Printable View
I think our S&T/Omni-Tell MU's are actually quite good. Between early disruption (Fluster/FoW/'Blasts/etc.) and soft-locking with CounterTop (or hard-locking with a 3 on top) + decently good clocks like Clique and Containment Priest against S&T, I've found that this MU is something I'm not disappointed to sit across from.
They have the "You win" of Boseiju, which is super frustrating. We can obviously get around it, but it makes the matchup way harder than it should be.
How about against decks where it does absolutely nothing? I'd rather play a card that can interact over one that I just waste a card slot to dump it in the yard to feed DTT. We already have great MUs against most blue decks anyway, so what's the point sandbagging that MU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtrix
Personally, i think we have a good matchup against blue deck because of all the red blasts we play. That and counterbalance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual
Red Blast beats the mirror. We also don't have a great Omnishow MU in G1. Red Blast kills Ancestral Visions and Jaces which can also be a problem.
Hello, fellow control mages, I wrote a tournament report from my recent SCG Portland Finals run with Ponder Miracles: http://www.moxboardinghouse.com/medi...s-in-portland/
I also wrote matchup analysis and strategy for each unique deck I faced. I'd be interested in hearing if any of you would approach things differently.
That's a solid write-up. Not to take anything away from it, but I did notice what I would consider a poorly written line as far as tournament reports go. In round 6, you wrote that, "He has an aggressive Delver hand that flips via Brainstorm..." It is not possible to tell from that whether he cast a Brainstorm to enable a Delver flip, or whether the random top card was a Brainstorm. It has no bearing on anything really, and doesn't even affect the story of the match. I just notice things like that and wanted to highlight it as a possible pitfall in writing about this ridiculously complicated game we all play.
Thanks, Joe. It was flipped by setting up with an upkeep Brainstorm. I'll clear up that ambiguity with the editor. In this case, the problem existed in my submission, but there are several other instances where my original draft was truncated to shorten the article, so please let me know if you notice any other issues before I submit a list of changes!Quote:
Originally Posted by oarsman
Is this kind of (finals) concession is legal for SCG tournaments?Quote:
Originally Posted by lordofthepit
Every things legal as long as you dont get caught
Yes, and everything was done in the presence of multiple judges. The actual conversation and the phrasing was not summarized in the article, since the editor (probably appropriately) decided that my original submission was too long and that extraneous details should be trimmed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by klaus
It should be noted that there is significant precedent in previous Opens and Premier IQs to allow for such arrangements. Here's one from Gerry Thompson, who has more experience with SCG than almost anyone else: https://twitter.com/G3RRYT/status/544375203501834241
Hello guys, I am new to miracle and recently started to build this cool deck.
I want to pilot Ein's 4 Ponder list, whose manabase is 21 lands (10 fetch, 6 basic, 3 tundra, 2 volcanic island). but at the moment I only have 1 Volcanic Island:frown:
Is it just ok to -1 volcanic +1 mountain, to build the following manabase?
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Arid Mesa
4 Island
2 Plains
3 Tundra
1 Volcanic Island
1 Mountain
Thanks and I will be grateful for any suggestions:tongue:
It is? "I give you (more) money and you concede to me for the win" is nothing I knew being legalQuote:
Originally Posted by lordofthepit
It is in the context of finals because no other players are affected by this, they are actually not even in the event anymore at that point. Used to be pretty common in the old PTQ system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Edit: For example, if one player in the finals of a PTQ was already qualified, but without flight, they would often let the other person take the qualification and receive money for the flight in return.
Thanks for the report! It was a good read.
Like others have said, it is ONLY allowed in the finals. Actually my first time ever playing Miracles at a 1k GP DC trial Eli Kassis and I did the same thing because he already had the byes that I wanted. It was a miracles vs UWR delver matchup so I got cocky and initially refused any restructuring/splitting but after he crushed me game 1, I reconsidered and Eli was nice enough to reinstate his offer :) We basically "split" the prizes, but valued the 2 byes as 50$.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Technically this is bribery if it isn't worded properly. If you straight up say "I will give you X in exchange for a concession", you will be DQed. In fact, if your opponent asks this and you say yes or no, instead of calling a judge, you might both get DQed. This is further complicated by the fact that, depending on the event, not all of the prizes have official monetary value. Splitting cash or boxes are easy, but how do you split GPT byes or RPTQ invites? WotC officially considers those non-splittable; they go to the winner no matter what, independent of any other prizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Imagine a conversation like this:
A: "I am grinding for Open Points, are you?"
B: "No."
A: "OK, would you like to discuss a prize split? You get X dollars and I get some number less than X dollars"
B: "I agree to that split."
A: "..."
B: "I concede."
The split discussion had nothing to do with who won, but the implication of who should concede was clear to both players based on the context.
(If your opponent offers you an uneven split, and you accept, but then refuse to concede, you are a grade A scumbag :) )
I hate to nitpick, but the difference when its in the finals is that you are not actually splitting, you are restructuring the prize payout. So it would be something like "I need the byes and you don't; would you be ok with 1st place getting 200$ (and the byes) and 2nd place getting 300$?", "Ok", "ok I conceed".Quote:
Originally Posted by PhyrexianLibrarian
I feel like Mountain is far better in non-ponder builds than it is in ponder builds. My reasoning for this is percentages. Removing a blue source like Volcanic island will reduce the number of keepable hands you draw. One of the uses of Ponder is to help find lands. In the early game, it is very useful for looking for lands and establishing a manabase, in the midgame it can be useful to set up your next few turns, help establish a counterbalance setup or a terminus, and in the late game it's great at all of the above as well as finding what you need to close the game out with, be it Jace, Entreat, or whatever else.Quote:
Originally Posted by entreri_fans
Blue sources are incredibly important for this particular build because of ponder being as common a turn 1 play as Top. Ein's list is designed with this in mind. It does not rely on the Volcanic island or red sources in general unless the matchup calls for it, and he is safe from wasteland. Game 1, a mountain may as well be a forest or a swamp, or a darksteel citadel. It does literally nothing but tap for colorless. When you run a deck full of double blue stuff and really important white stuff, you'll soon realize how bad this can be.
For math's sake, Ein's list has about 9% of it's lands as non-blue generating or non blue fetchable. (2 plains). Adding a mountain brings this percentage up to 14%, which I find significant.
In all honesty, I think I'd rather run a steam vents over a mountain in Ein's list. The 2 life is bound to get you killed, and you should absolutely get your hands on a second Volcanic down the road, but the 2 life, to me, is worth not having to pitch a hand because you drew mountain, plains as your lands and no top to be seen.
Good point, I guess the term "split" implies 50-50, and the point is that here it isn't. The important aspect is still that the discussion of who concedes is not dependent on the prize structure, i.e. neither player is offering their opponent rewards for a concession. If one player just so happens to want the higher payout more than the byes, well isn't that convenient :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect
Nitpicking is good when the alternative is getting DQed for bribery!
There is a specific exception for the finals of single elimination tournaments and you are allowed to offer your opponent prize for the concession up front. You are not, however, allowed to use incentives outside of the tournament's prizes to determine a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhyrexianLibrarian
"I will give you all of the prize if you concede to me so I get the invite" is OK. "I will give you $50 from my wallet in addition to the TO's prizes for a concession" is not.