“How do you kill that which has no life?”
How do you test for a format that doesn’t exist?
This is likely the single hardest hitting question of our time. Our world is hotly divided on a multitude of moral, political, and religious issues, but
nothing is quite as head-scratching or important as finding out the answer to the question:
What should I play at Autumn States this weekend?
Global Warming? Gay Marriage? Boettcher of the Horde? Siege Rhinoceros? These are the questions that define us.
Every time a new format rolls around, there are a lot of people who have no real clue at how to start preparing for it, myself included. Once tournaments
start racking up, then we get a real picture of the metagame and we know what kinds of decks and threats we need to fight. Building to beat an established
metagame is an easier task. You know your enemy and just have to find the right tools against it.
But what about when you have no clue what the enemy is or even what it could look like?
Things are a bit tougher then. I’ve had some time to reflect on my testing process for this format as well as what I’ve done in past new formats, and I
have come up with a few tips and tools for how to go about this monumental task.
Let’s take a hot look at them, shall we?
Construct a Framework
Before you go about building some sweet new decks, the first step is to construct a framework of what you think some basic, level 1 strategies will be.
Essentially, it is worthwhile to come up with three solid decks that you think are obvious strategies out of the gate. These are going to be your punching
bags.
Generally speaking, these obvious strategies are going to be powerful. If they weren’t powerful, then they wouldn’t be obvious at all. These are often
going to be straightforward, linear decks that take advantage of some of the powerful cards or mechanics from the previous block.
A perfect example of this is Green Devotion. This deck is a powerful, linear deck that takes advantage of the Devotion mechanic from Theros block. Since
Theros is the dominant block, it is likely going to be the dominant driving force in Standard until we get more sets from Khans of Tarkir Block. Green
Devotion is a perfect framework deck.
Another good option is Mono-Red Aggro. I can’t remember a format where some sort of Mono-Red deck didn’t exist. This deck is pretty much always going to be
a thing, and while it may not be the best deck, it is certainly going to be quite good at showing whether or not your strategy is going to be good enough
to compete. If Mono-Red is smashing you, then you will likely need to adjust your deck or go back to the drawing board.
Oftentimes, the best place to go to look for decks to build to start your framework is going to be Block Constructed decks from the previous format. While
these decks don’t always port over to Standard, frequently they do end up being reasonable decks. Tempered Steel from Scars of Mirrodin Block became
Tempered Steel in Standard. Jund from Innistrad Block became Jund in Standard. Esper Control from Return to Ravnica Block became Esper Control in Standard.
Courser of Kruphix and Sylvan Caryatid were the dominant cards from Theros Block Constructed. Those are pretty likely to also be pretty good in this
Standard format.
“But BBD, we already have two Open Series Events in the books. Who cares about this Construct a Framework crap?”
Good question. For one, I hope this information will be useful for future new formats, not just this one. Also, a handful of events does not a format make.
I suspect we won’t really get a strong understanding of this format until after the Pro Tour, or even Grand Prix Los Angeles the following week.
This is still a baby format and still unexplored. Most of the decks that did well at the recent SCG Opens are exactly this kind of deck: a framework deck.
They were powerful, linear strategies like Green Devotion. I don’t think these are the decks that are going to be defining the format, although they will
very likely have a place in them.
At this stage in the game though, these decks do make a great framework to test your decks against. Now that we have some limited data about the format, we
can test our new decks against those “established” decks and see what we can learn.
Be Open Minded
This is a big one. In fact, one of the best ways to succeed in a new format is to be willing to try new decks or new strategies, even when you don’t think
they will be good. Sometimes decks that look like big piles of refuse actually end up being a gold mine once you dig deep into it and figure out what’s
going on. The Naya Purphoros deck that I played at GP Chicago last year definitely looked like a pile on paper. Multiple Purphoros without any way to
provide devotion? Yeah, okay. Once I started playing games with it, however, I came to realize just how sweet and powerful the deck was.
Let’s just say, I was guilty of committing the close-minded cardinal sin a lot of times during the testing for this upcoming Pro Tour.
I spent a lot of time playing matches with Michael Majors and Chris VanMeter to prepare for the tournament. During that time, I poo-poo’d a lot of ideas,
only to have to take an embarrassing reversal not long afterward.
