Finally, finally, finally Wizards has started posting the Extended PTQ decklists again. I’ve been itching to crunch numbers, but there were no numbers to crunch. Now I have chewed through eight complete and two partial Top 8 lists, and I can share some masticated goodness. I’ll look at numbers, then break down a couple archetypes. Whether you are wondering what to expect at the PTQs or looking to refine your gauntlet decks, I got what you need.
Let’s start with the big picture. To date, I have seen decklists for 66 PTQ Top 8 decks. By far, the majority seems to be some form of U/W control. I have only partially broken them down – and some versions are blending. U/W Tron decks and Trinket Mage decks used to be separate entities. Now, as Richard Feldman and Zac Hill explain in detail, a merger of the two archetypes is not only possible, but quite competitive.
Here’s the initial breakdown. I included the rare Cloudpost / Vesuva big mana decks under the Tron heading, and counted Scepter Chant (NO Stick) decks as part of U/W/x Control. (I know, I know – hardly the same. I also broke them out, so flame off already.) Here’s the big breakdown.
| Archetype | ||
| U/W/x Control Variants | ||
| — U/W Tron | ||
| — Trinket Mage | ||
| — U/W Con. | ||
| — No Stick | ||
| — G/W | ||
| Affinity | ||
| TEPS | ||
| Flow Rock | ||
| Zoo | ||
| Aggro Loam | ||
| Boros w/Green | ||
| Tooth | ||
| G/W | ||
| Ichorid | ||
| Slide | ||
| CAL | ||
| Other |
That’s pretty much what others (McKeown, Flores, Karsten, etc.) have already shown. I’ll go further.
Personally, I’m a bit surprised that Affinity is showing as strongly as it does. I had discounted that deck, thinking it was showing so strongly online because Pernicious Deeds cost a fortune in MTGO, and a lot of people own electronic Affinity cards. In the paper world, however – where people have Deeds if they want them – Affinity is still tied for second most common archetype in the Top 8. I guess Stifle plus Pithing Needle plus assorted other goodness is enough to stop the Deed. (The fact that Rock struggles against other archetypes can’t hurt, either.)
Let’s try looking at the data a couple different ways. First off, let’s look at possible shifts in the metagame. (Quick note: the data is pretty thin here, to the point of questionable statistical validity. Anything apparent may be actual trends or statistical flukes. However, since most people looking for net decks for a PTQ look mainly at the most recent tournament, even statistical flukes may influence what you should expect at your PTQs.)
I’ll compare the results of the four PTQs in week one with the results of the four complete and two partial Top 8s in the later weeks.
| U/W Tron | |||
| Trinket Mage | |||
| U/W Con. | |||
| No Stick | |||
| G/W | |||
| Affinity | |||
| TEPS | |||
| Flow Rock | |||
| Zoo | |||
| Aggro Loam | |||
| Boros w/Green | |||
| Tooth | |||
| G/W/u Trinket | |||
| Ichorid | |||
| CAL | |||
| Other |
Well – that doesn’t show much, does it? About the only big change is that the U/W Trinket Mage decks are dropping in numbers. That’s probably because players are moving over to U/W TrinketTron versions. The other big change is in the number of Affinity decks that are making Top 8. Affinity numbers are growing. The evil robots are still around – be ready.
I’ll take another look at time shifts at the end of February. At that point we should have better data, and more time for the metagame to shift.
The other big difference I have noticed is in the size of the PTQs. Some have close to 200 players. Some have a couple dozen. Let’s look at the results broken down by number of rounds in the Swiss. The question is whether having more rounds changes the types of decks that Top 8 (and again, I wish I had more data, but we use what we have).
Some basics: Swiss rounds allow everyone to keep playing. Winners play winners, losers play losers. Under DCI rules, tournaments that cut to Top 8 play one round for roughly every multiple of two players. (If there is no Top 8, the rules call for adding one round.) Swiss pairings, in theory, mean that there will be an undisputed winner after that number of rounds. In practice, intentional and unintentional draws make the results a bit murkier.
In other words:
2 players – 1 round
3-4 players – 2 rounds
5-8 players – 3 rounds
9-16 players – 4 rounds
17-32 players – 5 rounds
33-64 players – 6 rounds
65-128 players – 7 rounds
129-228 players – 8 rounds
229-400 or so players – 9 rounds
etc.
Here’s an example of why size / number of players matters: the tournament where I won exactly one game all night – and won the tournament. Seriously.
It was a FNM, and draft. We had 15 players – meaning 1 pod with eight and one with seven players. I was in the pod of seven players – and I got the bye round 1. Round 2 I faced a slow player, and game 1 ran very long. I won, and we could not complete game 2. Match to me, for a record of 2-0. I IDed in the finals. I came in first on tiebreakers.
Did I mention that my deck was the Suxor?
