3rd with TES - GP Sydney Side Event (Contains giant rubber duckies)

[Basaka]

GP Sydney, with 691 people, made the largest Australian GP in Magic History. The Venue, at Darling Harbour convention centre, had a mascot in the form of a giant rubber duck, towering over the judges -
http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/events/gpsyd13/02_R14_Judges.jpg

Leaving that aside, there was a legacy tournament on the Friday with first prize being a Mishra's Workshop. I was debating whether I should whip out TES or High Tide, but settled on storm as I do not want the venue to be attacked by said giant duck as the center floods from the resolution of multiple tides.

4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand

3 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion’s Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Burning Wish
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Silence
3 Duress
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ad Nauseam

3 Cabal Therapy
2 Abrupt Decay
2 Chain of Vapor
1 Hull Breach
1 Grapeshot
1 Empty the Warrens
2 Tendrils of Agony
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Past in Flames
1 Diminishing Returns

A friend suggested me to have an extra tendrils in side for unfair matches which makes killing them easier, so I decided to try it and cut a decay for I did not expect many counterbalance or Maverick. I was right - the Decays rotted in my board, while the extra tendrils was just as useless - as in I never killed someone with a mainboard tendrils. I might try this configuration again, but not sure when my local store is running the next event, so w/e.

I managed to convince Tomoharu Saito to play in the event as well on twitter the weekend beforehand, so I met him for the first time ever, said hi, rocked up and registered our places. Having met him, I can say that I have no idea why people call him a cheater, he is awesome.

As the pairings came up, I realized that I actually haven't touched the deck except for a few goldfishes for about 4 months. However, I heard Aussies sucked at legacy anyway, so it should be easy right?

Round 1 - Merfolk

We sat down, shuffled, and made some small talk, He mentioned that it's first time playing legacy. Put him on some sort of tribal deck. Sure enough, he opens with a turn 1 cursecatcher, and I groan a little inside. Probably the best start against me.

He then follows up with mutavault, adept, and meerow rejery, putting me on 12 and lethal next turn. I draw, rip empty, and my silence gets forced pitching Master of the Pearl Trident. However, I had 3 LEDs, a bunch of rituals and a burning wish into PiF. However, I cracked LED incorrectly, forgetting that burning wish gets exiled (GOD, WHY DIDN'T I PLAY THIS DECK MORE IN THESE 4 MONTHS) resulting in no blue in pool to dig for another tutor, so I had to settle for 20 goblins and pray he doesn't rip an islandwalking lord. He doesn't, and I take the game.
SB
-1 IT
+1 cabal therapy

Game 2, he starts with mutavault into vial, misses a land, so I silence and kill him. Turns out he had a bad keep with multiple adepts, lords and a spell pierce. He thought I couldn't go off on turn 2, but there you go.

We played another game for fun, and I crush him as usual.

2-0
1-0

Tips
1. Don't leave home before goldfishing some hands
2. Don't tell your opponent its your first legacy tournament and give away free information

Round 2 - painter

Opponent plays tarn, so I put him on either delver or some sort of combo. He passes. On my turn I duress, seeing 2 welders, lands, and 2 brainstorms. I do a mental fistpump for not playing high tide, as playing a deck preboarded against you seems pretty terrible. I try to go off next turn, but he drew a spell pierce, so I try again turn 3, and started tutoring for an empty when I found out I didn't desideboard, oops.

