[Deck] UW Tempo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossivo1986

Wait Joe, you were supposed to let me answer your question for you as to make this switch hitter game so much better!

I don't like fathom seer. I think it's a terrible card. I've tested it and I still think It's terrible. Any suggestions on running a card that is of better quality in terms of a stand alone threat?

I've talked with Forbidden talk about the deck not running green, but I wasnt fully able to finish the discussion.

---

I tried it with Sea Drake instead of Fathom Seer, that's probably the best card you can find synergy wise altho' the deck plays differently (cast Sea Drake and race while Weathered Wayfarer pounds their mana base).

I think I hate Serra Avenger more than I hate Fathom Seer, that card sucks with out Aether Vial really fucking bad.u

Even tho' it's not the same deck, I'd be interested to try using the Aether Vial/Standstill and Spellstutter Sprite/Mutavault package in here and just use Sea Drake as the flying finisher and Wayfarer enabler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition

But the emperor is naked. Also this is awful logic... and grammar.

---

What? No, who said what I said applies to everybody? Other people can come up with ideas first. You simply can't because you're retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckpixel

Every tournament match I've played with the deck I've reported. I have a feeling that the majority of players have done the same.

---

Nope - I actually left out reporting another win of mine ;)

I think anyone who "can do math and science" would have no issue agreeing that any statistical sample based on non-random reports from a single source is, in fact, not an unbiased estimator of that statistic. On top of that, the nature of the source would likely introduce a positive skew on any estimation of means or positive count data.

This is true for any deck on this site, as no one wants to read a wall-o-text about going 0-4 give-up-on-the-deck, nor will anyone who gives up on the deck bother to write a report on said 0-4.

Quote:

---

I think anyone who "can do math and science" would have no issue agreeing that any statistical sample based on non-random reports from a single source is, in fact, not an unbiased estimator of that statistic.

---

But it is in fact an un-biased statistic because people are using this information to improperly judge how “format warping” this arch-type is. So when we are talking about how good a deck is on the source then obviously it’s going to make a bit of a difference in regards to meta-games on small and large levels, warped or not warped meta’s. The point being while the statistic is un-biased in regards to it’s meaningfulness on the source, it’s definitely not true in many other cases.

Quote:

---

On top of that, the nature of the source would likely introduce a positive skew on any estimation of means or positive count data.

---

But this is the problem. Obviously if we are tracking only positive count date then the winning percentage will always be positive. The same is true if I only checked for negative feedback. The bottom line is the data is inaccurate in regards to a national perspective and thus should have never been talked about because it literally is bullshit.
With so many variables out there like luck, player skill, as well as other unknowns its best to just say from what people are saying on this webpage, we can safely assume that the deck is doing its job for other people, and not just us. And since there would be no way to get into contact with more then 3 players at a gp level tournament and ask them about their record with the deck and what tweaks would you make I think it’s best asserted to just say no to the bullshit.

i dont think this deck is format schewing. Actually on the contrairy.

This is without a doubt a great deck, in a tuned format its really great! It has its flaws, but in general its really good.

Problem for me is,with the current very diverse meta where i am playing i Denmark, its not so much the deck but the player.
I currently boast a 1800 rating in eternal and regularely go in top 4/8 or what we are playing the day - regardless if it is this dec, ant or even hombrew. A good (read: not great) player almost always posts winning records. If good players are the ones picking uo the deck, off course it will de well. This is not dregde or antother play with your head under your arm deck. It is a lot of work to play, lot of triggers to keep track of and exploit which should scare some/most of the newbies away and encourage an experienced player to pick up.
This might be part of the reason this deck is doing so well.

I find this an incredibly fun, powerful and hard to play correctly deck that goes outside the regurlar cards like goyfs and CBtop, and if you bring this deck to an unexpecting crowd you can come a long way! Just love the expression on my opponents face when they (again) have to ask to read my card:D


my records so far after 3 turneys:

4-1-1 (last game I ID'ed and played for for and won a landslide win against zoo) 34 players, 6 rounds swiss/top4 standings - 3rd place

3-3 (lost against alluren and reanimator - didnt have the curfews then for reanimator and an more or less all basic land reanimator was a bad mu)
conceeded against my friend round 6 so he had a shot at top8) 36 players

5-0-1 wit an ID, 28 players, 6 rounds swiss/top4 standings - 1st place
won against meat hooks, dredge, zoo, lands and merfolks, ID'ed with goblins as my first was secure.
sidenote, only game i did not win 2-0 was lands where i scooped after 3 mins game won to have a shot at winning 2-1 since we play 40 mins rounds on the tuesdays.