Seriously – it was trash. It was a complete pile – so bad I would have played Squire if I’d had one. It won the tournament because there were so few players, and because I got some luck – the bye, the one game match, and the chance to ID. However, luck is a real part of the game. In any tournament, luck can give you three easy wins: 1) in round 1, if you get paired against the kid with the 87 card Craw Wurm.dec, 2) the round where you face your best matchup, and 3) the round where your opponent loses to double mulligans and mana screw / flood.
On the flip side, you may also face your worst matchup and you may suffer the double mulligan to mana screw issue (although good deck design can reduce that risk).
Look at the extremes of recent PTQs. The PTQ in Oklahoma City had 37 players, meaning Swiss went six rounds. The PTQ in Philadelphia had 198 players, and eight rounds. Let’s assume that a player got the lucky trifecta: Craw Wurm.dec, best matchup, and the opponent that double mulligans into mana screws. Let’s also assume the trifecta hits in the first three rounds, leaving the player at 3-0 basically for free.
In Oklahoma City, that player is one of the four 3-0 players in the room. If he can win one more round, with any luck at all, he can ID the next two rounds and be assured of a Top 8. The only thing that could stop him is if he gets paired down and has to play out a match, but if he makes 4-0, that really shouldn’t be a problem.
In Philadelphia, that 3-0 trifecta player has five more rounds to play, and since the kid with Craw Wurm.dec probably isn’t helping his tiebreakers, he will have to win at least three straight matches, probably four, before he can ID in.
The size of the tournament matters.
Here are the results, now broken down by the number of rounds.
| Deck | |||
| U/W Tron | |||
| Trinket | |||
| U/W Con. | |||
| No Stick | |||
| G/W Haterator | |||
| Affinity | |||
| TEPS | |||
| Flow Rock | |||
| Zoo | |||
| Terravore | |||
| Boros w/Green | |||
| Tooth | |||
| G/B Beats | |||
| Ichorid | |||
| CAL | |||
| Opposition | |||
| B/W Aggro | |||
| Slide |
Hmmm – I wasn’t sure what this showed, so I added an asterisk for each winner.
Destructive Flow Rock seems to like long tournaments. It seems, to me at least, like a strong mid-range control deck that can have bad matches. Having more rounds means the one loss to bad luck / draws is less of a problem. The same thing is true of No Stick.
On the flip side, decks like Opposition, CAL, and B/W Aggro did well only at very small tournaments, and could not win in the Top 8. That could indicate that the lucky trifecta had an influence, and that these decks are not really any good. Similarly, Zoo has made appearances, but only at smaller tournaments, and it has not won.
Something to think about.
Moving on, I want to break down some archetypes. I’m not touching U/W/x control variants yet – I’ll let the archetypes settle down a bit first. Instead, I’ll look at the three archetypes posting the next best number of Top 8 finishes: Affinity, TEPS, and Flow Rock.
For each archetype, I will list the cards that appeared maindeck and sideboard. For each card, I will list the number of decks playing the card and the average number per deck. For example, if four of six decks played Chimney Imp, and of those 4 decks 3 played 4 copies and one played 3 copies, the entry would look like this:
Chimney Imp: 4, 3.6.
Let’s start with Affinity. There were seven Affinity decks in the sample.
Maindeck
Seat of the Synod: 7, 4.0
Great Furnace: 7, 4.0
Vault of Whispers: 7, 4.0
Darksteel Citadel: 6, 3.2
Blinkmoth Nexus: 7, 3.4
Glimmervoid: 5, 1.4
Tree of Tales: 1, 4.0
Arcbound Ravager: 7, 4.0
Arcbound Worker: 7, 4.0
Frogmite: 7, 4.0
Myr Enforcer: 7, 3.7
Ornithopter: 7, 3.4
Atog: 6, 1.2
Thoughtcast: 7, 4.0
Chromatic Star: 7, 4.0
Chromatic Sphere: 7, 1.6
Cranial Plating: 7, 4.0
Pyrite Spellbomb: 7, 2.3
Shrapnel Blast: 7, 3.0
Pithing Needle: 3, 3.0
Sideboard
Tormod’s Crypt: 7, 3.0
Cabal Therapy: 7 3.3
Darkblast: 6, 3.2
Stifle: 4, 3.3
Krosan Grip: 1, 3.0
Pithing Needle: 3, 3.0
Echoing Truth: 2, 2.0
Overload: 2, 2.5
Chalice of the Void: 1, 2.0
Welding Jar: 1, 2.0
Scale of Chiss-Goria 1 4.0
Having done these breakdowns in the past, this is a really surprising degree of uniformity. People have a truly remarkable consensus on how Affinity should be built – or everyone is stealing the same netdeck. One player splashes Green for Krosan Grip, but otherwise the lands and creature base are almost identical. The same is true for all decks on the first 9-10 sideboard cards. Pithing Needle may look like it is a matter of debate, but only on where it goes. Six of seven decks play three Needles each, but half play them maindeck and half in the sideboard.
