PDA

View Full Version : [Discussion] The Most Important Decision



AnwarA101
05-24-2007, 11:00 PM
There are many decisions a competitive magic player has to make in a tournament to be successful. There is one decision that occurs before a tournament starts that limits or expands your ability to win in constructed Magic. This is of course is the choice of which deck to play. By this I don’t mean the specific cards choices that go into playing a specific version of deck. I simply mean the deck in its most general form. Such as are you playing Vial Goblins, Threshold, Hulk Flash, etc.

Deciding which deck to play can be a complicated decision. One has to consider how this deck does against the best decks in the format (including itself if it is one of the best). There is also the metagame itself to consider and to decide whether a given deck is well suited for such a metagame including decks beyond the best ones. To even consider which matchups are bad or even unwinnable and whether such matchups are a reason to not consider a given deck. Most competitive players usually consider all these factors when deciding on a deck.

The question is what happens when these complicated decisions become simple and obvious. What if there is only one deck that is the best deck and it’s clearly better than every deck in the format? Its weakest matchup is only about 50/50 and side boarding can greatly improve the deck in this regard. Not only is the deck the best deck but it is overwhelmingly so. The metagame itself is defined by this deck and its has virtually no unwinnable or even bad (worse than 50%) against any conceivable deck in the metagame. Would there be any reason to consider any other deck?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself since I arrived back from Grand Prix Columbus. You see I didn’t play Hulk Flash at Columbus. But I have a hard time explaining to myself why I didn’t. My limited testing and the knowledge of others that I trust told me that it was the best deck in the format (I admitted as much in Bardo’s article (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14180.html)). It was the deck as I described it in the previous paragraph. It was overwhelmingly favored against virtually everything but a few matchups. Those matchups could be remedied via the sideboard or often you would win because your opponent failed to draw the right answers to your threats.

Why didn’t I play Hulk Flash? I can make excuses like that my testing my was limited (which it was) or that I wasn’t aware exactly how good it was or perhaps that playing a deck that beat it (provided there was one) would just be a better call. But in all honesty I don’t believe any those excuses. I did do poorly with the deck in the GPT Trials on Friday night before the GP, but the most logical conclusion should have been my build was poor or that my sideboard was not prepared for a weak matchup. Why did I throw out the deck instead of my build of it? I simply don’t know. Perhaps the most sinister explanation is that I didn’t want to play the best deck or that convinced myself I could somehow make a deck that would be highly favored against despite my testing results. I’ve often been considered somewhat of a risk taker in the decks I choose to play, but those risks have always had associated rewards that were possible due to my deck choice. This wasn’t the case here. My choice to not play Hulk Flash was simply foolish and bad and in no way defensible.

I want say to those who did play Hulk Flash you were light years ahead of me when GP Columbus started regardless of how you did. You made the critical decision of playing the best deck in the format. To those who didn’t play Hulk Flash, do you feel the way I do? Do you have little or nothing to defend your choice of deck knowing how good Hulk Flash is? I thought to myself watching Owen Turtenwald play against Steve Sadin in the Finals that Owen could have easily been in a much better position had he just been playing Hulk Flash. I felt the same watching everyone in Top8 except for the 3 Hulk Flash players.

Citrus-God
05-25-2007, 12:23 AM
I want say to those who did play Hulk Flash you were light years ahead of me when GP Columbus started regardless of how you did. You made the critical decision of playing the best deck in the format. To those who didn’t play Hulk Flash, do you feel the way I do? Do you have little or nothing to defend your choice of deck knowing how good Hulk Flash is? I thought to myself watching Owen Turtenwald play against Steve Sadin in the Finals that Owen could have easily been in a much better position had he just been playing Hulk Flash. I felt the same watching everyone in Top8 except for the 3 Hulk Flash players.


A moving passgae. Anyways, playing the best deck in the format helps the player's self-esteem and confidence. I mean, it is the best deck in the format. But that's one way to start, as there are other ways to feel confident with your deck of choice. Basically, whether it may be a the best deck, best deck for that meta, or a deck you know, it can do many things to a player's confidence. Owwn Turtenwald played a deck he knew inside and out. I believe that if you can master a deck, you can adjust the deck to compete in the current metagame.... unless, it's somekind of metagame deck like Rifter, just play something else.

FoolofaTook
05-25-2007, 12:33 AM
This is the "Why?" *thud*, "Why" *thud*, "Why?" *thud* effect, each "Why?" punctuated by a ritual banging of the forehead against the wall.

