A Sunny Perspective: SCG St Louis edition

A Brief Introduction

Hello, and thanks for reading! My name is Sunny Seelamsetty and I’ve been playing Magic since Mercadian Masques Block. I took a hiatus after witnessing Kamigawa Block, but have had another go at Magic and I am enjoying myself thoroughly. I played at Dark Sphere for about 5 months before returning to my home country on the other side of the pond. As I continue to play here in the U.S., I will do my best to keep you all updated on things you may or may not have seen, heard about, or even know about. I have tried to make the article fun and entertaining, and hey, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two. Without further ado, let’s get started!

PACIFISM, REALLY?!

In this section, I’ll be talking about two sweet pieces of tech that I saw being played at the Star City Games Open in St. Louis, Missouri by professional players that I may or may not agree with.
First up is Ludevic’s Test Subject. I finished up one of my rounds early in the Standard Open and decided to go watch the feature match with Michael Jacob. He was playing this crazy control deck which I had never seen before. It ended up being a brew by himself and Gerry Thompson which I read quite a bit about afterwards, but at the time it looked quite foreign to me. Anyway, as I approached the feature match area, I saw a Ludevic’s Test Subject on the board with 2 counters. Bewildered, I stared at it thinking I would wake up and realize that it was indeed a Snapcaster Mage or some other familiar Standard staple. Instead, I watched Michael Jacob hold up Dissipate mana, and when his opponent passed the turn he added two more counters, bringing it to 4. He untapped in what seemed like slow motion, added a fifth counter, and swung for 13. His opponent couldn’t do anything about it as he tried chump blocking but still took 7 damage. On Michael’s next turn, his opponent took lethal from the same abomination that was a lowly two mana egg just two turns ago.

Ever since watching that fateful match, I have grown to love Ludevic’s Test Subject. I am not ready to say it’s a four-of in every list sporting Islands, but I’m enough of a fan of the Subject to say that it should be in the Sideboard of almost any deck with Mana Leaks. Being able to progress your board state with unused mana in your opponent’s end step, or even any time during your opponent’s turn for that matter, is one of the major reasons why control decks can even exist. The ability to cast a 2/1 on your opponent’s turn who allows you to recast an instant at retail price is the reason why most control decks even have a fighting chance in this metagame (not much of one these days, I’ll admit). Sinking two, four, even six mana into transforming this 0/3 into a 13/13 trampler with unused mana at the end of your opponent’s turn can feel like cheating at times. This is especially true for players who may not be as familiar with the card. For instance, I watched a player attempt a Dismember on the 0/3 side of the double-faced card. In response, the player paid 2UU to flip it, and the 13/13 shrugged off the Dismember as if it were just a splinter in his finger. The Test Subject’s use in Standard at the moment is a bit shaky as there aren’t quite as many control decks with a fighting chance nowadays with U/W Illusions and Wolf Run running rampant (pun completely intended), but keep an eye on him if the format shifts to something a bit slower.

The second and final card I’d like to talk about today is Pacifism. In another Feature Match, I watched Gerry Thompson cast Pacifism on his opponent’s creature. I can’t even remember the target because I was too busy turning to a stranger next to me exclaiming, “PACIFISM, REALLY?!” Yes, it’s playable in Limited but why doesn’t he shell out one extra mana for a quality removal spell like Oblivion Ring? It boggled me for the entire day until I talked to a friend about it later. He told me of the “neat” interaction between Pacifism and Sun Titan. That is, when Pacifism is in the graveyard and you choose to reanimate it with Sun Titan, it does not actually target a creature when it is coming from the yard (although it does when you cast it from your hand). That way, it can pacify creatures with Hexproof which are particularly annoying these days (I’m looking at you, Geist of Saint Traft and Dungrove Elder).