Next up is another deck that has varied little from the Worlds versions. TEPS is being played, and has taken six Top 8 slots. I have five complete decklists. Here’s how their numbers break down:
Maindeck
Ancient Spring: 5, 4.0
Sulfur Vent: 5, 4.0
Geothermal Crevice: 5, 4.0
Gemstone Mine: 5, 3.2
Burning Wish : 5, 4.0
Plunge into Darkness: 4, 1.8
Infernal Tutor: 5, 2.0
Sins of the Past: 5, 1.2
Mind’s Desire: 5, 3.0
Tendrils of Agony: 5, 1.2
Chain of Vapor: 1, 1.0
Seething Song: 5, 4.0
Cabal Ritual: 5, 4.0
Rite of Flame: 5, 4.0
Channel the Suns: 3, 1.7
Chrome Mox: 5 4.0
Lotus Bloom: 5, 4.0
Chromatic Star: 5, 4.0
Darkwater Egg: 3, 4.0
Chromatic Sphere: 2, 4.0
Sensei’s Divining Top: 2, 3.0
Sideboard
Tendrils of Agony: 5, 1.2
Mind’s Desire: 5, 1.0
Pyroclasm: 5, 1.0
Empty the Warrens: 5, 1.8
Hull Breach: 5, 1.0
Channel the Suns: 4, 1.0
Sins of the Past: 3, 1.0
Orim’s Chant: 4, 3.0
Duress: 3, 3.7
Defense Grid: 2, 3.0
Chain of Vapor: 2, 3.0
Dark Confidant : 1, 3.0
I’m not going to say much about how to play these decks. Most of them already have at least one premium article (e.g. TEPS Primer, Flow Deck Wins, etc.) on how to play them – and some have several articles. Instead, I’ll move on to an archetype that isn’t quite so defined – at least one that runs a variety of cards. I’m talking about Flow Rock.
Maindeck
Forest: 6, 6.2 (four versions ran 7, one ran 5 and one ran 4)
Swamp: 6, 2.5
Mountain: 6, 1.3
Wooded Foothills: 6, 3.7
Bloodstained Mire: 6, 3.5
Overgrown Tomb: 5, 1.0
Blood Crypt: 5, 1.0
Stomping Ground: 4, 1.0
Windswept Heath: 1, 2.0
Destructive Flow: 6, 3.2
Duress: 5, 3.8
Cabal Therapy: 5, 2.8
Call of the Herd: 5, 3.6
Putrefy: 5, 3.0
Smother: 1, 3.0
Chainer’s Edict: 1, 2.0
Pernicious Deed: 1, 4.0
Artifact Mutation: 1, 1.0
Haunting Echoes: 1, 1.0
Sword of Fire & Ice: 5, 2.4
Umezawa’s Jitte: 5, 3.0
Chrome Mox: 5, 2.6
Sensei’s Divining Top: 1, 3.0
Birds of Paradise: 6, 4.0
Dark Confidant: 5, 4.0
Troll Ascetic: 5, 4.0
Elves of Deep Shadow: 4, 2.0
Ravenous Baloth: 3, 3.0
Wild Mongrel: 3, 3.0
Sakura-Tribe Elder: 1, 4.0
Eternal Witness: 2, 3.5
Genesis: 1, 1.0
Five of the six decks are quite similar. They are fairly aggressive decks with some removal, some equipment, and Destructive Flow to interfere with the opponent. The sixth, played by Ryan Brown in the January 6th PTQ in Minneapolis, was more of a classic Rock deck with a splash for Destructive Flow. That deck ran a full set of Deeds, as well as Eternal Witness and Genesis. It was also the only deck to avoid running Dark Confidants.
Now, onto the sideboards:
Sideboard
Krosan Grip: 4, 2.0
Tormod’s Crypt: 4, 2.8
Darkblast: 4, 2.0
Flametongue Kavu: 4, 2.3
Cabal Therapy: 3, 2.3
Destructive Flow: 3, 1.0
Ravenous Baloth: 2, 1.0
Deathmark: 1, 2.0
Ancient Grudge: 2, 2.0
Pernicious Deed: 2, 2.0
Duress: 2, 1.0
Dark Confidant: 1, 2.0
Artifact Mutation: 1, 2.0
Leyline of the Void: 1, 3.0
Infest: 1, 3.0
Cranial Extraction: 1, 2.0
Smother: 1, 3.0
I have a PTQ this weekend. I’m leaning towards this deck. So, if I don’t get stuck judging, or change my mind again…
In closing:
I appreciate the interest my last article generated in the forums. I may have more to say about Green and Green issues in the future. Not this week. I also want to talk about a variety other issues and topics. Some other time. I may wedge some of those in, but I will also be sure to keep crunching Extended data as it appears. It will depend how quickly that Wizards posts decklists, and whether anything significant happens.
At the very least, I will have some data on the Madison PTQ in the near future. I’m sure I can get the decklists, etc. I have an in there – I’m married to the head judge.
‘Til next time.
PRJ
pete {dot} jahn {at} Verizon {dot} com