I was just reading a bunch of posts 10 pages back and I have to say, this deck is fawesome!

I tried building a deck with Weathered Wayfarer back when I first started playing Legacy (with Scroll Rack and ran it ala Parfait) but that did not worked out.

I am looking at this now and I have to say, its awesome.

I am currently working on Quinn and in the process of completing my D&T list. I noticed that while playing WW, it also played a lot of common cards from the two decks that I've been working.

I have most cards mentioned (except for Fathom Seers, Duals and Fetches).

Now I have a couple of questions:

How bad would the deck be if I ran it on mostly basics? Since I don't own Duals or Fetches, my inital landbase would look like this:

Quote:

---

4 Wasteland
8 Plains
7 Islands

---

Would you guys recommend doing this to the manabase (Although I am willing to experiment on it myself):

Quote:

---

3 Wasteland
3 Ghost Quarter
7 Plains
5 Islands

---

More mana denial, why not? I will try to get Flooded Strands and Tundras, if the budget permits. If this won't work, I might just end up with the way previous suggestion of 5 White fetch and 2 Blue fetch.

With budget being said, I currently only own a single Jitte, although I do have a single Sword of Fire and Ice and Sword of Light and Shadow. Would one of those swords worthy enough to be a Jitte substitute?

Also, there was a previous thread on using Stoneforge Mystic as an equipment toolbox. I will try experimenting on using the mentioned 3 above as a toolbox. If it works for D&T, why not here right?

Anyways, any more advices and suggestion with the deck?

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by (nameless one)

How bad would the deck be if I ran it on mostly basics?

---

I haven't run this deck much (although I've played quite a few times against pi4meterftw being on the other end of the matchup), and I'll tell you what the more experienced players will: your manabase will suck. One of the key interactions in the deck is being able to sacrifice a fetchland and respond with a Wayfarer interaction (with the land grab still on the stack). Not to mention all the color fixing (and the possibilities with Daze and Fathom Seer) you will miss out on.

Tournament of 15 today, won CBTop-Bant-NoProg 2-0, lost to UB Reanimator 2-0 (Iona sucks, I don't run the "Updated", reanimator-hating SB and misplayed quite grossly game 2 - tried Daze like a chicken when I should have used Spell Pierce), lost to Imperial Painter 2-0 (first time I've ever seen that deck though) and ID'd versus Merfolk because I did not want to play an more today.

@ People saying the data isn't ideal: you're right, but I'm doing what any statistician would: I'm trying to find the highest resolution image using the data that I'm given.

I don't know what type of "real world problems" you people normally work on, but real life doesn't work like a statistics examination. You have statistical models that can help you find new and elucidating methods of looking at data, but the models rarely hold in the real world except to a grainy approximation, and to compound the problem there's always a huge problem in getting good data and correcting for sampling problems. But you still do the best you can because you still have SOME data. Even if it's not the mythical "perfect data" you can still point to events that definitely happened and attempt to paint a picture.

Theoretically, all the models require an SRS. What happens in a gallup poll if one person doesn't answer? Or close to home for Americans today, what happens if you're not included in the census? Bam, the data is useless, obviously!

There's still a happy medium between understanding the limitations of the data and completely rejecting everything. Following is some steps I've taken to get better data, and the possibilities that I've considered.


I'm encouraging people to post all their tournament results (and for the record, I have assurances that I have all the tournament reports from myself, Jeff, Aaron, Tinefol, and Stuckpixel). With the exception of Jeff, I'd say we're all tournament players of pretty average caliber. You can watch my games (and the ones with Stuckpixel) and watch us make tons of errors, all the time. Tinefol released some videos where he consistently made mistakes as well. And Aaron is now world famous for his punts. So obviously the data isn't perfect, but you can see players with a pretty wide range of skill and a wide range in familiarity with the deck be successful in a wide range of events, and that's what the data is trying to show.


