[Serious Joke] Islands.

[DragoFireheart]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd295

Name: Steve Conway
Age: 24
Hometown: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Occupation: Feng Shui Consultant

Number of Times Attending Gen Con: 1st time attending

Number of Times Playing Vintage and/or Legacy Championships: 1st time attending

Number of Times Playing on the Pro Tour/Nationals/Grand Prix Day 2: Never played in one

Number of GP/PT Top 8s: None

Other previous Magic accomplishments: I've won some multiplayer games

What card is the most powerful in the format?
Islands

It's something I have been thinking about and just kinda chuckled to myself after reading this line, but it holds more truth than most people think. Some magic players joke around and say "The most broken play is island and pass your turn". But why is it joked around so much? Don't many jokes hold some truth to them?

Almost every top-8 contains either an Island or one of the island dual-lands.

So what is it that makes blue so powerful? Is it the counter spells that can answer any spell being played, regardless of its type? Is it all of the fun cantrips that let you control your deck? Is it because of the current meta?

What exactly is it that is causing [at least in my eyes] blue to be the most powerful color?

[Lone Signal]

Psychological effect, maybe?

With an island being dropped, your mentality switches to a mode that makes you tread the game more carefully, since more likely than not your opponent will be playing with counters.
If a mountain was dropped instead, you'll follow your original gameplan (most of the time), so even against still-pretty-feared Goblin decks, you don't get that sense of alertness you would get from seeing an island dropped instead.

Or something.

[Meekrab]

How is this even a question? Force of Will, Daze, Stifle, Brainstorm. Combine playsets of those with fetchlands, duals, a measure of other utility cards, a dash of removal, and 8-12 undercosted creatures, and it's almost hard to lose games. It also makes a tasty quiche.

Blue lets you execute your gameplan and stop your opponent from doing what he wants better than any other color, because it offers protection and disruption with the same cards. Brainstorm can hunt up an answer to Tarmogoyf or make a Duress whiff. Stifle 0wns storm combo or tames a Dreadnought. Counters protect your stuff and well, stop bad spells too. The list goes on.

Blue is the color of flexibility, and in a format without any blatantly broken cards having more options means having more power.

[Mordenkain]

How is this even a question? Force of Will, Daze, Stifle, Brainstorm. Combine playsets of those with fetchlands, duals, a measure of other utility cards, a dash of removal, and 8-12 undercosted creatures, and it's almost hard to lose games. It also makes a tasty quiche.

Blue lets you execute your gameplan and stop your opponent from doing what he wants better than any other color, because it offers protection and disruption with the same cards. Brainstorm can hunt up an answer to Tarmogoyf or make a Duress whiff. Stifle 0wns storm combo or tames a Dreadnought. Counters protect your stuff and well, stop bad spells too. The list goes on.

Blue is the color of flexibility, and in a format without any blatantly broken cards having more options means having more power.

Very well spoken, your right on spot. A common saying is that knowledge is power, and it happens to be so aswell in Magic, only "knowledge" is a bit different term.

In magic your mental capabilities is measured by the amount of different cards available to you through your hand and/or other effect (cards that lets you acess cards RFG or lets you easily manipulate the top cards of you library). However, also knowing which cards your opponent is holding as well as what tricks is capable of pulling off, gives you a lot of power over the game.

When we analyse blue's cards more, we clearly see that blue happens to have the most cards that lets you ascess more "knowledge". Giving you more cards from your library, letting you see your opponents hand/top cards of library, etc. which in turn creates a very powerful effect.

To answer the opening post, the play of island does put a lot of mental pressure on the opponent, since they know that you very well will be playing counters and he is going to be ahead of you in card advantage. I also believe that the play of "island, go" also shows some kind of "supremecy". Some sign of that he can handle the situation totally cool, and he "knows whats coming".

[FoolofaTook]

What exactly is it that is causing [at least in my eyes] blue to be the most powerful color?

It's the draw and the card advantage it produces. Counters are great but without draw alongside them they are weak compared to threats. With draw they're able to keep up and control.

This is exactly the same reason that blue was the most powerful color a decade ago.

[bigbear102]

Psychological effect, maybe?

With an island being dropped, your mentality switches to a mode that makes you tread the game more carefully, since more likely than not your opponent will be playing with counters.
If a mountain was dropped instead, you'll follow your original gameplan (most of the time), so even against still-pretty-feared Goblin decks, you don't get that sense of alertness you would get from seeing an island dropped instead.

Or something.