Although this fact made playing Pacifism less objectionable, I still don’t agree. The interaction between it and Sun Titan is cute, but it’s just not going to happen that often. Compare it to the number of times there is a Planeswalker on the board making 3/3 beasts every turn and you have nothing short of Beast Within + Day of Judgment to stop it. Wouldn’t you love to be staring at an Oblivion Ring in hand instead of that measly Pacifism? I rest my case.

The Art of Splashing

In the Star City Games Standard Open, I decided to take a deck that I had been doing well with at FNM and made one drastic change to it. The monster that I ended up with was Blue/Black Control splashing green for the famous Garruk Relentless. His fairly unique mana cost of 3G instead of Garruk Wildspeaker’s 2GG or Garruk, Primal Hunter’s 2GGG was just asking for it to be splashed in an already powerful deck. The mana base to support UB Control with reliable access to one green mana ended up being this:
4 Darkslick Shores
4 Drowned Catacomb
4 Hinterland Harbor
3 Woodland Cemetery
1 Nephalia Drownyard
6 Island
5 Swamp

Compare this to the aesthetic wonderland that is the UB Control mana base:

4 Darkslick Shores
4 Drowned Catacomb
2 Nephalia Drownyard
2 Ghost Quarter
9 Island
6 Swamp

Granted, the green splash is not the prettiest, but it definitely got the job done. Contrary to popular belief, I was able to get at least 1 green mana for Garruk by turn four every game out of 7 rounds except for 2. The question was, how often was I actually supposed to cast Garruk on turn 4? It felt like a 6 drop most of the time, as I had to have Mana Leak mana up the turn I played him in case something nasty was coming my way. Other times, I risked playing it on turn 4 to “fight” a creature that was particularly threatening (i.e. Birds of Paradise or Phantasmal Image). He acts a lot like Liliana’s edict effect in that way when they your opponent has only one creature out. His ability to make wolves while keeping mana open for any threats took over quite a few games. I have also learned for a fact that Garruk Relentless beats Koth in a vacuum. All you do is make a wolf every turn, let the first Mountain hit you (or Doom Blade it, which is infinitely more hilarious), and then attack Koth for 2 every turn, leaving a wolf back to chump block the Mountain until Koth goes to 0.

Tangent aside, Garruk seemed like a good option, and I’m not actually upset that I decided to run him on the big day. I would do it all again if I could. The only thing I would do differently is playtest more. I ended up 3-3-1 before dropping after starting off the day at a miserable 0-2-1. My major problem was that the last minute addition of Garruk made the deck very different, so much so that I was not sure how to play the deck anymore. It took me those first three rounds to get a feel for what it was that I had created. After those first three “warm-up rounds,” I was able to go on a 3-0 tear against Grixis Control, Solar Flare, and Grixis Control a second time. I made a misplay against GW Tokens in Round 7 that cost me a match which was unfortunate, but overall the day was fun for me. I’m looking forward to playing in quite a few more of the Star City Games Open Series over the next six months so I hope to have more fun anecdotes to share with you then!

Some Words of Advice

I would like to close out this article by sharing some words of wisdom with those of you patient enough to read this far into the article: The metagame is one of the most difficult beasts to tackle in all of Magic. No skilled player attempts to make a decklist in a vacuum. Any given deck has good matchups and bad ones. Knowing what to play requires knowing what everyone else is playing. Looking at Top 8 lists can give you some sense of what’s going on, but it really is just the tip of the iceberg. I was surprised to face Solar Flare twice and Grixis Control twice in 7 rounds, having not much to sideboard in against them. I follow most of the big tournaments very closely, but still had no idea what to expect going into the big day. Therefore, playing something that you brewed in a vacuum is not going to set you up for success. It is one thing to play a brew that is specifically tuned to beat the big decks of the metagame. For instance, refer to Brian Kibler’s G/R Bladebreaker deck specifically designed to beat a metagame full of Caw-Blade earlier this year. If you’re not confident enough to brew something that annihilates the metagame, I would advise you not to brew at all; play something tried and true and practice with it as much as possible at FNMs/with friends on the side. The most important piece of advice I can provide that you may not hear from too many others is playtest using a sideboard. Most people will play countless games against another deck to see how it runs with a list of 60 instead of 75 cards. When you think about it, two-thirds of the games you play are post-sideboard games (assuming all of your matches go to a third game). A lot of times, it is purely the work of sideboard cards that can turn a bad matchup into a good matchup.