I remember a classic moment where I said to Michael, “Hey, what do you think about a big R/W deck that plays Rabblemaster, Brimaz, and Dragon and then just
has a bunch of burn spells?”
Michael then responded. “Dude, I asked you about that deck a few days ago and you said it was terrible.”
Whoopsy daisy. There are two takeaways. The first is that I’m a big dumb-dumb. The second is that I had this opinion that Brimaz wasn’t very good from some
early testing that I did, and thus, shotgunned down deck ideas featuring the Cat King. Later on, I realized that he was performing better than he had
originally, and it led me to realize that some of my early Brimaz hate was probably unwarranted. I flip-flopped faster than a politician after being
elected to office. I flip-flopped faster than a pair of…flip-flops? I ran out of flip-flop jokes. Cut me some slack.
If I had just been open-minded the entire time, I might have avoided missing out on some potential sweet brews like the Brimaz Rabblemaster concoction
above. I say potential, because I never actually tested the deck, so who knows if it is actually good or not?
Which leads me to my next point.
It Is Impossible to Test Everything
One easy mistake to make when testing for a new format is to bite off more than you can chew. There are so many new cards and new ideas that can be built.
It’s simply not possible to test everything. Sometimes, trying to test every possible deck leads to a situation where you spread too far and too thin.
While you might test a wide range of decks, chances are you only played a few games with each deck. That doesn’t give you a great idea of how good the
strategy is, what cards are good or bad in it, or how it matches up against the field as a whole.
My preferred strategy as of late is to test fewer decks, but explore those decks on a much deeper level. While it’s certainly possible that you will miss
things by skipping on certain decks, you will end up with much better tuned lists for the decks that you do happen to focus on.
Personally, when deciding which decks to work on and which to ignore, I tend to go off of personal preference. I like playing cards like Siege Rhinoceros,
so I’m going to probably work on a deck with that card and tune it. I like playing cards like Butcher of the Horde, so I’m going to work on decks with that
card.
It may seem weak to focus on fun cards or cards that I enjoy playing when it comes to building decks to succeed in a new format, but I have actually found
the opposite to be true. I do better when I play decks that are in my wheelhouse. A better deck might exist, but when I am having fun and playing a deck
that fits my playstyle, I can still succeed.
Don’t Get Personally Attached
I just talked about how I like to stick to strategies that I personally enjoy when figuring out what decks I want to play. There is one big downside to
that kind of thinking, however. That is the ease with which you can fall victim to the trap of becoming personally attached to a card or strategy, even
when it is proving to be poor.
Frequently, the decks I build end up not being very good, but I will hold on to them or try to play them for far longer than I should. Most of the time,
this is because I have fallen into the “emotional attachment” trap. I become personally attached to the cards or strategies. I really like a card, and
thus, I kind of “will it to be good” even if that isn’t actually the case.
This is a hard trap to pull out of on your own. If you’re personally attached to a card, your viewpoint is going to be skewed. You’ll remember the times it
was great and forget the times where it sucked. Believe me, it is very easy for the human mind to bend reality to believe what it wants to believe.
The easiest way to avoid this trap is to do two things. The first is to frequently take a step back from a deck or card and try to think about all the
games you played with it or all the times you drew it and whether it actually did what you wanted it to do. Try to think critically about a card and
provide a non-biased evaluation of it. Question yourself. “Am I getting too attached to this card, or is it actually as good as I think?”
The second thing is to ask other people. Ask your friends for an honest evaluation. If your friends are willing to be honest with you, and they think that
it is bad, there’s a chance they are right. Getting outsider feedback is a really valuable way to judge the merits of a deck without having to fear your
own personal bias getting in the way.
Update the Gauntlet
As you start to test more and more with your decks and start to tune them better and better, one important thing to do is to also update the decks you are
testing against. If you’re using Green Devotion as a framework deck to test your other decks against, you are going to end up playing a lot of games with
the deck. As a result, you’ll get a good understanding of what cards are testing well and poorly in Green Devotion as well as against it.
