Another tournament, another near-miss. I attended #SCGATL last weekend and came up one match short of the Top 8, which feels like it’s been happening a lot lately. Over the last six weeks I have lost playing for Top 8 in an SCG Tour® Open and an Invitational, as well as losing the all-important quarterfinal match in an RPTQ for Pro Tour Eldritch Moon. I also finished 12-3 in Grand Prix New York, although in that tournament I crawled my way back up the standings after a mid-tournament losing streak.
With so many close calls, it’s easy to become frustrated, which I certainly was after losing Round 15 on Sunday. The lines delineating success in Magic tournaments are staunch and unforgiving, despite the fact that the margins that separate those above and below the line are so small. One good draw step here or poorly timed mulligan there can make the difference between Top 8 glory and Top 32 doldrums.
Anyone who plays tournament Magic for a sufficient length of time knows and understands this. The best among us accept it despite the frustrations it brings. And yet one of the most common questions I am asked by aspiring players is how to overcome or stop these streaks.
In fact, one such question was asked of me this past weekend, from a player who was consistently coming up short in their PPTQs. The reality is that when the differences are so small, the likely explanation for streaks such as these is variance.
It sucks to consistently come so close but fall short, but streaks like those will end. We deal in a game with a healthy amount of variance, and the only surefire solution to variance is persistence. Every time you flip a coin, the odds that you get at least one heads or one tails increases, as do the odds that you get at least two heads or two tails, three heads, and so on. The only time you limit yourself is if you stop flipping the coin.
So the real lesson is to not let your frustrations inhibit you from enjoying and continuing the grind. I may be in a poor mood for a while after taking a tough loss, but that quickly fades and leaves me ready and hungry to tackle the next tournament. Some players may advise you to rid yourself of all emotions related to Magic, but I don’t put much stock in that. Without feeling the lows, you cannot feel the emotional highs, and those highs make competitive Magic worthwhile. So the goal should be to elevate your resolve above the level of your frustrations, not to suppress your emotions below that of your meager resolve.
As a last point before I move on to some strategic content, I would caution against a nihilistic response to my deference to randomness and variance. By that I mean that you do not lose all agency by accepting the role that randomness plays in Magic. You may be flipping coins, but your skill and effort tip the balance of that coin in your favor. The random element of the game simply means you must faithfully analyze your game regardless of the outcome. For example, consider some of the mistakes I made last weekend:
After keeping this hand, I led on the Abbey. Now, leading on Westvale Abbey would be correct if my hand only contained one Forest, since that allows a potential Fortified Village to enter the battlefield untapped, but once I have two Forests in hand, leading on Forest gives me the best chance to play Nissa, Voice of Zendikar into Gideon, Ally of Zendikar on-curve. I was punished by drawing two Plains, thus putting myself a turn behind starting on turn 4. I was fortunate to still win the game against another G/W Tokens deck since my draw was quite strong, but I certainly did not give myself the best chance to win.
In the deciding game of my tournament, I failed to remember that my opponent had a Kozilek’s Return in his graveyard. Believing that a World Breaker would not let him back in a game where I was far ahead, I played to insulate myself against a potential Dragonlord Atarka or Chandra, Flamecaller. World Breaker accompanied by a Wrath of God was, however, more than enough, and while the barrage of threats that followed it likely would have taken the game regardless, I once again could have given myself a better chance.
Even though neither of these mistakes changed the outcome of a game, it is important to accept that continuing to make such mistakes will prove costly. If you work diligently to eliminate mistakes and improve your game, your results will improve, although you’ll still do your fair share of losing. It’s okay to be frustrated with a tough loss or a string of tough losses, so long as you don’t let it impact your next tournament, and especially as long as you don’t take it out on any of your opponents.
Okay, moving on. As you may have gathered from the preceding paragraphs, I played G/W Tokens at #SCGATL:
Creatures (14)
Planeswalkers (8)
Lands (26)
Spells (12)
It may not be flashy, but it sure does win. G/W won both Grand Prix last weekend, led Gerry Thompson to a perfect 15-0 Swiss record and a Top 4 finish at #SCGATL, and put five people into the Top 8 of GP Costa Rica. Oh, and it also won the Pro Tour. By now it has cemented its status as the deck to beat in Standard.
Still, there are some serious disagreements on how to best build the deck. The core of the list appears to be the following 53 cards:
4 Dromoka’s Command
8 Forest
7 Plains
From here, there are three key decision points for the rest of the list. The first is Den Protector vs. Lambholt Pacifist as another two-drop.
Pacifist grew in popularity when Humans and Bant Company were more popular, since the 3/3 body matches up very well against those decks, even if it cannot attack for a while. Den Protector is a more recent addition that has come as a reaction to the various Languish-centric control decks. It’s a great late-game topdeck in any matchup, often bringing back a key removal spell or planeswalker, and its evasion ability, in combination with your many Anthems, can break through a stalled battlefield.