SB:
-1 IT
-1 Silence
+2 Cabal Therapy

Game 2, I go off with my opponent tapping out for a trinket mage for a lethal grindstone next turn.
Game 3, I go off before him again. Gotta love playing slower combo

2-1
4-1
2-0

Tips
1. Desideboarding between rounds is usually a good idea
2. Don't play painter, especially if you don't have recruiters

Round 3 - Gb Pox

Game 1, I keep a sick hand that can go off turn 2 easily. My opponent goes turn 1 DR, Inquisition, taking my tutor, then hymn, hitting my LED. How is pox 2-0? I dunno. I derp more by forgetting that a lotus petal in hand generates mana, with a hand of DR, IT, IT, petal and 2 lands in play, which was good for 12 goblins and the game. He obviously topdecks another hymn and wreck me. LIFETILT

SB:
-3 silence
-1 Duress
+2 therapy
+2 chains

Game 2, he wrecks my hand, but I had 3 LEDs in play and manage to wish -> DR at 4 life facing 2 tombstalkers and kill him before he could finish me off. I heard wheel effects are good against mono-discard.

Game 3, I couldn't remember, but I made 14 goblins on turn 1 or something.

2-1
6-2
3-0

1. I heard free mana in your hand actually wins you games.
2. DR is the stone cold nuts (as you will see later).

Round 4 - Justin Cheung with Jund

Justin Cheung is probably one of the best Australian players (and came 2nd at the GP later), so I expected him to be on some sort of shaman deck.

Game 1, he plays badlands, pass. I do another mental fistpump because a) he did not have a t1 shaman or discard and 2) he has no counterspells. I probe him, seeing Bob, Liliana x2, and wasteland. Seems like an insane hand against anything - apart from me. He drops bob turn 2, then the tentacles had him for dinner.

SB:
-3 silence
-1 duress
+2 cabal therapy
+2 chain of vapor

Game 2, I manage to make 10 goblins after getting hymned, but he had a maelstrom pulse, so I drew nothing and died to a goyf and BBE.

-1 EtW
+1 Tendrils

(which was probably wrong, because pulse can hit my LEDs anyway so it's never really a dead card)

Game 3, I probed him seeing seize, bob, liliana and surgical. Seemed solid. My hand was IT, BW, land, chrome mox, rite of flame, LED, silence. He seizes me, and tanks.
I stare at my tutors, hoping he takes one because I needed my LED. He takes the IT. Another victory.
I untap, draw chrome mox, imprint silence, and cast Diminishing returns. He winces at me destroying his hand, and responds by extracting my... LEDs, which I didn't really care about because I'd rather a tutor in my 7 to go off next turn. I draw into 2 probes, 2 brainstorms, and some lands. Ew.
He Inquisitions away one of my brainstorms, and I proceed to draw into THE NUTS with my probes and brainstorms to kill him.

2-1
8-3
4-0

1. Diminishing Returns is THE NUTS

Round 5 - Tomoharu Saito with RUG Delver

At the end of Round 4, the 4 4-0 players (which was 3 NZers and a Japanese - told you the Aussies suck at Legacy) were talking whether we could double draw. It was agreed that it's better to play for seeding (as only X-1's will make it), but a quick chat with the judge revealed there will not be a P/D rule due to him not announcing it. Sweet, time to double ID.

0-0-3
8-3
4-0-1

We still played our match for fun.

G1, he played T1 mongoose into T2 goyf. I probe him, seeing double daze and double FoW. How the heck am I supposed to beat it? Obviously I don't and gets rolled.

SB:

-1 IT
+1 cabal

G2 I probe him seeing a bunch of soft counters. He starts with a delver, blind flips it, and adds another delver. On turn 3 I silence, which was met by a brainstorm then daze, giving me 2 free storm to empty for 14 from my hand. Saito ponders and says "gg".

G3 I play silence, it resolved, and I Tendrils him. Afterwards I checked his hand and he only had one Force, so it was probably correct for him not to Force incase I was baiting.

2-1
10-4
4-0-1

Lessons learned:

1. Saito is Awesome
2. Empty the Warrens is Awesome
3. Tempo Decks are easy mode.

R6 - Walker McCurdo with Esperblade

Walker was the winner of GP Auckland. Pretty stacked top tables. We ID.

0-0-3
10-4
4-0-2

Quarters - BUG Shardless

G1: He played turn 1 Deathrite, I probed, then made 16 Goblins.