I used to do it all the time when one of my aggro decks had been Balanced out of existence or Controlled to death in the latter stages of a tournament after all the easy marks had gone home.

Eventually you either get a splitting headache or figure out why exactly you chose to play an inferior deck as opposed to the "In" deck that everybody else was playing that day.

It's painful when you do it but it's really annoying when your roommate does it for like a week straight after his white weenies lose to a Millstone deck in the finals. Trust me on that one.

The answer I always came away with was that I did not have the confidence to drop a tried and true deck on the fly to play something that suddenly looked overwhelmingly powerful. I never played a Balance deck in the days when they were extremely strong. I never played a U/W/r control deck when those took over. I always tried to modify one of the archetypes that were somewhat unusual and played less often and win with that.

I wasn't very successful in those attempts. But I never felt like a jockey riding somebody else's deck.

If I had been at GP Columbus I would have done terribly given all the unknowns. That's why I didn't go. But if I had taken Flash to GP Columbus I would have gotten knocked out also. Somebody else would have done more testing on the deck and known how to play it better than I did. Taking a little liberty here, I would suggest that's why you didn't play it either. You probably felt like there was going to be another jockey there who knew the horse a bit better than you.

Anarky87
05-25-2007, 12:51 AM
I don't think I really feel that way and I didn't play Flash. I set in mind that I wanted to at least make Day 2, but not with Flash, because I didn't care for the deck (knowing it was absurdly strong) and because I wouldn't be able to test it fully enough in time to do well. So what did I do? Grabbed a deck that I had at least played before and knew the mechanics of and made Day 2 on the back of a 7-2 record.

I didn't try to get fancy and play some kind of techy aggro-control deck hoping to beat Flash. I simply saw Friday night there were tons of Fish-ish decks and Flash; I wanted a deck that would beat on both, so I picked up 4c Landstill, being that it had Deed, FoW, Stifle, Counterspell. It was a good call and my tight play on Day 1 rewarded me with my goal. Day 2 was a combination of bad draws/mistakes on my part and some extreme luck on my opponent's part.

I wouldn't beat myself up too much. Hindsight is always 20/20 and you're always recalling the experience, going over every play and match with careful scrutiny, wondering if a different play or deck choice would have changed everything. But just take what you learned and apply it next time. I watched one of your games where you thought you were at 5 life, but were really at 3 and your Confidant flipped over another Specter ftl. That looked so rough and I even felt bad from where I was standing, because I had a feeling it would be 3cc card. But shit like that happens, eh?

scrumdogg
05-25-2007, 01:00 AM
There is nothing wrong with a quixotic approach to deck selection, it often has positive results beyond feeling good about not being a netdecking whore (unforeseen choices are less sideboarded against, less tested against, etc etc). There is also a vast sense of personal satisfaction when you succeed with a deck of your own design (or at least optimization). That being said, there are times when you either play the best deck or expect to get monkeystomped (or get lucky & dodge matchups all day). GP Hulk Flash was one of those 'play it, lose to it, or dodge all day' situations. I played in 2 of the GPTs Friday night with multiple goals in mind A) 3 byes (duh) B) to see what the field would look like on the morrow C) to see if I truly had a viable deck that wasn't Flash for the GP meta. I failed on A & C (abysmally) but gained valuable insight on what the field was shaping up to be (as well as blatantly stealing tech from Ewokslayer's version of Flash which utterly destroyed me). Do I feel good about playing Flash on Saturday? No, however, I do not feel badly either as it was an easy decision to justify.

Aggro_zombies
05-25-2007, 01:26 AM
This was an interesting passage, and it got me thinking. I am known around here for playing bad decks of my own design (Kronicler, DO NOT say anything about Pox), and while I am no more fond of losing than anyone else, I do not beat myself up over it. I play the decks that I feel most comfortable with, and that suit my play style. Personally, I would rather play a deck that I like to play and that I can actually play well than a deck that I can't play well or that I don't enjoy. Perhaps this is just a result of years and years of exclusively casual play, but I do not believe there is any reason to play a game if it is not fun. Games are by definition meant to entertain, no? If you do not enjoy yourself, why bother? If you play only to win, then play the best deck in the format. If you play because you enjoy showing off your deck building talents, play something unique, of your own design. If you play to socialize, then play something that can engage your opponent in conversation.