Given my more aggressive philosophy, I prefer Lambholt Pacifist in the maindeck because it is significantly better on turn 2 than Den Protector in a format defined by 2/3s. Pacifist is much better at protecting your planeswalkers in the early-game, at which point you should gain a large enough advantage that the late-game power of Den Protector is unnecessary.
I still like having Den Protector in the sideboard, since post-sideboard games are much slower right now, but in Game 1 I want to come out as quickly as possible without sacrificing power level and Pacifist does exactly that. The current Standard format is particularly punishing if you fall behind early, and Den Protector is rather poor at catching back up because its immediate impact on the battlefield is small.
This tempo-focused conception of Standard also factors heavily into the next point of disagreement among G/W pilots, and that is whether or not to play the 26th land. With four copies of Oath of Nissa, 25 is an intuitive number for an aggressive midrange deck, but G/W Tokens has such a high per-card power level that flooding is rarely an issue, whereas missing any of your first four land drops is frequently game-ending, and your fifth and sixth land drops are always welcome, the former to threaten Archangel Avacyn and the second to allow for a Westvale Abbey transformation. As such, I am staunchly in favor of playing 26 lands, which to becoming more common.
As for which land to play, I prefer the ninth Forest over the third Westvale Abbey, since the deck’s color requirements are quite strict with a GG three-drop and a WW four-drop and curving out is very important. Once again, I am prioritizing the early-game, leaning on the power level of my cards to carry me in longer games rather than risking falling behind. This philosophy stems from the fact that many of the cards in G/W Tokens are significantly worse when behind. Hangarback Walker’s initial inefficiency is exacerbated, Dromoka’s Command is often left without a creature to fight with, and your planeswalkers are much more difficult to protect.
When you are on the play, you can often get away with not coming out as quickly as possible, but on the draw that is not the case. Having your first play on the draw be a turn 3 Nissa, Voice of Zendikar is not a recipe for success, and neither is preceding it with a 2/1 Den Protector.
The last major decision point is a strange one, and it is between Secure the Wastes and Evolutionary Leap. Leap was a singleton in the maindeck of Steve Rubin’s winning list from Pro Tour Shadows over Innistrad but was quickly relegated to the sideboard as the format was dominated by aggressive decks. However, after Michael Majors played two in his Top 4 list at Grand Prix New York, the card has reappeared in maindecks as a one- or two-of.
Secure the Wastes would appear to be a staple card in a Tokens deck, but I have seen more and more lists trim down to a single copy and Gerry Thompsonmoved both to the sideboard last weekend while maindecking two copies of Evolutionary Leap. Essentially, there is only room for one to three total cards unless you trim on valuable removal spells, and these appear to be the two cards competing for those last few slots.
Unlike the previous decision points, both of these cards shine in longer games. Evolutionary Leap gives you a continuous stream of creatures against removal-heavy decks and lets you transform Archangel Avacyn at will. It plays especially well with Nissa, Voice of Zendikar and Hangarback Walker, the latter giving you a substantial flying army when the ground stalls. Secure the Wastes gives you a late-game advantage, but does so via a singular burst rather than incremental advantage. A Secure for five or more can instantly end the game in combination with Anthem effects or Westvale Abbey.
As you can see from my list, I sided with Secure the Wastes, although of the three decision points this is the one I feel least confident about and I could certainly see a 1/1 split in the future because both cards are unique enough to warrant inclusion.
I went with Secure mainly because I think it adds a combo-esque angle of attack that the deck otherwise lacks. A large Secure can win games that no other card can win, and even a small one can stabilize the battlefield for your planeswalkers to take over the game. Leap is incredible against Languish decks, often taking over the game when it comes down early, but it can be a liability when you need to tap out every turn to keep parity with your opponent.
With my philosophy of keeping the deck on an aggressive tilt, Gerry Thompson‘s list from last weekend may seem like an aberration. Gerry moved the deck in a much more controlling direction, especially in the sideboard with cards like Nissa, Vastwood Seer and Planar Outburst. I am sure he will write about his specific choices later in the week, but for me, his list and the success he had with it are simply evidence that there may not be a single correct solution. The goal is to pick a philosophy and build your deck to adhere to it.
There may be metagames where a more aggressive list is better and vice-versa, and you may be better at piloting one list over the other, but if you hedge too often in deckbuilding, you end up with a deck that isn’t good enough at anything to consistently win games. You do not have to build every deck completely linearly, but if you really want to be controlling, then Planar Outburst is going to be better than Tragic Arrogance because you would rather trade as many resources as possible and then recover more quickly with card advantage from planeswalkers like Nissa, Vastwood Seer.
Being able to evaluate the coherence of a decklist on the strategic level is one of the primary skills that separates good deckbuilders from bad ones. You need to look beyond how the text boxes of the cards interact with each other and be able to see how everything fits in the big picture. Once you have settled on how you want to position your deck on a strategic level, the individual card choices are easy. And as long as you are consistent in aligning your list with your philosophy of the deck, you will have put yourself in a position to succeed.