As much as I want to believe that my skillset is unique and all my own, I’ve felt that it has mattered less and less as I’ve played more and more. The
stature of your skillset doesn’t mean as much as the self-identification of it.
What I feel most comfortable with doesn’t always translate to what I’ve done well with, however, and this is an attempt to find the links, characteristics,
and decisions that are tied between the two, hopefully resulting in honing my abilities via theory even further.
I know that I generally gravitate toward attacking. Preferably with oversized, undercosted creatures. I don’t like sidestepping around interaction,
tip-toeing around boardstates, or being tricksy with my own interaction or boardstates. I want to hit hard and early, and I’m not afraid to metaphorically
push players around and put them on the backfoot as early as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes I get burned. That’s part of the territory. A lot of
my card decisions reflect that way of thinking. If a card is marginally worse than a similar effect but easier to work into that type of position, then
I’ll probably play it because I have an easier time with working into that sort of thing than others. I don’t do that often, as the individual card choices
have mattered more and more lately, but most criticisms of card choices are without context of my own skillset.
That said, I think doing just that to a larger degree is vastly overrated and actually hampers one’s ability to improve and get better overall.
Any opportunity I can take to make a push for grabbing an advantageous position, I’ll take, even if it means I’ll fall far behind. This is different from
just playing aggressive decks and being greedy with attacking. I don’t limit my deck choice, because like I said, it’s important to be capable of playing
anything. You can very well make aggressive plays while playing a control deck, for example. That kind of thing is what many high level players go for when
their utilization of preference transcends the deck their playing.
I feel that I’ve done a decent job building and playing in such a manner that allows me to maximize these abilities, but this doesn’t come without costs.
To start with, I tend to mulligan more keepable hands than most. I was always someone who loved the mulligan and would treat it exactly the same as playing
a card or opting for X line of play. Mulligans are there so you aren’t forced to keep the hand with no lands or all lands, so why let it get to you?
Because of my will to want to jump out of the gates as much as possible, I tend to mulligan a little too often, especially in Standard, where the presence
of Temples and other scry effects have a solid effect on the mitigation of mulligans. Greedy is the simple word, but I definitely think it’s much more
complicated than that. Because of this, I tend to prioritize cards that would bail me out of such situations, like a single Magma Jet over a fourth
Lightning Strike, or an additional land in my sideboards of slower midrange decks, as general examples.
When deckbuilding, I’m looking for a high-low type of approach. I focus a lot on how proactive my gameplan is early and how “big” I can go late. These
decks are good examples of that:
Creatures (26)
- 4 Hornet Queen
- 4 Elvish Mystic
- 4 Polukranos, World Eater
- 4 Sylvan Caryatid
- 4 Courser of Kruphix
- 3 Eidolon of Blossoms
- 3 Doomwake Giant
Planeswalkers (3)
Lands (23)
Spells (8)
Creatures (29)
- 4 Elvish Mystic
- 4 Stormbreath Dragon
- 4 Fanatic of Xenagos
- 4 Goblin Rabblemaster
- 4 Heir of the Wilds
- 2 Ashcloud Phoenix
- 3 Shaman of the Great Hunt
- 4 Frost Walker
Lands (23)
Spells (8)
This approach is not without its downsides, however. Because I’m so focused on the low end and the high end with my decks, I have a lot of trouble
with finding a good middle ground, and often overcompensate. This results in this weird, wonky, inverted form of clunkiness that rears its ugly head when
having to deal with hitting resources on time, further straining my need to mulligan and scry. This causes a semi-cyclical effect that really takes a toll
on my fundamentals. I often try to mask this by asserting pressure wherever I can. A seemingly unfavorable attack here and there. A representation of a
combat trick or a swingy line of play. Trying to force a bad decision on my opponent. Things like that. Anything to buy me the time I need to address the
problems at hand.
This hole in my game is further magnified in Legacy, where I tend to play Show and Tell decks. Those decks are the exact exemplification of how I can
really push the boundaries of my strengths, and get my weaknesses exploited to the max. In Modern, things aren’t as bad because the power level of the
decks are close enough that I have more opportunities to utilize my strengths in general in exchange for everyone else being able to do the same.
One way I think that I can make up for this weakness is to be a bit more streamlined with my choices. I feel that I’ve been doing a pretty solid job lately
without compromising my strengths.
R/W Aggro is a good example of this, as there really isn’t much to change about the deck, but I can play it how I see fit. I’ve been known to do similar
things in the past as well:
Creatures (29)
- 2 Borderland Ranger
- 4 Arbor Elf
- 4 Falkenrath Aristocrat
- 4 Thundermaw Hellkite
- 4 Flinthoof Boar
- 4 Burning-Tree Emissary
- 4 Ghor-Clan Rampager
- 3 Gyre Sage
Planeswalkers (4)
Lands (23)
Spells (4)
Creatures (15)
Lands (24)
Spells (21)
So, what changed over the past couple of years?
I think part of it is that there are much less multi-applicable cards than before. There are less malleable cards available, which probably caused me to
mold into what I’ve been accustomed to now. This isn’t entirely a bad thing, as this change has also caused me to be more confident in being aggressive (I
don’t mean just attacking) with my decision making. Does this mean that I should look for the more flexible decks out there? Maybe. The most flexible decks
aren’t always the most powerful though, and if there’s clearly a better deck out there, then I’m choosing that. I’m not going to play Temur Aggro if I feel
R/W is the better deck for that tournament, for example.
I’m also aggressive at building control decks as well. Generally, when I play control, I want to have a lot of things to do early on and a lot of huge
firepower late in the game, similar to the way I play other decks. I’m not interested in the tit-for-tat, nickel and dime type of pace. I don’t like to get
“scrappy.” I want everything clean and simple. I can’t play a deck like U/B Control in this Standard because of that, and if it ever became one of the best
things to do in standard, I’d certainly fall behind.
My sideboards are usually focused on beating other players’ sideboards, and I’ll do my best to include a wide range of cards that may not be the most
impactful, but will take care of even the most fringe of matchups.
I think this is a mistake.
While attacking sideboards and sideboard guides has been instrumental to the success I’ve seen on the IQ circuit, I think it’s completely useless to have
weaker cards in your own sideboard for coverage purposes. Your sideboard cards should be the hardest hitting ones, and you shouldn’t waste spots playing
weaker chaff because of fringes.
I’m also a huge offender of oversideboarding, especially when I’m against control decks in Standard or Legacy. I’m unsure if this is a byproduct of my way
of deckbuilding, or if I’m just poor at building sideboards in general, though it’s probably both. I know that I need to do a better job of watching my
numbers and adjust more during building.
Lastly, there’s my overall tournament preparation. I usually don’t have other players to prepare with, so I’ll try to talk with a lot of players I know and
trust around the world. I’m a terrible playtest partner because I can’t take it as seriously as a tournament for some reason. Most of it is theory and
“feel,” and the more I talk to the players I trust, the more prepared I’ll feel.
While I don’t think that you necessarily need to playtest to get ready for a tournament, I would like to figure out better ways to do it. Another major
issue is the players that don’t consider how I go about things when assisting with decisions. This isn’t a knock against them at all, but it certainly
helps when the players that know how I approach the game keep that in mind.
Is this a good approach and playstyle? Who’s to say? I wouldn’t recommend doing what I do over anything that you want to do, and I certainly wouldn’t use
my playstyle as an excuse to make inferior choices, but it’s certainly something to be mindful of when assessing yourself as a player.