-1 IT
+1 Cabal

G2: He had no T1 play, I cabal'd his shardless agent, then made 10 goblins a turn or so later.

Semis - Walker with Esperblade

The top 4 was the 4 people that 4-0'd (so 3 NZers and a Japanese - see the trend?)

G1: My hand was land, ponder, rite, ritual, wish, IT, silence. He went T1 IoK, taking my ponder, T2 Seize taking a wish. My silence was forced. I count 6 mana, so I attempt to go for a EtW since he had no Stoneforge. However, I miscounted and did not have a card to imprint onto chrome mox for my sixth mana, and lost. His hand was another Force, Clique, and Snapcaster anyway so I don't think I would have won either way

-1 IT
+1 cabal

G2: I mull to 6, he mulls to 5, and snap keeps. I duress him seeing force, force, jace, land, thoughtseize. I take the force which was wrong as I should have taken his thoughtseize, to set up a wish into therapy later for force. He obviously topdecks into a brainstorm into 2 more lands, snapcaster, another land for Jace, which brainstorms into another force while I draw all 3 of my chrome moxes and die a horrible death.

0-2
10-6

If that duress was therapy then I might have won the game. I'm thinking of actually cutting a silence for another therapy in the blade matchups, but not sure if it would be correct. Might be worth testing

3rd/4th playoffs - Jason Chung with RUG Delver

3rd gets a trop, 4th gets to be a scrub(land), so there was a playoff.
An aside, Jason made his RUG delver the weekend before the GP, and commented on how RUG is 80-20 against storm. Obviously I disagreed, with him replying that he crushes storm all day on MODO, where I just told him he plays bad storm players. He also mentioned he was 3-0 against storm in the tournament. I made a resolution to crush him and prove him wrong.

G1: My hand was DR, DR, AdN, rite, probe, ponder, IT on the play. If I could peel a mana source I could go for a T1 Ad Nauseum. I decide to keep because I have 12 lands + 4 petals + 3 chrome moxes + 3 probes to try and find another land. I probe him, seeing nothing relevant except a daze, and blow his face up with tentacles.

-1 IT
+1 probe

G2: Jason mulls to 6, and drops a mongoose, then a Tormods crypt. I love it when people SB in bad cards against storm. I probe him, seeing 3 lands, goyf and hydroblast?!, and strip the goyf with cabal therapy.
He pokes me for 1, and passes.
I draw, and make 12 goblins, of which 2 gets hydroblasted. They get there.

So I end up 3rd, winning a trop, which wasn't bad.
Saito won the workshop, and 2 days later make it back to the Pro Tour, so it was a good weekend for him. I ended up judging the GP as they had way more players than planned, but getting to play legacy was nice for a change.

Props:

Diminishing Returns
Empty the Warrens
Crushing Jason
Event Venue
Awesome guy Saito

Slops:

drawing 4 chrome moxes vs 5 Force of Wills

[Lemnear]

Awesome guy Saito

.... 5 Force of Wills

Could ... Not ... Resist ...



P.S.: There is a reason he was banned. He's possibly an awesome guy aside the tables, but his behaviour playing the game is more than shady and well documented.

[saspook]

At the end of Round 4, the 4 4-0 players (which was 3 NZers and a Japanese - told you the Aussies suck at Legacy) were talking whether we could double draw. It was agreed that it's better to play for seeding (as only X-1's will make it), but a quick chat with the judge revealed there will not be a P/D rule due to him not announcing it. Sweet, time to double ID.

I stopped reading here, but the four of you should have all been disqualified for this.

[cdr]

Seeing people go nuts about the rubber duck was kind of odd; it toured around the US awhile back, it was in Boston harbor one time I was in Boston. I'd have thought more people would've seen it before.


I stopped reading here, but the four of you should have all been disqualified for this.

What? They weren't even sitting for a match at the time (and it would still be fine if they were). Nothing wrong discussing with other players whether to play or draw.