Going with your mountain scenario, Mountain-go is one of the most celebrated plays your opponent can make. It means they don't have the Lackey, the Vial, or that they are playing red but aren't playing goblins. Any of those are a good sign most of the time.

As for the actual matter at hand, I would say that I agree that an Island go is a psychological factor. It means that your opponent has the opportunity to mess with your gameplan. Playing differently isn't always the correct option, but it does become an option. Every time you make your opponent think more you open yourself up to opportunities that would not normally be there.

[Finn]

Going with your mountain scenario, Mountain-go is one of the most celebrated plays your opponent can make. It means they don't have the Lackey, the Vial, or that they are playing red but aren't playing goblins. Any of those are a good sign most of the time.
This is so very, very true. When I see that I always breathe a sigh of relief. Swamp is a similar scene since most of the damage Black inflicts is to keep you reeling from the getgo while it lays down threats. If you escape Duress or Dark Ritual shenanigans on turn one that opponent is usually in a mediocre position from there on out. I suppose this is less common due to the lack of a top notch monoblack deck in the meta.


Blue is the color of flexibility, and in a format without any blatantly broken cards having more options means having more power.Yay. This is an excellent, concise piece of wisdom.

[troopatroop]

I don't think he meant that "Island-Go" is the best play, because it really isn't, but that blue in general is the best color in the format.

It's also important to note that most people that have answered questions like that in surveys, at least from what I've seen, have no idea what they're talking about.

[DragoFireheart]

I don't think he meant that "Island-Go" is the best play, because it really isn't, but that blue in general is the best color in the format.

It's also important to note that most people that have answered questions like that in surveys, at least from what I've seen, have no idea what they're talking about.

LOL!

[Sanguine Voyeur]

I think Island-go is the ideal "blue" turn one. Black can Duress or Ritual into all kind of nasty things, Negator, Hippie, Tendrils. Red can go Lackey, Æther Vial, and Rite of Flame into Empty the Warrens. White can go Isamaru or Æther Vial, that's about it. Green doesn't have much, Mongoose I guess.

I read some of this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd295), I hate it when fucking wankers like Peter Olszewski win large tournaments. People who don't prepare at all and just wander in to win the whole thing. Better then Gadiel Szleifer (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gpcol07/welcome) though.

[Nihil Credo]

People who don't prepare at all and just wander in to win the whole thing.
So now being a good player = being a fucking wanker?

I guess I must tell Jon Finkel.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

So now being a good player = being a fucking wanker?It's not bothersome that he's good, it's just that he put very little effort into the deck.

He didn't even know what all of his cantrips did.

[FoolofaTook]

I hate it when fucking wankers like Peter Olszewski win large tournaments. People who don't prepare at all and just wander in to win the whole thing. Better then Gadiel Szleifer (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gpcol07/welcome) though.



There's an enormous random element in play in tournament Magic. You have to be playing a top deck (or soon to be top deck) to win but you can randomly go out at any time to bad draws. Swiss makes it a bit less random but not a lot less random.

BTW, the Grand Melee rules they used were really stupid. We had Grand Melees down to a T a decade ago and I can't believe that all of that is now lost knowledge.

[DeathwingZERO]

It's not bothersome that he's good, it's just that he put very little effort into the deck.

He didn't even know what all of his cantrips did.

That's basically saying that just because he had to read a card he normally wouldn't play with, he's a terrible player (re: ass)? In all fairness, if someone were to play one or two decks in Legacy consistently for years, then get handed a brand new deck from a buddy who was developing it, you'd call them out on the same thing. Sounds kinda shallow.

In reality, that's what defines a great player. He didn't know what some of his cards did. Yet he piloted the deck to a near flawless finalist slot. That's a great player. I'd hardly be pissed at any of them who said "I didn't playtest, the deck was put together/handed to me as I was on my way/coming through the door", I'd applaud them for having the game and theory down to a T, THEN be pissed at them for having such a ridiculous grasp of the game that they can pilot something brand new to them to an x-0 finish. I mean, this wasn't GP Columbus, the format(s) is balanced and very defined right now. It wasn't an auto-win situation for any of them.

[kirdape3]

Peter's a lot better at Magic than people think, too. It's a lot easier when your opponents hand you games of Magic if you don't reciprocate, regardless if you don't know what your specific cards do.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

In reality, that's what defines a great player. He didn't know what some of his cards did. Yet he piloted the deck to a near flawless finalist slot. That's a great player. I'd hardly be pissed at any of them who said "I didn't playtest, the deck was put together/handed to me as I was on my way/coming through the door", I'd applaud them for having the game and theory down to a T, THEN be pissed at them for having such a ridiculous grasp of the game that they can pilot something brand new to them to an x-0 finish. I mean, this wasn't GP Columbus, the format(s) is balanced and very defined right now. It wasn't an auto-win situation for any of them.