I remember a few months back I went to the local PTQ Yokahama qualifier playing an absolutely shit-tastic BG madness deck. I don't really remember my games that day, although I do know I lost a lot. However, there is one matchup I remember. I was coming off of a strong early showing and I got paired up against Gifts Rock, an abysmal matchup. My match lasted about fifteen minutes, that's how bad it was. But, despite being utterly and thoroughly pwned, I had one hell of a good time. Why? Because my opponent and I enjoyed playing each other. We joked. We laughed. We pissed off the people next to us because we were being so loud and crazy, but we couldn't help it. Those are the kind of matches I want to play - even if I lose, if I had a hell of a time doing it, then I'm fine with my loss. Perhaps that is because I'm not a completely Spike-type player, but the most depressing part of the game for me is losing to someone who never jokes, never smiles, but sits there with a serious expression on his face, treating the game like a serious matter. Sure, it can be serious, but it's not life-or-fucking-death serious. Lighten up.

In short, play whatever you enjoy playing the most. If you're in it to win, play the best deck, win, and be happy. Don't chew yourself up over your choice.

DeathwingZERO
05-25-2007, 07:14 AM
I can say that had I gone to the GP, I would have brought Flash. Not that it was a hands down winner, but because I like decks that are absurd, and combo is my forte. Whether I'm trying to fling a ton of spells at my opponent, or turning an angry red dragon into a Dracolich FTW, that's where my comfort zone is.

With that in mind, I can't say that I would defend those who were "there to win", and just took Flash along with little to no testing, just knowing the fact that it would probably sweep. Those that did bring Flash expected to be ahead of the game, and at least on par with it's "bad matchups". My annoyance was seeing the response of "Who cares?" from a very notable pro player (albeit a lot of people before and after the GP have called him an asshole on more than one occasion in my presence). The people that are only showing up to take in some extra winnings should honestly stay out of Eternal formats, we're not here to award winners Pro Points, free airfare and hotels, and practically free matchups when they achieve their "levels".

As for those that went with the notion of having fun, I can really defend that. I've had times where I would sit across from a player and be very serious about my plays, and very critical of myself. But that is all internal. At the same time I can talk to my opponent about what they're playing, why they chose it, do they play casually or group games, etc...and have a great time. I've had just as many times where I've scrubbed out as I've had where I've swept, including larger than "Friday Night" style tournaments. If I don't come home with a win, I at least have come home with some experience, and hopefully a really good understanding of why I lost, and how to change that. I can't say that any tournament I've gone to I was honestly pissed or devastated that I lost, even if I was playing decks that were (or weren't, for that matter), the cream of the crop.

Evolution as a player and a person is where the game is best seen. If you can both be a great player and a very sporting one at the same time, then to hell with whatever else is in mind. The simple split in that is whether or not you have natural talent, or if your willing to put in the time and dedication to learn from both your mistakes, and your "luck" wins. Rogue style players are exceptional examples of this, being able to pull off metagame style choices and adapt a strategy not seen before. Win, lose, or draw (anybody remember that?) it's all comes down to being a game. Tournament or no, it should be fun first, winning second.

URABAHN
05-25-2007, 07:35 AM
Well.....since neither of them will admit to it.

Jesse and Allen were 1-1. The third game, both shredded each other's hands to the point of even if they got to where they could go off, the other would certainly have countermagic by that point.

Jesse was behing a few life points, but dropped a Feeder. After a few turns of swinging unmolested, Allen drew and played his own Feeder. The following turn, and for the remaining 15 or so turns that followed, Jesse kept his Feeder "back on defense". But since Allen was down on life by that point and wouldn't win a race, and since it was obvious that if he kept his Feeder back to "block" that Jesse wouldn't attack, he just sat there, filtering for the combo.

They went to time.

Basically Allan earned a draw from a loss by allowing an incorrect perception. But it literally took us all actually walking away from the table in frustration to keep silent on it.


Not quite correct. That was game two, and I eventually assembled the combo and won. By then, we were in turns, so the match was a draw. I don't honestly know if it took any longer than the ten turns I would've needed if I remembered to read my own cards.

In retrospect, I wondered if I should've played Body Snatcher, discarded Karmic Guide, eaten Body Snatcher, return Karmic Guide for a turn, then swing for 2 that turn with KG blocker, and 3 for the next few turns. It didn't help that the judge felt I was playing too slow for his liking because "the board state hadn't changed."

