In my experience, most tournament Magic players break down into one of two different groups when it comes to building and maintaining decks.
The first group is not at all interested in deck construction, or the process of tuning and refining a deck. Taken to a certain extreme, these are the people who build their deck in the car on the way to a tournament out of whatever cards are available at the time, or even show up at an event without any deck at all, looking to borrow or build one just before the tournament begins. They’re the people who ask the best players they can find for a decklist, sight unseen. Other people are slightly more concerned about their deck choice to the extent that they’ll use decks that performed well in previous tournaments in the same format, or decks suggested by strategy writers and pro players (such as PTQ Top 8s, or decks suggested on strategy sites such as this one). They may run them card-for-card, or make minor alternations, such as changing a sideboard based on their local metagame. For these people, the most interesting part of Magic is the game itself, and they’re going to be most inclined to read articles about actually playing the game, or articles that offer specific sideboard suggestions.
This is not one of those articles.
The second group of Magic players is made up of those that are interested in deck construction and find it satisfying to create and tune a deck. When I say “create” a deck, I don’t necessarily mean create a brand-new archetype, as only a handful of tournament-worthy decks are created for each Constructed season. However, we do see insightful and impressive tuning of established decks occurring throughout any given season. For instance, tracking the progression of Faeries in Extended over the past four months, from Andreas Muller’s deck from PT: Berlin, to Paul Cheon deck from Worlds, Mat Marr deck from GP: LA, Sam Black deck from GP: Singapore, and Patrick Chapin most recent PTQ list, reveals a lot about where the meta-game was for that specific event, as well as the leanings and bias of that particular player. For players in this group, deciding on a starting list for a deck and then growing and evolving that list is as rewarding, or sometimes even more rewarding, than actually playing said deck in a tournament; the actual playing of the deck is a test of the accuracy of the decisions that led to that specific list, as much as it is a test of the skill of the deck’s pilot.
I’m solidly in this second camp.
When analyzing a specific deck, I’ve found one of the most important things to do is to ascertain what specific decks the list’s creator / player was aiming to beat, to whatever extent it is possible to do so. To put the decks I just mentioned, above, into context, remember that public enemy #1 at PT: Berlin was Zoo (although some of those in the “know” were obviously already hating on Elves — see Muller’s Chalice of the Void package in the sideboard), at Worlds it was Elves, at GP: LA it was Faeries (although again for those in the “know”, Desire / TEPS hate was necessary), and at GP: Singapore was Faeries again. As far as Patrick’s list goes, it is a flexible and resilient build that looks like it wants to gain ground in the mirror and Zoo match-ups. All of these decks have elements that I would want to capture in my personal Faeries list, but none felt exactly right. When determining the list I wanted to run, I had to complete the same exercise as these players. I had to figure out what decks I was trying to beat, and how I was going to beat them.
If you’re in that second camp, when you spend a lot of time testing and tuning a deck, you might begin to grow attached to it, or even specific cards in the deck (for example, Sean McKeown loves Ponder — not that there’s anything wrong with that). I certainly do. I have fond remembrances of a few specific decks that either performed exceptionally well for me, or were unique upgrades or variants of an established archetype. If you ever see me in person, ask me about the time I won $500 playing a Constructed deck with Throne of Bone. As I work on any specific deck, I memorize and agonize over every single inclusion — although I will admit I pay too much attention to the make-up of the 60 rather than the 75, something I need to work on to reach the next level.
My goal today is to help explain the “tweaks” and tuning that I’ve made to my Faeries deck over the past few weeks, going through why I made each change and how it steered me toward the list I expect to use for the last two PTQs of this season. I promise that the “meat” of this article isn’t just another rehashing or examination of Faeries, although it may appear that way at first glance. I know most of you have absolutely had it with Faeries. You’ve circled its rotation out of Standard and Extended on your calendars, and have already ordered the strippers, balloons, and cake to celebrate the joyous days ahead. I’m with you. However, there is some value in taking a look at the process of PTQ preparation as far as what changes need to be made to a deck, and more importantly, why. Interestingly, my goal two weeks ago wasn’t even to play Faeries for the rest of the season, but rather to start playing Naya Zoo.
Why Naya Zoo? Well, granted, it did just smash a Grand Prix, but I’m more interested in the fact that it has performed quite well at the PTQ level over the past month (probably even longer, at this point). It has unquestionably become the Aggro deck to beat, easily supplanting Affinity, as it is much more difficult to hate against Naya, and Naya is much more adept at adapting to changes in the field. I also assign no small value to the fact that I personally really enjoy beating face with cheap monsters, and burninating people with copious amounts of, um, burn. Naya seemed like a fun deck with a great match-up against Faeries, as I was smashing it with relative ease during play-testing. Here’s one of the keys to analyzing play-testing: exactly what list was I smashing, and why?
