In the event that you are like me and hear music all of the time (and I mean all of the time, and not just songs stuck in your head, but actually hearing it), I would like to take this time to go ahead and influence the track playing for you right now. You may have been hearing highly structured syncopated drum beats for the past few minutes, but as you read this, listen for the robotic voice, the eerily harmonious words that seem to be recited to you as though a machine had engineered the sound to be in tune.
I know, I know, I sound like T-Pain right now, but to be fair, T-Pain doesn’t really sound like T-Pain. I mean, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, Chris Brown, and Jamie Foxx don’t all sound like T-Pain, it is just that they have been experimenting with Auto Tune, a relatively new program that allows users to automatically tune their voices (or anything for that matter).
An interesting application of this program that T-Pain pioneered is the intentional setting of the variables in such a way so as to cause jarring changes in the notes, making the sounds robotic, yet done in a harmonious way. When Auto Tune is set in this way, the greater the user’s voice is OFF TUNE, the more robotic the sound. I personally love hearing people rap, sing, and even talk through Auto Tune.
What does this have to do with Magic?
Auto Tune is relatively new technology and many are experimenting with it, learning what it is capable of and how best to put it to use. Magic technology has many parallels. When a new piece of technology becomes available in Magic, enterprising deckbuilders are quick to try to apply it to other areas of Magic theory.
For instance, Manuel Bucher revolutionized manabases when he showed the world the technology of 8-12 Vivids coupled with 4 Reflecting Pools. After Pro Tour: Hollywood, deckbuilders raced to apply the Vivid-Pool technology to other strategies outside of Quick n’ Toast, a.k.a. Makeshift Mannequin (which was really just derivative of Solar Flare).
Some confusion has resulted from the proliferation of this technology. Much like how many people see what Lil Wayne and Kanye West are doing as copying T-Pain, many people make the mistake of assuming that every deck that uses 8-12 Vivid Lands and 4 Reflecting Pools are the same.
First of all, it is easy to compare the Five Color Control deck with which Nassif won Pro Tour: Kyoto…
Creatures (13)
Lands (27)
Spells (21)
- 1 Terror
- 1 Pithing Needle
- 4 Broken Ambitions
- 4 Cryptic Command
- 2 Cruel Ultimatum
- 4 Esper Charm
- 1 Celestial Purge
- 4 Volcanic Fallout
Sideboard
… With the original Quick n’ Toast deck piloted by Guillaume Wafo-tapa, Manuel Bucher, Antoine and Olivier Ruel:
Creatures (16)
Lands (24)
Spells (20)
Sideboard
To begin, outside of the manabase, what cards do these decks have in common?
4 Cryptic Command
4 Mulldrifter
That’s right… literally the only spells in both decks are Cryptic Commands and Mulldrifters.
No question, parallels can be drawn. Obviously we only use Broken Ambitions because Rune Snag is no longer legal. Obviously Careful Consideration would be better than Esper Charm if it were possible. Sure, Volcanic Fallout has pushed the deck away from Cloudthreshers and Firespouts.
Still, there are fundamental differences in how these decks operate.
The original Quick n’ Toast deck was a pseudo Solar Flare deck, that used light permission, card draw, and removal to support a reanimator strategy.
The current Five-Color Control deck is really much more of a “Tap Out Control” deck, in the vein of Flores style Keiga/Wildfire decks, with Broodmate Dragon playing the part of Keiga and Cruel Ultimatum playing the part of Wildfire.
Why does this matter? It matters because when evolving the deck, it serves us to view the deck in light of what sort of archetype it falls under so that we may have an accurate perspective when seeking help from past decklists.
There have been countless decks played by players over the years, but how many major archetypes are there, really? This is a much broader subject that I care to get too deep into here, but am working on a piece that will break down all of the major archetypes in the game’s history, so that current deckbuilders will have a resource to help guide them in building new decks with an firmer grasp of the game’s pedigree.