There was also the match against nitewolf9 at the Rockville GPT where we both thought Benevolent Bodyguard could target your opponent's Karmic Guide.

It's games like this these made me not want to play Flash at the GP because I wasn't that experienced with it. I played slowly, incorrectly, and really didn't feel like I knew enough about Hulk Flash to have a fighting chance.

Pinder
05-25-2007, 12:17 PM
There is also a vast sense of personal satisfaction when you succeed with a deck of your own design (or at least optimization).

This is exactly why I played CounterSliver. I'd been building and testing and tuning for just shy of a year or so, and I knew the deck inside and out. If I had picked up Hulk Flash, I'm not sure I could have done any better with it, because I'm just more familiar with Slivers. And I'm sure I could probably teach my Grandma to win a fair number of games with Hulk Flash because it's that retarded, but once you hit the higher tables you really need to know what you're doing.

The main reason I decided not to play Flash (aside from the fact that I had something to prove with slivers), is because I knew that a majority of the people (both new to the format and experienced) would be picking it up just for it's sheer power. I didn't want to be another 'guy that played Flash'. Now, I'm not saying this is ever the best way to go about selecting a deck, but it's one of the reasons I didn't run right out and by 29 Flashes right when it got unerratta'd. I have my principles, and I like sticking to my guns, even if my guns ended up being a tad smaller then the cannons Hulk Flash had at its desposal.

Watcher487
05-25-2007, 12:41 PM
Evolution as a player and a person is where the game is best seen. If you can both be a great player and a very sporting one at the same time, then to hell with whatever else is in mind. The simple split in that is whether or not you have natural talent, or if your willing to put in the time and dedication to learn from both your mistakes, and your "luck" wins. Rogue style players are exceptional examples of this, being able to pull off metagame style choices and adapt a strategy not seen before. Win, lose, or draw (anybody remember that?) it's all comes down to being a game. Tournament or no, it should be fun first, winning second.

I think Deathwing hit the nail right on the head with this paragraph. I ended up playing a modded version of Three-Deuce w/ Negators for Fish and 12 Hate cards Post-Board for Hulk, now despite the fact that I didn't face Hulk once that weekend, doesn't mean the deck was bad for the tournement or did it make me even question what I played post tourney. Shoot, I was more intriged over the fact that I heard that you were playing Blue Death and the possibilities that could come from it (Stifle Negator's sacrifice effect).

In the end Ewokslayer is right, don't listen to the Hatfields, you have had too much time playing the deck that you had tested prior to Flash un-errata, to make all of that playtesting worthless.

Ewokslayer
05-25-2007, 12:47 PM
In the end Ewokslayer is right, don't listen to the Hatfields, you have had too much time playing the deck that you had tested prior to Flash un-errata, to make all of that playtesting worthless.

I wasn't suggesting that he play Red Death.

GP Columbus pretty much had only one deck that was the correct choice.

If you didn't play Hulk Flash you were at a severe disadvantage through out the tournament.

And if you were playing fish you were probably miserable.
Seriously, every person I saw/played against that wasn't having fun was playing fish. Its like they knew they were playing a bad deck and hated everyone else because of that.

Machinus
05-25-2007, 01:04 PM
Frequent scenario at the GP:

Player 1: So, what are you playing?
Player 2: The same deck as everyone else.
Player 1: What deck is that?
Player 2: ...
Player 1: Yeah, I'm playing that too.

Tacosnape
05-25-2007, 01:16 PM
Here's pretty much a rule for deck selection:

The bigger the tournament, the more to your benefit it is to play The Best Deck.

You can take a bizarre creation that hangs against Flash into a tournament of 10-15 people and win. You might even do well in the 20, 30, and 40 person range. But the higher up you go, the more random the field is. And once you get to 50-60 people, you need to be playing the best deck.

TeenieBopper
05-25-2007, 02:29 PM
What if there is only one deck that is the best deck and it’s clearly better than every deck in the format?

If you're playing to win, you play that deck. On a straight up practical level, it's that simple. On very rare occasions, a metagame deck a la Zvi's Solution back in IBC (god, I'm old) would be the correct call, but you're really only in a position like that if you're part of a pro team and can discover tech like that.