I said that Naya is relatively easy to play, and I think that’s a true statement — however, playing it well, playing it correctly, requires an understanding of what to expect from your opponents, and that is going to be difficult during the last two weeks of the season. We’re seeing Faeries lists with Threads main, with Disrupting Shoal main, without Engineered Explosives main, without Stifle main, with Path to Exile main, all types of changes, as there is no consensus list at this point due to geographical bias and constant evolution of the meta-game. Building a Naya list to beat any given Faeries deck isn’t that hard — however, building a Naya deck that can beat Faeries and still perform well in the mirror or pseudo-mirror match is a bit trickier. The specific Faeries list I’d been testing against was designed to perform well against its respective mirror, Elves, Desire, and Loam. It wasn’t really meant to run against updated Naya decks. In other words, it wasn’t really appropriate testing.
From what I’ve heard, the SCG Center was awash with Zoo decks during the double-shot PTQ, particularly on Saturday, but that despite this fact, Faeries still performed well and actually increased its percentage of the field on Sunday. I had to make sure my Naya deck still had game against Faeries, specifically lists that would mirror those discussed last week by Zac Hill, Sam Black, and Patrick Chapin. This is where I hit a snag. I made some changes to my Faeries list to reflect an expected field with approximately 30-40% Zoo decks. I thought it was reasonable to expect that some Faeries players would make adjustments specifically for this match-up, figuring that Naya would at least remain as popular as the previous week, if not more so due to the GP results; I wanted to make sure that the Naya list would hold up under these conditions.
The results were dramatic: Naya started losing, repeatedly. Some of the games were close, but often they slipped just out of reach. I’m willing to guess that some of it is familiarity with the match-up — that is to say, over time, the Faeries pilot will begin to see better results against any given Zoo deck. In fact, familiarity with a specific Zoo list is dangerous, as they’re all quite different and it isn’t safe to assume you know what cards you’re going to see, as Naya decks vary from burn-heavy to creature-heavy and everywhere in between. However, I do think that in play-testing this match-up, the advantage goes to the Faeries player given time, practice, and sufficient skill. Of course, it also starts with the deck itself.
Remember, my original goal was to take my existing Faeries list and optimize it for a meta that I expected would be infested with Zoo, in order to make sure that Naya was still the right choice. My intention was to play Naya, not Faeries. I needed to verify that Naya Zoo could post solid results against the Fae, because I have no interest in playing a deck that doesn’t have a favorable Faeries match-up, unless I choose to play Faeries itself (in which case I’m relying on my skill and my sideboard — scary, I know).
Before making changes to an existing deck, especially one that you didn’t personally design, it’s important to understand what that deck is designed to do. The Phase 3 plan of Faeries is relatively simple: get Umezawa’s Jitte active. I really don’t think this deck would be as dominant without Jitte, and many games I’ve won with the deck were really “won” as soon as a creature dealt damage with Jitte equipped. Jitte allows you to own the board completely against every deck except Desire, and even there it has value as a faster clock or a way to gain life (therefore requiring extra Storm count). Again, I know this is considered common knowledge, but it’s the simple reality of the deck, and frankly one that people don’t always respect or understand. You’re often just trying to live long enough to get Jitte active, at which point all you need to do to win is just protect the Jitte itself. Understand that this is a simplification and many games with the deck are won that don’t involve Jitte, but I still think this is the strategic underpinning that makes the deck successful.
Now that I’ve identified the game-plan of the deck, what tools do I need in place to make sure I can execute it? More specifically, what inclusions are necessary to make sure that I can execute this plan in a Naya-filled PTQ?
• I want to include Chrome Mox to make sure I have the necessary speed to compete against Zoo and Elves, but I want to cap myself at 2, because I am not running Thirst for Knowledge and don’t want to disadvantage myself too much in the mirror. Chrome Mox helps tremendously in these match-ups when drawn early by enabling turn 1 Spellstutter Sprite, faster activation of Explosives, and allows you to suspend Visions on turn 1 with Spell Snare back-up.
• I prefer Ancestral Visions over Thirst for Knowledge because I want to actually draw cards, not just increase my card quality by sifting through my top 3, and most of my artifacts (Engineered Explosives, Jitte) are too essential to my game-plan to pitch. Running only two copies of Chrome Mox means Thirst for Knowledge is marginal in this build and would be better suited supporting Visions rather than replacing it.
• I definitely want three Engineered Explosives to contain Zoo and Elves. I want to play a multi-color land base to create a sideboard that includes a) Ancient Grudge, because I want to hate on Affinity and still be able to destroy problematic Artifacts like Vedalken Shackles in the mirror and various equipment against Bant Aggro, b) Thoughtseize, because I feel like Stifle is a weak and narrow choice at this point, and Thoughtseize has massive value in a number of match-ups, c) Smother, to combat Zoo decks and specifically to kill Woolly Thoctar, and d) Firespout, to combat Elves and Zoo (although the value of this card against Zoo decreases if Wooly Thoctar is on the rise).
• I want to include main-deck Threads of Disloyalty and Repeal, specifically for the Zoo match-up.