Regardless, the fact remains that the Vivid Creek/Reflecting Pool engine is not confined to any one deck. Use of this technology does not mean that you are copying Manuel Bucher, any more than using a mana curve means you are copying Jay Schneider (a la Paul SLIGH). It simply means you are taking the best technology at your disposal and find new applications for it.
These musings come as I read e-mail after e-mail from aspiring deckbuilders who seem like they would be served to study some history lessons. Remember, you may be open-minded about trying new cards and decks, but are you open-minded to the idea of playing something that someone else has already made work?
It is amazing to see how quickly supposedly open-minded deck builders will reject popular ideas out of some sort of contrarian habit or perhaps desire to prove how clever they are. Remember, true innovation is an important part of being a great deckbuilder, sure, but it is equally important to build on the successful ideas of others.
Sometimes people give me a hard time for building on the ideas of others and making successful decks out of them. For instance, the Spinerock Knoll engine being made into a World Championship dominating Dragonstorm deck; Next Level Blue evolving the Counterbalance-Top engine; and the original mana curve deck, Sligh, being brought to a Pro Tour and evolved (such as adding Ball Lightning).
The truth is that as much as I like to come up with new ideas, to do things others haven’t thought of yet, it is more important to me to find what wins. So very often, what wins is derivative of something else that has won or been played. Manuel Bucher revolutionized Standard with Quick n’ Toast, but you aren’t going to revolutionize Magic every month, for every tournament.
To be afraid to build on the ideas of others is closed-minded. Remember, innovation may make you better in many regards, in the long run, but excessive innovation without disciplined use of the technology already present is foolish.
I applaud bold deckbuilders out there willing to try the things that no one else will. Still, consider the technology available to us today and ask yourself if you are really using all of the tools available to you. If you incorporate an aspect of R/W Boat Brew or four-Color Hierarch to your deck, it does not mean you are just “copying” someone. Even if you copy someone’s 75, it doesn’t make you a bad player. A good player will try to choose a good deck, even if someone else built it.
Use the technology you have available, but also remember that just because you are using the technology of someone else, it doesn’t mean that you are playing the same strategy. Don’t be afraid to borrow someone’s manabase, their Reveillark package, their draw engine, their victory condition, or anything else for use in your deck, which may be totally different. If you do, remember that your deck may still be an entirely different archetype, meaning that you have to be careful about the parallels that you draw between them.
I would like to take a couple of minutes and talk about Grand Prix: Chicago before I depart. I ended up playing the following Natural Order/Counterbalance deck:
Creatures (10)
Lands (22)
Spells (28)
I lost my third round bye because I didn’t show up to Kyoto and collect my Pro Points (I guess I should have at least tried). My first round (round 3) was a feature match.
Early in game 1, my opponent has a Counterbalance in play. I play a Counterbalance of my own. He responds with Brainstorm. After Brainstorm has finished resolving, he goes to activate Counterbalance. I stop him and call a judge over. I ask the judge if he is allowed to do so, since he had not declared that he was activating Counterbalance.
The judge asked my opponent if he had declared Counterbalance, which he had not. As a result, the judge ruled that he could not reveal for the Counterbalance. Later, the head judge made a clarification that this is not how Counterbalance was going to be ruled at this event, and that it had been a judge’s error. I lost the match regardless, but nevertheless, no one likes a bad ruling.
Obviously I have played Counterbalance in competitive play before, but I have not done so in nearly a year, and was told prior to the event that currently it was being ruled that you had to declare if you were using Counterbalance, since it is optional to reveal. Of course I am aware of the fact that because Counterbalance triggers every opposing spell, regardless of whether you choose to reveal or not, it is simply a matter of whether or not a player who responds to my spell is considered to be opting to reveal or not to reveal.
I have heard rumblings from some that consider even asking the judge in this situation to be rules lawyering, but remember, I did not argue with or try to persuade the judge. I simply asked a for ruling, as I had been told before the tournament that this tournament would be ruled this way (and as such was not surprised to receive the ruling that I did).