Bullshit.

Tell me how it would have reflected poorly on either him or the format to have playtested five fucking games before the tournament. Tell me why exactly it's a good thing when people win without having any knowledge of the deck they're playing, much less what they're playing against.

Great players that want to win prepare for tournaments. Winning with a random deck you've never played before just means you didn't take it seriously. Don't pretend it's something it's not.

[DragoFireheart]

Bullshit.

Tell me how it would have reflected poorly on either him or the format to have playtested five fucking games before the tournament. Tell me why exactly it's a good thing when people win without having any knowledge of the deck they're playing, much less what they're playing against.

Great players that want to win prepare for tournaments. Winning with a random deck you've never played before just means you didn't take it seriously. Don't pretend it's something it's not.

The fact that he did go in with a deck he has never played and did not prep shows his skill as a player. Perhaps he lacks in other skills [planning ahead] but if he wasn't a great player than why is it he got first place? Luck?

[Jak]

He is not bashing the player. How would you feel if you had been playing a video game or something for months. You are pretty good, since you have practiced. Your friend wants to play you. You, of course, say okay, with a little grin. He then proceeds to win. Without any practice, he beats you. It just shows our format as easy and preparing for big events, like a GP, is stupid because, hey, you can just grab a deck and win.

[MattH]

I guess I don't understand why people blame Peter (and others at other tournaments) for winning without practicing but never blame themselves for letting someone just walk in and win with no practice.

I mean, if you don't want this to keep happening, then step up your games to the point where someone CAN'T just walk in and walk out with the top prize. No?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

I mean, if you don't want this to keep happening, then step up your games to the point where someone CAN'T just walk in and walk out with the top prize. No?I don't have the money to build a deck or play in constant tournaments. How do you propose I get better when I have no good players to play against?

[barron]

I am going to switch teams. Maybe it's just because of the decks I play and who I play against, but I am a bit more nervous when my opponent goes "swamp, go" than "island, go". I think it's easier playing around good countermagic than it is good discard, and a good blue-mage than a good black-mage

[Nihil Credo]

Eh. I'm only really scared of discard when it opens with DR-Duress-Hymn to Tourach and follows up.

Which, on MWS, for some reason seems to only happen to people with terrible decks - and to them, it happens a lot. I can't remember the last time I got mauled by a Deadguy Ale list that didn't run Ravenous Rats.

[goobafish]

I guess I don't understand why people blame Peter (and others at other tournaments) for winning without practicing but never blame themselves for letting someone just walk in and win with no practice.

I mean, if you don't want this to keep happening, then step up your games to the point where someone CAN'T just walk in and walk out with the top prize. No?

I've honestly wanted to post this EXACTLY every time I saw a criticism towards Peter.


As for this Islands thing, after Conway started filling in his interview form, he found out what the judges were doing with his deck and that he was awarded a game loss, so he just made the whole thing a joke.



Bullshit.

Tell me how it would have reflected poorly on either him or the format to have playtested five fucking games before the tournament. Tell me why exactly it's a good thing when people win without having any knowledge of the deck they're playing, much less what they're playing against.

Great players that want to win prepare for tournaments. Winning with a random deck you've never played before just means you didn't take it seriously. Don't pretend it's something it's not.

Just to clarify. Peter went to Gencon to play only vintage, and in the car ride up, we were talking a lot about our thresh lists, and once the vintage event was over, on the day of the prelims, he decided to play legacy because he would have to wait for us to finish anyways. He played it for fun. It wasn't like he had the opportunity to playtest and didn't to stick it to legacy players, which is what you make it sound like.

[URABAHN]

I guess I don't understand why people blame Peter (and others at other tournaments) for winning without practicing but never blame themselves for letting someone just walk in and win with no practice.

I mean, if you don't want this to keep happening, then step up your games to the point where someone CAN'T just walk in and walk out with the top prize. No?

This doesn't happen in Vintage, right? You never hear about people winning without practicing there. Is it just that Legacy hasn't been around long enough?

[MattH]

This doesn't happen in Vintage, right? You never hear about people winning without practicing there. Is it just that Legacy hasn't been around long enough?

I don't know, I don't follow Vintage. Although vintage superstars Rich Shay and Stephen Menendian got the top 2 slots at Gencon. So that's one data point.