Of course, there are defensible positions to not playing that deck. Mostly it comes down to play skill. I'll give an example: back in clamp era T2, I was playing in the North American Challange (if you're unfamiliar, it's basically a GP level event). The obvious choice was to play clamp affinity, but I suck with affinity. I've never been able to play that deck well. For some reason, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. I can take Goblins against a field of engineered plagues and cop;reds and white knights and be fine. Affinity? Not so much. So I didn't play it. I played mono white control instead. So basically it comes down to "if you can play the best deck, play the best deck."


The people that are only showing up to take in some extra winnings should honestly stay out of Eternal formats

They do. How many pro players you see playing Legacy? Not many.


we're not here to award winners Pro Points, free airfare and hotels, and practically free matchups when they achieve their "levels".

No, but they are. They could easily turn around and say, "If you're not here to win, to try and take it to the next level, you should stay out of GP's and high level events.

Yes, it's a game. But some people take great pleasure in winning. In getting better. I'm one of them. Get off your high horse and stop thinking you're better than them because you think your goal is more noble than theirs.

FoolofaTook
05-25-2007, 03:15 PM
a la Zvi's Solution back in IBC (god, I'm old)

I'm assuming you're talking about Zvi Moshowitz? If so does he post here? I was a friend of his back in the day in NYC and wouldn't mind saying hello.

C.P.
05-25-2007, 06:49 PM
To those who climbs mountains, they find hardest path, sometimes with/without equipment, in hardest condition possible just to prove that they can do it. Of course, you can just take plane or something to get to the top. Anyone can cross dover channel with ferry, but not everyone can do so with swimming. There are easier ways of doing things, but that's nothing to be proud of.

Same goes for Flash. Flash was the best deck and easiest way to the top. But that does not mean that wining with it is the most satisfactory(and fun) way of doing so. Just listen to yourself: How do you want to win?

TeenieBopper
05-25-2007, 07:00 PM
ust listen to yourself: How do you want to win?

The easiest way possible. Why make things unnecessarily harder?

C.P.
05-25-2007, 07:16 PM
The easiest way possible. Why make things unnecessarily harder?

Then Flash is the right deck for you. Go play it and win. But there are some people who has to give themselves unnecessarily hardships just because it make them proud and happy.

TeenieBopper
05-25-2007, 07:26 PM
Then Flash is the right deck for you. Go play it and win. But there are some people who has to give themselves unnecessarily harder just because it make them proud and happy.

That's fine, I can deal with that. I do it in WoW sometimes. But what drives me nuts is those people trying to assume some sort of moral high ground.

frogboy
05-25-2007, 07:53 PM
I moved this because this is the sort of discussion I want to engender in the LMF. I'm not going to do anything about the older posts in here, but now that it's been moved please do keep the joking and one liners to a minimum.

Ewokslayer
05-25-2007, 08:38 PM
But there are some people who has to give themselves unnecessarily hardships just because it make them proud and happy.

That's fine, but most of the examples you use:


those who climbs mountains, they find hardest path, sometimes with/without equipment, in hardest condition possible just to prove that they can do it. Of course, you can just take plane or something to get to the top. Anyone can cross dover channel with ferry, but not everyone can do so with swimming. There are easier ways of doing things, but that's nothing to be proud of.

are basically examples of rich jag offs with too much money and time on their hands.

In most real world events, providing yourself with unnecessary hardships is either stupid or showing off.


But what drives me nuts is those people trying to assume some sort of moral high ground.
Not playing the best deck in the format is not a reason to be praised.
If you didn't play Hulk Flash at GP Columbus you either
1) couldn't get the cards (unlikely)
2) didn't feel comfortable with any of the builds given the short time frame. (Understandable)
3) Made a deck choice mistake. (Probable)
4) Thought you could build a deck with a great Hulk Flash matchup (you were probably wrong on that one)

AnwarA101
05-26-2007, 12:45 AM
Playing the best deck or one of the best decks can be very debatable point. Let's look at Legacy before Flash. Most people agree that both Goblins and Threshold were the two best decks in the format. They defined the format in ways that the other decks didn't. Does this mean that playing anything other than those two decks was foolish? The Top8 data from the last 3 months seems to suggest otherwise. Decks like TES, CRET Belcher, and RGBSA actually won or split in the finals of significant tournaments. This wouldn't happen if playing any thing other than the two best decks was pointless. The reason playing these other decks was worthwhile is that while Goblins and Threshold were the best decks they weren't overwhelmingly so. Goblins and Threshold had weaknesses that really mattered. Goblins had real problems beating combo. Threshold struggled against board-control decks. These weaknesses along with others were exploitable to a degree that other decks did well.