Anyway, just for the record, here are some of the potential biases I've considered and then responses:

Q) The data is only from Source members, who are better than average players and your overall estimate is too high.
A) True, but I'm also posting on The Source, FOR these better-than-average players. I'll freely admit that horrible players will probably fail with UW Tempo, but the pretty good players here, reading this thread and posting in this thread can expect to do the same things that other people have been doing.

Q) Not all data has been included from everyone. People are more likely to exclude poor performance than exclude wins, and your overall estimate is too high.
A) I've encouraged people to post up, even if they lose, but it's definitely true. If you'd like to avoid that sampling bias, only look at games from Stuckpixel, myself, pi4meterftw, Tinefol, and Awayne (Aaron). I'll note that we've been having similar results to the rest of the sample set, so I don't really see a reason to reject the rest of the data.

Q) UW Tempo has a lot of tricks and some learning curve even if you're good at other decks. A practiced player would do better than the random smattering of first-time players, so your overall win estimate is too low unless you discard early performance data.
A) Also true, but this time working in the other direction. Players like Tinefol and Stuckpixel both had improvements in average performance after some practice with the deck, just for example. I still wouldn't reject the first-tournament data, although everyone gets better with practice.


Specifically at Mossivo and PI: I'm looking for better suggestions for data collection, as always. Not just to shoot you down for requesting the impossible, but you seem very interested, as I am, in collecting good and unbiased data. I would love if a collection method existed where I could do that, but I can't think of anything better than what I'm doing. Please let me know if you can think of anything.

There is some talk about unbanning Gush. Its not as powerful anymore as it used to be in the days of Tog. I think UW Tempo would benefit the most from its unbanning, if its gets unbanned. Surely it would replace Fathom Seer. Its one less creature that holds a Jitte but its instant speed and doesn't require an initial investment of 3.

I wasn't suggesting that the statistics should be tossed out. I was merely pointing out that the data was not an unbiased estimator of overall performance. As long as these things are accepted and listed as assumptions of the model, everything is fine. The best procedure, however, is to alter claims to remove as much assumed error as possible, such as the following claim:

"Active Sourcers who pilot this deck have around a XX% win rate"

I just hate situations where statistics are misrepresented, misinterpreted, or misunderstood, since I do that for a living.

Cheers all,

Zork

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

There is some talk about unbanning Gush. Its not as powerful anymore as it used to be in the days of Tog. I think UW Tempo would benefit the most from its unbanning, if its gets unbanned. Surely it would replace Fathom Seer. Its one less creature that holds a Jitte but its instant speed and doesn't require an initial investment of 3.

---

The important thing isn't that it's instant speed. I don't know why everybody gives rave reviews to instants. The most important thing is it doesn't pump goyf.

I hope gush doesn't get unbanned, because UW tempo stands to benefit from it least among the decks that could possibly use it. We get over the hump by being able to use fathom seer, so we'd only be able to cut fathom seer for gush, while other decks could cut truly bad cards for it.

However, supposing it happens, you're probably right that I would cut some fathom seer. But it wouldn't be 4 for 4. I'd add in 4 gushes, cut probably 2 seers, and then 2 sphinxes probably. Or something like that, I don't know. Perhaps -3 seer -1 sphinx.

Or perhaps ANT would actually be an okay choice. I can't imagine Combo not creaming its pants if this happens, but I've also not heard a single word about this happening until now.

I've been reading the thread about unbanning cards so yea, thats where the talk is going on, and just amongst people I know. I don't think a deck with AdN would run it. Its CC is too high. Flipping and losing 5 life makes playing with AdN extremely risky. I doubt ANT will run it or if they do, they will most certainly drop AdN (which I really don't see happening).

Sphinx? What Sphinx? Whats your current build look like?