I know the couple times Randy Buehler has walked into vintage tournaments (unsanctioned, naturally) he does well (T8 or miss it on breakers) usually off of very little preparation. But then Randy is one of the best ever.


I don't have the money to build a deck or play in constant tournaments. How do you propose I get better when I have no good players to play against?
Well I'm not sure but if I know anything, it's that getting annoyed when other people do well is the first step to self-improvement.

[Meekrab]

Vintage is a format where every deck shares 30 restricted cards and everyone builds decks to either abuse or combat one of them. (Yawgmoth's Will)

Comparing walk-in results between Vintage and Legacy is useless; assuming adequate shuffling, you'll never play the same Vintage game twice, whereas Goblins vs Threshold falls into a couple very familiar patterns. (Namely, Vial and/or Lackey vs Thresh w/ or w/o FoW, and various mulliganed versions of same.)

[DeathwingZERO]

Bullshit.

Tell me how it would have reflected poorly on either him or the format to have playtested five fucking games before the tournament. Tell me why exactly it's a good thing when people win without having any knowledge of the deck they're playing, much less what they're playing against.

Great players that want to win prepare for tournaments. Winning with a random deck you've never played before just means you didn't take it seriously. Don't pretend it's something it's not.

For someone that spouts out so much garbage in defense of your statements, I find it hard to believe that you actually can't believe a game of strategy is something some people just grasp better than others. Some people are adapted to critical thinking. The game is nothing more than logic based numbers games, and from the looks of some of those guys degrees, they're pretty damn good at it.

As far as Vintage and to the same extent, Legacy: Don't kid yourself if you think either of these formats are going to take months of playtesting to do well in a single tournament, if you are already familiar with either of them (or high level constructed Magic in general, regardless of format). If they play either format enough, they can basically pick up any tier deck we've got (or had in say the past 6 months), look it over for about an hour, and have the basics of the strategy down. Maybe not the intricacies one picks up on from months of tweaking and playing, but a lot of the time that really isn't what decides a game, when it comes down to it.

As far as I'm concerned, put your ego back in your pocket, and get off your fucking horse. You may play test for weeks and months with a single deck, and they could still potentially come in and crush you. Just because you put in more effort, your a better player? Hardly. Competitions aren't so picture-perfect that just because you try harder, you win. It's called "being a natural", and it's sometimes very real.

Now, as far as this format is concerned, please enlighten me on how someone playing in any other constructed formats for a while has all of a sudden started from scratch here, just the cardpool is different? It's not a different game here, it's still Magic. The strategies and theories are still the same. They had storm combo in other formats, they've seen our "metagame" decks such as W/B Deadguy and W/R Rifter back when they were legal in T2 and Extended. Tide? That deck is 10 years old, revamped with new cards. TES, Belcher? Severance Belcher and 1.x Burning Desire/T1 Long/TPS, etc. Reanimator? Cephalid Breakfast? Name a deck here that doesn't win via either 1) dealing lethal damage or 2) decking/drawing out an opponent?

Plus, they didn't go into the tournament with complete garbage decks. These decks are built to win, as long as their pilot grasps how they get to that point. This is the basis of why I say they deserve credit, because they didn't come into some unbalanced tournaments (Columbus), or didn't use some kind of random Tech-deck and got byes on savagely good matchups (Deadguy Ale). They played decks friends and teammates took time to build and explain, and went from that little preparation to a win. I'm sure you couldn't name me one of those finalists that had a solid "Bye" record to hit into their Top 8. Hell, I challenge you to find one of those guys who'd have lets say....a solid 75% chance of winning every single matchup to their finalists position.

And tell me how it would make a difference if they played those 5 playtest games? Would you prefer them to have setup a gauntlet, maybe go over some mirror matches w/tech, perhaps a FULL SCALE TOURNAMENT, before their "practice" makes them good enough to pilot the deck, in your eyes? You know what would make the format look good? Having some good players showing repeated victories. Or maybe having top players that aren't insanely angsty over the fact that a better player than them actually exists.

Seriously, those of you that honestly back the "reputation of the format" with arguments like this, make us sound like arrogant egotists. I'll be happy to see people like the continue to come in and crush this format, then maybe you'll get off your soapboxes, and turn the format into something that isn't so easy to win. Or, here's a concept, actually believe a player can grasp the game better than you.

[Nihil Credo]

DWZ's post is worth of applause. Then again, I find it sad that a discussion like this even needs to take place. Seriously, some people are annoyed against a couple of Magic players, because they beat them too easily. How incredibly ridiculous is that?

You should definitely be complaining. But with the people who lost despite their advantage, not with the winners.