This wasn't the case with Flash at all. It weaknesses by comparison were almost nonexistent. A combo deck that could win on turn 1, with Force of Will and Daze protection, and had the ability to beat even anti-combo decks like Fish at least 50 percent of the time. There was virtually no drawback to playing Flash and thus no real argument for not playing it.

It is in this context that playing anything other than Flash makes no sense. Something I did and understand was incorrect. Everyone is playing to win and when the path to winning has many roads you can make the case for different decks. But let's say there is only one road you can take to win. You either take that road or you don't. One can lead to winning, but the other almost guarantees failure.

MattH
05-26-2007, 04:14 AM
One reason not to play Flash would be that Flash is a difficult deck to play correctly. Sometimes you luck into the fast win but when faced with disruption or hate, it becomes very tricky business to push your combo through. Some people just want to throw their spells down and watch their deck work, and you can't do that with Flash.

Of course, if you weren't in the mood for playing tough Magic, you were pretty much wasting your time attending a GP. But some people might have though that way.

TheInfamousBearAssassin
05-26-2007, 04:44 AM
This wasn't the case with Flash at all. It weaknesses by comparison were almost nonexistent. A combo deck that could win on turn 1, with Force of Will and Daze protection, and had the ability to beat even anti-combo decks like Fish at least 50 percent of the time. There was virtually no drawback to playing Flash and thus no real argument for not playing it.

It is in this context that playing anything other than Flash makes no sense. Something I did and understand was incorrect. Everyone is playing to win and when the path to winning has many roads you can make the case for different decks. But let's say there is only one road you can take to win. You either take that road or you don't. One can lead to winning, but the other almost guarantees failure.

This is all very true. Of course, that's why such warped metagames are undesirable- in essence, the game is already "solved". You know what the best deck is. We weren't (and still aren't) quite there in knowing the exact optimal maindeck and board, but the choice was ultimately boringly simple on the question of playing Flash versus playing something else.

On the other hand, it's understandable to try and find a "secret" answer when the obvious one is so boringly simple, especially when you're used to a mature and complex metagame. Don't beat yourself up about it too much. Here, have some George Michael (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F38bl0TXDxo&mode=related&search=) to make you feel better.

DeathwingZERO
05-26-2007, 08:27 AM
They do. How many pro players you see playing Legacy? Not many.....

And there's a good reason for that. Our format doesn't shift every few months, and our "Flash" fiasco is EXACTLY what they try to do with Extended and Standard. All they want is whatever wins most often, and that's fine. It's just too bad that the only time they want to play this format (and I'm sure Vintage is the same, for that matter), is when some absurd "I beat the world" deck is found. Other than that, they could care less. To me, that's basically taking a bad situation and gaining from it. I'd like to see how many of them would pick up a Goblins or Thresh build with the same "little to no testing" and make the same results as Flash got them. Then I'll show some respect.


No, but they are. They could easily turn around and say, "If you're not here to win, to try and take it to the next level, you should stay out of GP's and high level events....

And I could easily say "Oh, so what do YOU believe Hulk does at taking Legacy to the next level? How does it improve my abilities to continue winning when it finally gets axed?" Case closed on that. They obviously didn't care, or thought it was perfectly fine to stick around. That pretty much equates to "I want to continue win, so it should stay". So hell, as long as they want to win, we might as well continue having a degenerate format, it's that much less work for them.


Yes, it's a game. But some people take great pleasure in winning. In getting better. I'm one of them. Get off your high horse and stop thinking you're better than them because you think your goal is more noble than theirs.

My goal in a tournament is to win, just as anyone else's. But again, winning in the format after actually putting some real effort into it is how I go about it. They do the same thing in Extended, Block, Standard, etc. They didn't do it here. I have every damn right to say my goal is more noble than theirs, I'm here to support the format, their here to destroy it. They didn't get better, their playing abilities or understanding of the game didn't get any deeper. Had they wanted that, they would have been in this format long before Flash, or at least keep on board with us after it's gone.

Look at it this way. If Flash stays in the format and becomes "perfected", and all you had to look forward to in your road trip to victory after victory (big tournament and small) is Flash and terrible "Anti-Flash" decks, would you stay in that format? Because in all honesty, if you say yes, your not playing anymore. All that does is basically force every opponent that doesn't play Flash to concede to you. This no longer merits nor improves skill, intelligence, dedication, anything. Is that honestly how you'd want to win?