[Premium Article] Why I Played Lands at GP Columbus

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l..._Columbus.html

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, August 2nd - Stephen Menendian and his team prepared well for Grand Prix: Columbus. Their weapon of choice? Lands. Today, Stephen takes us through his tournament experience, and explains why he believes that Lands was a fine contender for the perceived metagame going in.

Check it out...

[mans0011]

I'm excited to read this article.

Especially about Tezzeret Control with no Tezzeret.

I'll edit this post with my thoughts.

[dahcmai]

Check my profile comment. Guess how that happened. Yes, you feel the pain now also.

[SilverGreen]

I'll read it now. Hope it contains no instant Reanimates, no non-card-revealing Silvergill Adepts, no Siege-Gangs activating with R and other such basic misunderstandings of the format caused by pure theorization with few actual gameplaying this time... You know, articles are much more enjoyable when written by the necessity to actually say something (and when there's something to be said), not by the necessity to fulfil some editor's term.

[OneBigSquirrelGod]

I felt like I was the main character in Grandma's boy this weekend, And the Meandeck was JP... I saw everybody Playing Oblivion Stone in Lands, and was like, Team Meandeck stole My Idea... But I did recommend it to Steve at the meandeck open last month. The card is simply amazing, and it answers everything, including Plainswalkers. I think it will be played in lands for a very long time, and Im glad that it was a liked Idea from a well known team... But judging from the article, It seems like DeMars was the deciding Factor (When I think of "a while ago" I think like, 6 months to a year... I believe it was more of a "Bobby Was right, and We just needed some positive reinforcement from our teammates." I do thank You for including me in the article, and Im glad it worked out (I saw a game against Stax, where the board was just wiped out lol). The Idea was from a friend John Pryor, so he is the one to thank. If Anyone wants to discuss lands in the future, I always have good advice :)

[Smmenen]

Ah, but our match contributed to your decision to play Lands again :)

I actually never knew that you played Lands until we played. I've always seen you with Its the Fear or other decks like that. I've been working on lands for the last few months, and that's why I wrote several articles on it in May.

To be honest, I had forgotten about your suggestion, and before our tournament, Brian had included O Stone, unbeknownest to me. Afterward, we discussed it, and I mentioned that you had previously suggested it. When we saw you in the elevator area, talking about it Friday night, we were having a bit of fun with you.

[MMogg]

I'm a bit confused . . . did a Lands deck even get a sniff at the top 8? There were none in the top 8, and the top 8 had 24 copies of Force of Will... so, why do you think it was a good choice for GP Columbus? I know the article is premium and you probably answer the question there, so feel free to ignore this, , but I can't seem to wrap my head around how a deck like Lands, that had 6 Day 2 pilots and failed to make top 8 (although Show and Tell/Sneak had 2 pilots respectively and 1 managed and Junk had 4 and managed 1, etc.) can be seen as a good choice in hindsight when the data show otherwise.

[kinda]

Where did you find the day 2 decks information?

[MMogg]

Where did you find the day 2 decks information?

Here.

It was up at the start of Day 2.

[kinda]

Much appreciated.

[Julian23]

@MMogg: First of all the conclusions you might want to draw totally depend on your mindset. Do you wanna work in- or deductive? Stephe argues based on the deck, the meta, the card, matchups etc. while you base your argument on on the performance in a particular event regardless. Both is ok but you gotta keep in mind that you are arguing from different directions in that case. However, Stephe usually likes to back up his arguments with %-to-day2 etc. as well.

Besides that, comparing a deck putting 6 people into day two to decks putting 2 and 4 people into day two based on the number of players actually making it to the top8 is so insufficient sample size, it's not even funny.

[frogboy]

I'll read it now. Hope it contains no instant Reanimates, no non-card-revealing Silvergill Adepts, no Siege-Gangs activating with R and other such basic misunderstandings of the format caused by pure theorization with few actual gameplaying this time... You know, articles are much more enjoyable when written by the necessity to actually say something (and when there's something to be said), not by the necessity to fulfil some editor's term.

This is pretty unnecessary.

[MMogg]

Julian - well I wasn't actually arguing anything, that's the point. I was confused.

BTW, I'm not sure what sample size has to do with it. From the editor's blurb we are meant to find out "why he believes that Lands was a fine contender for the perceived metagame going in." There is a hint that it was a good choice for that particular tournament, but the performances of those decks doesn't support that conclusion. The sample size, then, is irrelevant. I'm not saying Lands.dec is bad, what I was confused about is how a deck can be considered a good choice in hindsight when it performed poorer than other, less represented Day 2 decks.

Anyway, as I said, I wasn't particularly arguing, I was curious about this perceived conflict... but you kind of answered it for me. Thanks.

[Shawon]

Does the mana issue with Lands call for MD Riftstone Portal? Last time I played with Lands, I decided that instead of abandoning Mindslaver altogether since I could never cast it, I decided to keep trying it, but with MD Riftstone Portal to ensure I could cast it.

[mchainmail]

There was a Lands Player that finished 23rd (Eli Kassis, T-Organizer)

[SilverGreen]

This is pretty unnecessary.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to look hostile, but in fact I ended looking, and a lot. I simply translated a quick thought into a quick sentence, and the result was terrible. My fault, I'm really sorry.

But although the criticism's form was an error, its contend holds true for me, and was the theme of more of a discussion among my playgroup already. We appreciate Smmenen's articles a lot, don't get me wrong, specially for his writing style, his habit to explain narrowly all his thoughts and decisions, and the abundance and precision of data he use to provide. It's just that the "abundant and precise data" part raise the bar on my expectations a little more, and I become a little frustrated when seeing a great idea like that article on Lands vs Reanimator, with what an amazing form, sink due to an unknown, but crucial, contend detail. If I remember well, that misunderstood intant Reanimate changed all the course of the hypothetical match, as did other important details in other occasions. His texts are much frequently based on decisions, and these minor knowledge errors affect all of them.

This is the kind of misunderstandings we don't see in his Vintage articles, since Smmenen is an expert in this format. But he's relatively new to Legacy yet, and we can't deny it, much of his knowledge of the format is still based on theory (something he has a considerable baggage of) and assumptions. Sometimes, some of these assumptions are wrong. My intention was just to point it out, but it was never to belittle his work. So again, I would like to apologize for the unpoliteness of my first post.