[Basaka]

I stopped reading here, but the four of you should have all been disqualified for this.

I think I know what to say and not say about determining match results - I'm a level 2 judge as well.


There is a reason he was banned. He's possibly an awesome guy aside the tables, but his behaviour playing the game is more than shady and well documented.

I was on the floor both days of the main GP event and received no judge calls involving Saito, neither did other judges (afaik) and I did not notice anything shady in his play. Both during the legacy and the GP.

[sdematt]

Pretty sure you're allowed to discuss draws.

-Matt

[phazonmutant]

Nice report! Glad to see you crushed those smug tempo players.

[saspook]

What? They weren't even sitting for a match at the time (and it would still be fine if they were). Nothing wrong discussing with other players whether to play or draw.

I haven't reviewed the IPG in a while. There used to be a section that stated that in determining if you were going to play or draw, and you asked another pairing, or made an agreement with other players, it was considered collusion and was DQ'able. It seems to have been removed.

[phazonmutant]

I haven't reviewed the IPG in a while. There used to be a section that stated that in determining if you were going to play or draw, and you asked another pairing, or made an agreement with other players, it was considered collusion and was DQ'able. It seems to have been removed.

Ah, I didn't know that used to be the case. cdr is definitely correct on this one - you can talk about conceeding or drawing with other players all you want, as long as no randomization or compensation is discussed (ignoring technicalities about splitting).

[saspook]

Ah, I didn't know that used to be the case. cdr is definitely correct on this one - you can talk about conceeding or drawing with other players all you want, as long as no randomization or compensation is discussed (ignoring technicalities about splitting).

The rule is or was about preventing having a group of people all agree on drawing the last X rounds to ensure that they all made it to the top eight. I played in an GPT a few years back were after the second round 8 players agreed to draw their last three rounds and seven of the eight players made the top eight. The judge was fully aware of their collusion but unaware that the ipg supported taking action.

[cdr]

The rule is or was about preventing having a group of people all agree on drawing the last X rounds to ensure that they all made it to the top eight. I played in an GPT a few years back were after the second round 8 players agreed to draw their last three rounds and seven of the eight players made the top eight. The judge was fully aware of their collusion but unaware that the ipg supported taking action.

You're thinking of the rule about more than two people splitting the tournament. Drawing into the T4/T8 has never not been OK.

(well, if you want to be technical, you could go back to the mid 90s when it was illegal to intentionally draw at all)

[Koby]

(well, if you want to be technical, you could go back to the mid 90s when it was illegal to intentionally draw at all)

This corroborates the impression that MTGO is indeed stuck in the 90s. /aside

Congrats on doing well with TES. #stormtroooper

[cdr]

This corroborates the impression that MTGO is indeed stuck in the 90s. /aside

Further aside, Wizards has never liked IDs, but quickly realized they have to allow IDs because they have to accept match draws. MTGO has a mechanism to avoid draws, so they are not going to allow IDs. I'm sure it's probably been written about to death though.

[saspook]

You're thinking of the rule about more than two people splitting the tournament. Drawing into the T4/T8 has never not been OK.

(well, if you want to be technical, you could go back to the mid 90s when it was illegal to intentionally draw at all)

It is still in the tournament rules (5.2), but it is not in the IPG.

Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.

So saying, "Hey if we all draw both rounds we can all get into the top 8, agreed?" is still against the Tournement Rules.

[cdr]

So saying, "Hey if we all draw both rounds we can all get into the top 8, agreed?" is still against the Tournement Rules.

No, it isn't. "In conjunction with other matches" means you have to be playing a match.

Not to mention that there was almost certainly not any agreement to draw - they were talking and shared the opinion that drawing would guarantee T8.

The rule you're quoting is intended to limit disruptions from players trying to meta the single elimination cut while playing. Once you start to play your match, you're supposed to be focused on playing.

[barrozo]

Great read! Lol'd at the tips and about aussies being bad at Legacy

[Parcher]

No, it isn't. "In conjunction with other matches" means you have to be playing a match.

