Decks from the PT

[Gary Lynch]

Just wondering if Jason is gonna proxie these up. Should be good to start playing extended now. Perhaps if he doesnt read this someone could ask him Monday. I would really like to play the Yosei/Emeria/Mirren deck or the Martyr deck by Colney Woods.

[Dan Barrett]

Okay, maybe what i really meant was taken a bit to the extreme.

Don't *ignore* the tier 2 decks, just p[lay against them less than the decks you expect to play against regularly.

It seems Charlie agrees with me you'll play against certain decks at least once if not 2 or more times every PTQ, so it makes sense to test against them more than other decks. Of course play a few games against T+N/Scapeshift, but putting an equal amount of time into playing your deck of choice against this as Zoo seems silly.

[Charlie Grover]

Dan, I disagree with you. you suggested not playtesting againt all the t2 combo decks. There are a fuckload of tier 2 combo decks, and every combo deck (counting tron as combo) has about 3 or 4 pet players of it per PTQ. So you need to know what they are going to do if your going to win..

[wv]

Indeed. Though I don't think we should test less against Tier 2 decks, my original point is that we need AS MANY tier 2 decks proxied as possible so we atleast have the option of testing against them.

I believe your original suggestion was not to include these decks in the proxy run.

I'll probably proxy up most of them anyway, as extended is my thang, so the point is moot really.

Dan Barrett said:

Okay, maybe what i really meant was taken a bit to the extreme.

Don't *ignore* the tier 2 decks, just p[lay against them less than the decks you expect to play against regularly.

It seems Charlie agrees with me you'll play against certain decks at least once if not 2 or more times every PTQ, so it makes sense to test against them more than other decks. Of course play a few games against T+N/Scapeshift, but putting an equal amount of time into playing your deck of choice against this as Zoo seems silly.

[Dan Barrett]

Okay, so my joke was not well received, i stand by my maths:

You'd revise more for an exam worth 50% of your course compared to one worth 5%, right?

That's my real point.

[wv]

So you agree we need to proxy up as many of these decks as possible?

Dan Barrett said:

Okay, so my joke was not well received, i stand by my maths:

You'd revise more for an exam worth 50% of your course compared to one worth 5%, right?

That's my real point.

[Charlie Grover]

No, I would revise until I was satisfied that I knew everything for both. If one had less syllabus I would revise for it less, just like if a deck is more straightforward (monored lightninbolt.dec, hypergenesis) i'll test against it less than a deck that is abit tricksy ( Dredge).

[Dan Barrett]

Okay, maybe i was a bit hasty on this topic, good points.


At least if we're actively discussing this already it means there's some interest, which bodes well if we have until next year to test thoroughly!

That Ginger One said:

No, I would revise until I was satisfied that I knew everything for both. If one had less syllabus I would revise for it less, just like if a deck is more straightforward (monored lightninbolt.dec, hypergenesis) i'll test against it less than a deck that is abit tricksy ( Dredge).

[Daniel Royde]

Um, here's mine: $0.02
The meta is unlikely to stay the same: Rubin's deck was very good for the reasons that he explained in the magic show mini thing. This will change.
Punishing fire is hard ish to adapt to, but the rest of the deck will become less effective as people switch to playing more straight kill spells- terror/ terminate.
Worlds is going to happen before the PTQs, and the next set will come out before them too (probably, most of them certainly).

Dark depths is also answerable (yes I know they can protect it).

Dredge and Hypergenesis are also solved relatively easily.

I don't think there is a real best deck since the tools exist to fight all of the contenders.

The testing argument: no point testing (unless you're ptqing at worlds) since the format is going to change.

Aside from that, Charlie's right- you should know your game plan in every matchup, but don't spend tooo long on less common decks obviously.

Lastly: deck price affects what people play a bit. eg burn.

[wv]

The core decklists will change, but the archetypes will not.

If you're suggesting that at the next big Extended tourney there will be no Zoo, Dredge, DD, Hypergenesis, Rock (x1000) etc, then sir, I feel I must heartily dissagree.

Why is testing a bad thing? Even if you're testing against decks that won't be 100% the same now as they will be next year, you're still practising. You adapt your proxy decks as the metagame shifts, which ultimately gives you a MASSIVE understanding of the metagame, and the inner workings of the decks.

I'm confused why people don't want to test... really.

Daniel Royde said:

Um, here's mine: $0.02
The meta is unlikely to stay the same: Rubin's deck was very good for the reasons that he explained in the magic show mini thing. This will change.
Punishing fire is hard ish to adapt to, but the rest of the deck will become less effective as people switch to playing more straight kill spells- terror/ terminate.
Worlds is going to happen before the PTQs, and the next set will come out before them too (probably, most of them certainly).

Dark depths is also answerable (yes I know they can protect it).

Dredge and Hypergenesis are also solved relatively easily.

I don't think there is a real best deck since the tools exist to fight all of the contenders.

The testing argument: no point testing (unless you're ptqing at worlds) since the format is going to change.

Aside from that, Charlie's right- you should know your game plan in every matchup, but don't spend tooo long on less common decks obviously.

Lastly: deck price affects what people play a bit. eg burn.

[Daniel Royde]

Because it's limited season atm!

Warren Vonk said:

The core decklists will change, but the archetypes will not.

If you're suggesting that at the next big Extended tourney there will be no Zoo, Dredge, DD, Hypergenesis, Rock (x1000) etc, then sir, I feel I must heartily dissagree.

Why is testing a bad thing? Even if you're testing against decks that won't be 100% the same now as they will be next year, you're still practising. You adapt your proxy decks as the metagame shifts, which ultimately gives you a MASSIVE understanding of the metagame, and the inner workings of the decks.

I'm confused why people don't want to test... really.

Daniel Royde said:

Um, here's mine: $0.02
The meta is unlikely to stay the same: Rubin's deck was very good for the reasons that he explained in the magic show mini thing. This will change.
Punishing fire is hard ish to adapt to, but the rest of the deck will become less effective as people switch to playing more straight kill spells- terror/ terminate.
Worlds is going to happen before the PTQs, and the next set will come out before them too (probably, most of them certainly).

Dark depths is also answerable (yes I know they can protect it).

Dredge and Hypergenesis are also solved relatively easily.

I don't think there is a real best deck since the tools exist to fight all of the contenders.

The testing argument: no point testing (unless you're ptqing at worlds) since the format is going to change.

Aside from that, Charlie's right- you should know your game plan in every matchup, but don't spend tooo long on less common decks obviously.

Lastly: deck price affects what people play a bit. eg burn.

[James Mills]

No one is going to play T&N don't bother testing against it! >_>

[James Mills]

The sooner you start testing the better understanding you will have of the decks/format. So what if its limited season, its not like we dont play enough of that. Plus its a bit hard to practise sealed deck.