I hope you enjoyed my first installment of A Sunny Perspective. I hope to be writing again for you soon after playing in some more SCG Opens in the coming months!

The Life Sabisky: Raving, Raving Mad

Sorry for the delay, everyone! This article was originally supposed to be a breakdown of standard post-Worlds, but two things happened.

1. I wrote 90 percent of the article, and then it got accidentally wiped, putting me on complete life tilt.

2. I then realized that actually, you don't need me to tell you not to play Tempered Steel now that Ancient Grudge and other artifact hate cards are returning to sideboards. Even if you haven't read any other strategy article post-Worlds, you still probably figured that one out for yourself. If you didn't, I look forward to seeing you soon, preferably in round one of my next standard tournament.

Instead, I'm going to talk about a specific card (that did in fact have its breakout performance at Worlds), and the reasons as to why you are very likely wrong if you are not playing with it, assuming you're looking to build any kind of control deck. That card is Desperate Ravings. Pretty much all your preconceptions about Ravings are wrong too, and I'll try explaining and correcting those too.

Reason Number One: Ravings Finds Your Answers

In a control deck, card selection effects are absolutely vital; in a standard environment where resolved permanents can cause a huge impact on the board very quickly, having the right answers at the right times is absolutely vital. Once you flashback a Ravings, you're actually seeing the same number of cards as you would off a Forbidden Alchemy (forgetting, temporarily, that Alchemy itself has flashback, as the cost for this is so high).  Ravings, however, actually nets you card off the flashback, so not only did you see four cards, but also drew an extra one; Alchemy, which digs as deep, doesn't net you any actual card advantage until you manage to get to seven mana to pay its flashback. Card advantage isn't everything (card selection and tempo probably matter more these days), but since Ravings offers you the extra bonus, why not take it?

Reason Number Two: Ravings Finds Your Land:

In a control deck, two-land-hands can be annoyingly sketchy devils, even on the draw. Against most decks you really want to hit your land drops pretty consistently until about turn six, and in the control mirror you probably want to make your first fifteen, or some other stupidly large number. Sure, two-land hands often have all the gas in the world, but that's useless to you unless you can actually cast your spells. When it comes to digging for land, Ravings absolutely beats the tar out of Think Twice, and is that crucial mana cheaper than Forbidden Alchemy in those annoyingly frequent scenarios where your draw phase didn't get you there. Not only is it cheaper than Alchemy first time around, the flashback cost is infinitely easier to pay should you need to dig still further for your fourth and fifth.

Not only this, but Ravings also fixes your mana; let's say your opening hand, on the play with your Grixis deck, contains perhaps 3 lands and a Ravings - but no black sources. It's not great, but perfectly keepable, thanks to Ravings. Had that Ravings been a Think Twice, however, you would probably have to mulligan reluctantly, as the price for not being able to access your removal and threats (ok, I mean Olivia Voldaren here) is probably just an autoscoop to your smirking opponent, who sits there saying "bad beat, buddy", but is actually thinking "he didn't keep a hand that could make black? What a cretinous clown! Is this noobsville or what?" Decks like Grixis, UR Delver and Four-Colour-Control would probably flat just not exist (or at least put up significantly worse results than they do) were it not for Desperate Ravings.,

Reason Number Three: Ravings Wins the Control Mirror:

Having been on the wrong end of this matchup far too many times, I can safely assure you than in the control mirror matchup, a Ravings deck has a big advantage over a deck that is not Ravings. More often than not, the control mirror comes down to who has been able to sculpt their hand better up to the point where you fight the counter war, and the digging power of Ravings is far better at hand sculpting than the general mediocrity of Think Twice.  Naturally, the other key point in the control mirror is not missing a land drop until very, very late in the game, and, as pointed out just above, Ravings is your friend when it comes to digging for those lands...