I first put this deck together several months ago, based on Paul Cheon list from Worlds, with the modifications suggested by LSV, and it has developed from there. As compared to my last version, I cut the Cryptic Command, Executioner’s Capsule / Relic of Progenitus, and Trinket Mage and replaced them with the anti-zoo package of 2 Repeal and 2 Threads of Disloyalty. The main question I have with this list right now is whether or not I want to include the two Glen Elendras, or replace one or both of them with Venser or Cryptic Command.
Here’s the list as of this writing:
Creatures (13)
- 1 Venser, Shaper Savant
- 3 Sower of Temptation
- 4 Spellstutter Sprite
- 3 Vendilion Clique
- 2 Glen Elendra Archmage
Lands (23)
Spells (24)
- 3 Umezawa's Jitte
- 2 Threads of Disloyalty
- 4 Mana Leak
- 2 Chrome Mox
- 3 Engineered Explosives
- 2 Repeal
- 4 Spell Snare
- 4 Ancestral Vision
Sideboard
I identified these cards as key to specific match-ups:
Zoo: Threads of Disloyalty, Repeal, Sower of Temptation, Engineered Explosives, Chrome Mox, Umezawa’s Jitte (main); Smother, Firespout (sideboard)
Elves: Engineered Explosives, Umezawa’s Jitte, Spellstutter Sprite, Mana Leak, Spell Snare, Chrome Mox (main); Firespout, Thoughtseize (sideboard)
Affinity: Sower of Temptation, Repeal, Umezawa’s Jitte, Spell Snare, Mana Leak (main); Ancient Grudge, Smother (sideboard)
Faeries: Umezawa’s Jitte, Glen Elendra Archmage, Riptide Laboratory, Sower of Temptation, Ancestral Vision, Spell Snare (main); Thoughtseize, Future Sight (sideboard)
Desire: Vendilion Clique, Spell Snare, Mana Leak, Spellstutter Sprite (main); Thoughtseize (sideboard)
Loam: Vendilion Clique, Ancestral Visions, Umezawa’s Jitte (main); Future Sight, Relic of Progenitus (sideboard)
As you can see, this build is somewhat vulnerable to Desire, in that I have no Stifle and no Canonist. I’m willing to accept that fact, given the sideboard options I have against the other major players in the field, and will have to rely on Thoughtseize, Vendilion Clique, and my counter-magic to win me that match-up.
Here are some “innovations” I can expect to see from Naya:
o Gaddock Teeg to combat Cryptic Command and Engineered Explosives.
o Woolly Thoctar, a giant beater who gets around Spell Snare, Spellstutter Sprite, and is immune to Threads and largely immune to Vedalken Shackles.
o Ranger of Eos, a creature who is both difficult to counter and one that essentially reads “draw two business spells.”
o Duergar Hedge-Mage to fight against Threads, Jitte, and Shackles.
o Additional Sulfuric Vortex main to help defeat Jitte and close out games, and potentially Pyrostatic Pillar.
o Hellspark Elemental, which is problematic due to Unearth.
I believe the list I suggested above has the tools to combat most of these threats. Sower of Temptation and Smother provide additional protection against Woolly Thoctar. I only run two Threads of Disloyalty, so Hedge-Mage isn’t overly effective against me. Gaddock Teeg could randomly be an issue, but I have Spell Snare to counter him plus Smother and Firespout to remove him from play. Finally, I have 3 Engineered Explosives to combat Vortex and Pillar, along with Repeal. I’m willing to take my chances against Hellspark (who isn’t very good in the Zoo mirror) and Ranger of Eos (which remains more of a fringe strategy).
Another important piece to prepping a deck prior to a PTQ is to become comfortable with its sideboard. As I mentioned last week, this includes play-testing games post-sideboard (and actually going through the act of sideboarding and de-sideboarding). Additionally, it means that you should feel like you’ve maximized your sideboard slots by looking for as much overlap as possible. For example, I really wanted Firespout for Elves, but it certainly has applications against Zoo and even potentially Affinity. You also need to take care to not overload your sideboard with too many cards for a specific match-up. As soon as you find you have more cards in your sideboard than you can comfortably bring in for any given deck, its time to adjust the numbers. Generally speaking, the list above has no more than five cards to bring in against any one deck. Bringing in five impactful cards allows me feel comfortable that I’ve increased my percentage against that deck post-board AND that I can actually bring in those impactful cards without messing up my deck’s ability to execute its original game-plan.
In going through this exercise of modifying my Faeries deck, I found that I’d created a list that was performing well against Naya Zoo, and one which performed well against most of the field, particularly after sideboard. Indirectly, I’d discovered my deck for the next PTQ.
Then again, I do have that Naya / Domain Zoo cross that runs the full Domain for Tribal Flames and Might of Alara, which gets pretty spicy with Hellspark Elemental.
Let’s say I’m not going to cancel my reservation for the Trogdor costume just yet…
Matt Elias
[email protected]
Voltron00x on Xbox Live and SCG forums