When you make discoveries like that, it’s important to also update those decks to account for those discoveries. If you play against someone in a
tournament playing Green Devotion, there’s a good chance that they have also updated the deck and tuned the deck past the initial list. Sometimes you can
get a flawed view of a matchup or a poor understanding of who is favored in a matchup if you continue to use an outdated version of one of the decks.
That can really bite in a tournament setting when you play against someone with the updated list.
Another benefit to updating the Gauntlet decks is that sometimes the Gauntlet decks actually become “the decks.” Sometimes, when you’re testing your brew
over and over against a deck like Mono-Black Devotion in the last Standard format, you realize that you should just play Mono-Black Devotion because it is
beating everything. If you keep these decks updated, then it makes it much easier to transition into those decks should the need arise.
Test Sideboard Games
This is a huge part of testing that most people kind of gloss over. At the very least, half of the games you play in a tournament will be sideboarded
games, barring any kind of crazy game loss shenanigans. Testing the maindeck for a brew is a great way to get a feel for whether the strategy is actually
going to be viable or not, but testing sideboard games really helps nail down the nuts and bolts of tournament success.
Once you determine that a deck is actually viable and you want to pursue it more, it is really imperative to then start working on a sideboard and testing
it.
Often, a powerful deck can also get discarded incorrectly because of a failure to test sideboard games. It is easy to see that a slow midrange deck is
going to get hammered by Mono Red in pre-board games. But does the matchup improve significantly post-board? It’s easy to just say “This deck can’t ever
beat Mono Red” and shelve it, but perhaps that is wrong. If the matchup can be fixed in the sideboard with a card like Anger of the Gods, for example, then
maybe you are giving up on it prematurely.
It’s also important to look at a deck as 75 cards instead of 60 cards. Sometimes how you want to build your sideboard can also affect your maindeck. For
example, a lot of players played a mix of 3 Sign in Blood and 1 Underworld Connections in B/W Midrange last Standard season. While those players might feel
that Sign in Blood was a better card than Connections, by playing a Connections main, they get to free up a slot in the sideboard and make the sideboard
transition in certain matchups a lot easier.
Without testing sideboard games, it’s hard to reach these conclusions.
Develop Conclusions
After every testing session, it is usually a good idea to “debrief.” By that, I mean you should think about the games you played and draw conclusions about
it. Did any cards overperform expectations? Did any cards underperform expectations?
If any card performed way above expectations, perhaps it is worth retooling the deck completely to better facilitate that card. If any card performed below
expectations, regardless of how great that card “should” be, perhaps it is worth cutting it from the deck.
For an example from recent testing, Wingmate Roc ended up performing above expectations when I tested it in an Abzan shell. As a result, I altered the deck
to better facilitate Wingmate Roc by doing things like adding Fleecemane Lion to the deck as an early creature to attack with impunity and trigger raid.
Try New Things
The last step is to be willing to try out new cards or different configurations. One mistake that I know I personally make a lot is to find a build of a
deck that I really like and then just kind of settle on playing that build without bothering to test alternatives.
To give an example of what I mean, when testing Abzan decks this Standard season, I tried lists with Wingmate Roc, Nissa, Spectra Ward, Abzan Ascendancy,
and other cards. I tried a wide variety of different cards because even though my initial version with Wingmate Roc was testing quite well, I wanted to
make sure I wasn’t missing anything.
As it turns out, by virtue of testing, I found that I like Nissa a lot more than Wingmate Roc. So even though I was having success with and enjoying the
Wingmate Roc version of the deck, by being willing to still tinker with success, I found a version I liked even more. Likewise, I really enjoyed Abzan
Ascendancy a lot. I felt that the Ascendancy versions weren’t quite there, but that the card was great and I will try to fit it into future shells.
You can learn a lot by being willing to try out new ideas, even if the original ideas are still quite good. There is the old adage, “Why mess with a good
thing?” Well, it turns out the answer is that you might instead develop a great thing.
I hope these tips have proven to be helpful when it comes to testing for new formats or even just testing in general. I know that I’ve learned a lot about
testing over the course of the last year, and I still have a lot more to learn, as evidenced by the mistakes I make during each Pro Tour.
As I write this en route to Honolulu for the next Pro Tour, I can’t help but hope this time had less mistakes than the last. Regardless, I hope I can learn
from it either way, so that next Pro Tour has even less mistakes.