The rules are the rules, and asking a ruling is typically not going to fall under rules lawyering. Personally, I think rules lawyering really begins with you have to argue a case with a judge to convince them that the situation you are in should be looked at the way you say it should. I do not consider it rules lawyering to ask if the opponent has to mana burn, asking what to do when an opponent accidently looks at his top card, or asking a judge if it is legal for your opponent to forget to gain a life from a card that has an optional trigger.
In any event, I am glad that this ruling did not disrupt the outcome of our game, and Carlos A Irizarry was a perfect gentleman in a situation that would have frustrated others.
We were playing the Counterbalance mirror, although he did not play Natural Order. I ended up stuck on two land and was unable to play my spells. Still, it is my own fault, as one of my lands was a Lonely Sandbar. Had I been playing a more traditional build, that would most likely have been either a Dual Land or a Ponder, either of which would have been greatly superior.
Round 4, I faced Adam Johnston piloting a U/r Show and Tell Progenitus Deck full of permission, library manipulation, and Magus of the Moon.
I won game 1 easily, but lost game 2 due to a surprise Magus of the Moon that I had not properly played around.
Game 3, he removed a Brainstorm from the game to play Snap Back for free on turn 2 (targeting my Wall of Roots). This bought Adam time to play Show and Tell on turn 3, putting Progenitus into play).
At this point, I made a mistake that cost me the match. I had a Wasteland in play, but did not Wasteland his Volcanic, as I wanted to be able to pay for a Daze next turn when I played Natural Order. On his turn he dropped a Magus of the Moon and I was done for. At the time, I had a Wall of Roots in play and was casting a second one off of the Wasteland, a Plains, and an Island, so I thought I would not need fear a Magus, he countered the Wall of Roots and dropped the Magus, leaving me without mana to play the Natural Order.
Well played by Adam, especially the Snap Back on Wall of Roots. I told the story to Heezy, and he laughed at me and said “You call that a bad beat? It sounds like your opponent made a good play and won because of it.”
Round 5, I faced a very hateful deck that appeared to be running something like 4 Daze, 4 Disrupt, 4 Stifle, 4 Wasteland, 4 Nimble Mongoose, etc. I win game 1 with help of his mana screw. Game 2 I lose on account of a stack that involves 3 Disrupts, a Daze, and a Stifle (and that is just his side).
The deciding game was surprisingly exciting considering…
My 7 card hand had no land.
The 6 featured a Wasteland with No Top or Force of Will (keep in mind that I am on the play).
My 5 was not even remotely keepable, with no lands nor Top or Force.
My 4 featured Empyrial Archangel and no land.
At 3, I had Counterbalance, Intuition, and Force of Will. Some people have told me I should have kept this one, as it is like a mulligan to 2, but with a zero-mana counterspell. The problem is that with no land or Top, it just isn’t really going to go anywhere. Sure, I would keep this if it was game 1 and there was a chance my opponent was playing some combo deck that was all in on one spell, but a threshold deck? How could I win? I figured if I mulled to two, at least there was hope of land or a Top, which would be so many times better than this.
I have a lot of two-card hands that could theoretically get there. What if I get a Land and a Goyf, or Wall, or Loam, or Brainstorm, maybe even a lucky Counterbalance?
I go to two and see Progenitus and Counterbalance. Eek.
I am smiling on the inside at this point; I mean, what can you do?
I shuffle up my deck and draw my card.
Okay! Doing it!
I ship the turn, as my opponent has Wasteland in his deck. He Ponders and passes.
I draw Wall of Roots, so I play the Tropical. He Wastes it.
The next several turns are uninteresting, as my opponent just shuffles away his land and fills his hand with Blue cards. Eventually he has to discard, as I am not doing anything. Eventually, my opponent plays a Nimble Mongoose.
I answer with a Wall of Roots (having Tropical Island, Lonely Sandbar, and Academy Ruins in play at this point). He Time Walks me with Submerge.
