wouldn't do it.
Oftentimes in Constructed, a matchup just feels unwinnable even when it's not. Maybe you are focusing on the wrong things in the matchup (who's the beatdown and whatnot). Maybe your main deck is four cards off and that dramatically changes the matchup. Maybe you're tired of thinking about Magic. Point being, I don't have what it takes to be great at constructed and if I don't, why the hell am I ptq'ing? I know I am not going to win on Saturday. My goal is to have fun. And the way I have fun is to do silly stupid things. Jokulhaups into Rakdos? Silly stupid. Counterbalance your Tribal Flames? Not silly, nor stupid. So I am playing a deck that either wins turn one, or dies horribly. I don't think I am going to play with a sideboard. The deck is perfect as is.
------
I really liked the
Richard Garfield (spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch) articles published on the mothership on Monday. I am talking about the Lost in the Shuffle columns from Issues 17 and 18. In them, Garfield (spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch) talks about political games and why he doesn't like them. This struck a chord with me because TS had spoken recently about his dislike for multiplayer FFA. I personally have really enjoyed the FFA EDHs lately and protested TS pretty vociferously, especially because he didn't really back up his argument at all. Richard (spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch) did though, and in a way which really affected my thoughts on the subject.
He brings up several characteristics of political games and describes them as
bad, when I had previously thought of them as good. For instance, the incentive to lie low and appear weak in a political game is something that he really despises. I've always thought of that as a feature not a bug. He goes on in this vein for a bit and then he lays on the crux:
The result for me was discovering that most political games were, underneath the veneer, the same game, and that I was tired of playing that game.
And that's a really great point. It doesn't matter if you choose a scalpel or a hammer. It doesn't matter if your deck is terrible or awesome. All that matters is your political skill, and Magic should be about a more complete skill set. Otherwise, it's just complicated poker. Richard Garfield (spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch) is really smart.
----------
I like the idea of Two headed giant EDH. We'll see if we can't arrange something this time. Maybe the incentives for abusive generals is still too high. Numot is totally fair in FFA. Not so much in duel:) As I have proven. Multiple times.
----------
I
have to get to Olde Fart. I love sealed deck. Stupid job.