Not to mention that there was almost certainly not any agreement to draw - they were talking and shared the opinion that drawing would guarantee T8.

The rule you're quoting is intended to limit disruptions from players trying to meta the single elimination cut while playing. Once you start to play your match, you're supposed to be focused on playing.

Right. Saying before a match, "You want to draw? We're both in if we do.", is fine. Saying "Watch what happens with Player X. We need to play it out to see if he wins. But if he loses, we ID and both can get in.", is not. Though it happens.

[saspook]

Right. Saying before a match, "You want to draw? We're both in if we do.", is fine. Saying "Watch what happens with Player X. We need to play it out to see if he wins. But if he loses, we ID and both can get in.", is not. Though it happens.

That is completely wrong. The rule states that you can use results of other matches and that it is perfectly legal as long as the players do not go out of their way to secure this information. Scroll up and the rule is posted.

What the rule talks about is multiple pairings making their decision together. Someone on table one saying to table two "if your table wants to draw, then we will draw as well."

[Parcher]

That is completely wrong. The rule states that you can use results of other matches and that it is perfectly legal as long as the players do not go out of their way to secure this information. Scroll up and the rule is posted.

What the rule talks about is multiple pairings making their decision together. Someone on table one saying to table two "if your table wants to draw, then we will draw as well."

The rules also disallow collusion. Tournament Magic is a zero-sum game. In the situation described, if the match played out to a win or loss, a player other than the two involved would make top 8 in addition to the winner. If both players wait until it is determined that due to the results of another match happening at the same time, they can effectively draw to insure both will make top 8, then the previously mentioned "bubble" player now will not. I've seen this happen with corroborating testimony, when the bubble player won his match, heard from surrounding players the events leading to his not making top 8, and the colluding players were DQ'd.

[cdr]

What the rule talks about is multiple pairings making their decision together. Someone on table one saying to table two "if your table wants to draw, then we will draw as well."

That is not what the rule is about, but posting about it any further is not going to be productive. Trying to tell players they can't talk about what record will make the cut - much less before matches are even paired - would be well, nuts.

Never in my life have I heard of one table saying to another "if you draw, we'll draw".

[saspook]

The rules also disallow collusion. Tournament Magic is a zero-sum game. In the situation described, if the match played out to a win or loss, a player other than the two involved would make top 8 in addition to the winner. If both players wait until it is determined that due to the results of another match happening at the same time, they can effectively draw to insure both will make top 8, then the previously mentioned "bubble" player now will not. I've seen this happen with corroborating testimony, when the bubble player won his match, heard from surrounding players the events leading to his not making top 8, and the colluding players were DQ'd.

That used to be the case but the rule was changed a few years back to allow players to use the outcome of another match in making their decision as long as "they don't go out of their way" ie leave their seats.

[TomTwice]

How is pox 2-0? I dunno.

Because my deck is awesome. Duh.

Now have 3 Thorn of Amethyst in the board for your type of shenanigans. Those Spinning Darkness were utter trash.


Game 3 you made lots of goblins on turn 3 or so. I had a Tombie out by then I believe but couldn't stop enough goblins getting through in 2 turns.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I don't think I had Tombie out. Maybe Bloodghast? Either way, wasn't stopping all those gobbos.

[Beatusnox]

I stopped reading here, but the four of you should have all been disqualified for this.

Pretty sure, if before the four of them at the top of the rankings went to a judge before they started playing and said 'If we all draw does that mean we all get into top 8' is NOT the same as sitting there and saying, "I'll draw if you draw". The approached a judge, asked if the four of them can double draw, they were told so, and they did so. Now unless EVERY other judge in the country(world for that matter) is wrong, it seems like you vastly misinterpreted the rules that you read...

Actually on topic; Isn't Saito the one who was notorious for slow play and shuffling for hours on end to try to burn as much of the clock as possible?