Reason Number Four: You Don't Have To Cast It If You Don't Want To:

Ravings is, in many ways, like Preordain. You remember all those people who would Preordain on turn one, for no good reason? You remember how smart you felt when you saved your Preordains for the late game, and how much profit you got out of that? Well, Desperate Ravings plays in much the same way! If you don't need to cast it early game, and feel that doing so might potentially disrupt your hand to a fatal extent, then don't! Save Ravings for when you actually need to dig, either to answers, game-ending bombs, or land drops.  Like all the best draw/selection effects, Ravings offers you great flexibility provided you play the card like an intelligent person, not some particularly subnormal subspecies of bonobo.

Reason Number Five: The Random Discard Doesn't Matter:

There are a number of scenarios that can occur when you discard to Ravings.

1. Since the Ravings decks are often playing one or two other flashback spells besides Ravings (particularly those crazy people on the Burning Vengeance plan), you can discard a flashback spell. If so,  then please feel free to drop your trousers and moon the room while simultaneously proclaiming your awesomeness, because you really did win the Magic jackpot, and everyone else - at least at this point in time - is an absolute peon, particularly your unfortunate opponent.

2. You can discard a land. Maybe you didn't need that land. If so, then I recommend following the same procedure as earlier outlined in the above paragraph. If you did, well, that's unlucky, but you can still flashback the Ravings to try to find more.

3. You can discard a spell that doesn't have flashback. Maybe you needed that spell, maybe you didn't. If not, please feel free to follow the procedure earlier outlined just two paragraphs above. If so, you'll get that spell back, and probably in time, too. Are you not playing Snapcaster Mage in your blue deck? Really? I think it's safe to say it is just wrong to be running any fewer than three Snapcasters in any Ravings deck, and usually the full four.  The only reason not to be playing Snapcasters in this spot is because you can't afford them. If so, you have a number of choices. You can either save up for the Snapcasters, try to find a budget-friendly yet still excellent deck (mono-black Infect is perhaps the closest), or head off to play a cheap, inexpensive format. Like Legacy or Vintage.

4. You discard a creature or planeswalker. Maybe you needed that friend to help you out in the fight, maybe you didn't. If not, please feel free to follow the procedure earlier outlined just three paragraphs above. If so, well, that's unfortunate, but overall the extra percentage you gained from playing a Ravings deck far, far outweighs the few times - like this - when you lose out. Who knows, maybe you'll flashback Ravings to find another copy of that creature or planeswalker; maybe you were lucky enough to discard an artifact creature that your Buried Ruin can retrieve for you.

(Hint: I am actually being serious here. Pretty much all decks running some number of Batterskull, Wurmcoil Engine, Precursor Golem or Ratchet Bomb should have at least one Buried Ruin in their manabase.)

The real reason why you think the random discard is bad is because you're an Human, not an Econ (and if you haven't read Thaler and Sunstein's "Nudge", you probably should). Humans, as a general rule, hate losses far more than they enjoy gains; correspondingly, losses stick in the memory. Gains usually don't. You'll remember that time your continuation bet after the flop got savagely re-raised; you won't remember the hundred-odd hands previously where the bad guys meekly folded. You will remember that one time you discarded the Slagstorm you needed and didn't have the Snapcaster Mage to get it back; you probably won't think about the hundred-odd games previously where the value Ravings gave you let you coast to easy wins. This tendency is all too human, and entirely misguided. Try to avoid it if you can.

Until next time, people. I'm off to build the best Ravings deck I can while trying to eke out a few more Innistrad drafts. We've got an amazing standard environment to enjoy and an equally terrific limited format - right now, it's a pretty good time to be a magic player. Any comments - you know where to find me!

Best,

Andy