I replay the Wall, to which he Time Walks me with Submerge.
I replay the Wall, to which he uses double Daze to stop me.
Eventually we reach a position where I have no other cards in hand and my Board is the same three land, plus a Windswept Heath. I have just resolved a Wall of Roots and passed the turn empty handed.
His hand is running low at this point, but his Mongoose has me down to 5. He attacks and I block, to which he Lightning Bolts the Wall and plays a second Mongoose. I endstep Top, putting Natural Order on top of the deck. I blow the Top to get the Natural Order, then fetch up Dryad Arbor.
I untap and draw… Tranquil Thicket. All I can do is try, so I cast Natural Order, to which he reveals his last spell…
… Disrupt.
Good Beats are Good Beats. I played Tranquil Thicket, so I guess I deserve this.
Anyway, I drop, as 1230 people means no chance of any x-3’s making the cut, and besides, things are obviously not going my way in this event, heh.
In the end, I guess I learned that I should consider toning down the greediness of my GP decks. Risky deck choices are great for Pro Tours, but at a Grand Prix, you can bank on your playskill to a greater degree, so perhaps a safer choice would be prudent. If I could do it again, I would play a more traditional Next Level Blue deck with Dark Confidant, Goyf, Plow, Brainstorm, Force of Will, Counterbalance, Top, etc (somewhere between my Four-Color Counterbalance Worlds deck and the LSV deck with which Nassif won).
If you own Sensei’s Divining Tops and only play them in Legacy, I would strongly consider selling them ASAP. I predict Sensei’s Divining Top will be banned later this month when they make the requisite announcements. It is certainly the best, and it warps the format, but it is also extremely undesirable when it comes to the time constraints. Look how many unintentional draws there were.
Thanks to everyone who helped show my friends Melanie and Aisha a good time when they came to hang out Saturday. They are two long time friends that have never got to kick it at a Magic tournament with me before. They were unsure of how much fun it would be, but they ended up having such a blast that they are already looking forward to the next event in the Midwest. Thanks again to everyone for being such great ambassadors of the game.
One more thing I want to mention: I recently took a little bit of a jab at GerryT when I made a remark about how people who are against Cruel Ultimatum are called B/W or R/W advocates. My intention was to humorously point to the fact that no one that argued against Cruel Ultimatum actually ended up finding a way to make control work without it (though the Japanese Swans deck is obviously interesting, but I don’t recall them arguing against Cruel Ultimatum the card).
It was never my intention to imply in any way that GerryT (or anyone else that advocates B/W or R/W) would intentionally mislead people with information in their written work to sabotage people. I have known Gerry for a while, and I have NEVER known him to lie in his articles to try to gain an advantage through some sort of manipulation of the metagame.
He has contributed greatly to Magic Theory, and is an excellent teacher. I would hope that people realize that he would never try to get people to build bad control decks so that his decks could win. I know that Gerry believed what he said about Cruel Ultimatum at the time, and was not trying to discourage people from playing a deck that would have edge over B/W or R/W (decks that did not even exist at the time).
It has been a rough couple of weeks, no question, but I appreciate the support from everybody who has helped me through it. I am probably not going to be able to make it to Hannover, as I have suffered too much financial hardship in the past three weeks to be able to justify the trip.
I am excited about Pro Tour: Honolulu, as I have a hunger that can not be satisfied by anything short of a hugely successful Pro Tour. On top of that, it is Hawaii!
To anyone playing in Hawaii PTQs, I still recommend Faeries, although B/G/x Loam decks seem good too. Zoo and Elves are also on my consideration list, as Zoo has so many great new tools and Elves is poised to be a great metagame call at some point, especially if you can invent any new technology.
To anyone who doubts the value of Auto Tune to our culture, I ask you this:
How else would we have been blessed with “On a Boat”…?
See you guys next week on my usual day, Monday!
Patrick Chapin
“The Innovator”