EDIT:
What decks would be cutting bad cards for Gush besides UW Tempo? I'm sure Thresh and Merfolk would play it, but how much would it affect those matchups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

I've been reading the thread about unbanning cards so yea, thats where the talk is going on, and just amongst people I know. I don't think a deck with AdN would run it. Its CC is too high. Flipping and losing 5 life makes playing with AdN extremely risky. I doubt ANT will run it or if they do, they will most certainly drop AdN (which I really don't see happening).

Sphinx? What Sphinx? Whats your current build look like?

EDIT:
What decks would be cutting bad cards for Gush besides UW Tempo? I'm sure Thresh and Merfolk would play it, but how much would it affect those matchups?

---

The problem is UW tempo has no bad cards to cut. We are essentially full, and are not looking for other cards to add in. Obviously if an option comes along, we get a +, but not as much as decks like merfolk that have stifle (or whatever they have in that question slot) to cut, or maybe even a few copies of standstill so that they're not all in against decks where standstill does nothing.

Also, since our deck makes more efficient use of wasteland than any other deck in the format, we stand to lose the most from gush protecting islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zork

I wasn't suggesting that the statistics should be tossed out. I was merely pointing out that the data was not an unbiased estimator of overall performance. As long as these things are accepted and listed as assumptions of the model, everything is fine. The best procedure, however, is to alter claims to remove as much assumed error as possible, such as the following claim:

"Active Sourcers who pilot this deck have around a XX% win rate"

I just hate situations where statistics are misrepresented, misinterpreted, or misunderstood, since I do that for a living.

Cheers all,

Zork

---

Everyone reading it who has any complaints obviously read the OP, so it's not like they were confused and not sure where the data came from. They're just whining about nothing.

So I don't really understand where you're coming from at all. Perhaps you somehow have like never read any posts in this thread and were confused where the data was coming from. In that case, check the OP. And at any rate, your qualifying statement is far more misleading. "Active sourcers" is misleading, since some people hardly post at all. Also, Aaron I don't think even has one post.

Incidentally, the word "data" is plural. I can't believe someone who "does that for a living" doesn't know that.

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Also, since our deck makes more efficient use of wasteland than any other deck in the format, we stand to lose the most from gush protecting islands.

---

I'd agree if you ran Crucible, but you don't. Its a good point though that Gush makes your wastelands worse. I respect that. I think that decks with Crucible take advantage of wasteland much more so than UW Tempo does.

Quote:

---

The problem is UW tempo has no bad cards to cut.

---

Nobody is saying you are running bad cards, just suboptimal cards if something better comes along or if something like Gush gets unbanned. I think that Gush would be much better than Fathom Seer, even if thats x4 less creatures that hold a Jitte. That singleton KotWO receives a lot of attention as being a questionable slot. I really don't like it myself and if I played UW Tempo, would rather play Grunt number 3.

Quote:

---

Incidentally, the word "data" is plural. I can't believe someone who "does that for a living" doesn't know that.

---

I lol'd. Come on man, most Americans don't even speak English properly!

Alright, I was actually not trying to be abraisive. I only stepped in and said something because some people were bitching about the 70% win claim by saying the stats were not representative while the people reporting that stat were (oviously) stating based on what data they had: people who report. My suggestion was to adjust the claim to be more clear. I wasn't trying to point the finger at anyone, and my suggestion of adjusting the claim wasn't a concrete suggestion (hence the XX% instead of a number), just an example of how statements can be adjusted to be more clear.

Also, I tried to keep personal attacks out of it, but since you decided to be an ass:

Data - "a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn." (Princeton) A collection is singular, not to mention the term dataset is often shortened in colloquial english.

I don't actually give a shit about the petty e-peen bickering over whether this deck has any particular win percentage; rather, I wanted to point out that unless both parties agree on the same ground assumptions, statistics are ambiguous.

Is there an updated list with the 1 vial cut out and sphinxes + curfew? is it 1 or 2 sphinxes? sorry if i missed it somewhere.

Also who cares if the statistical data isn't completely accurate, for most of us all it needs to show is that the deck is competitive in a diverse format. With such an interesting and unique deck, that's all many of us ask for.

Don't give into the trolls Jeff and Matt, just let them rage on while they stroke one off to their "superior net-decks".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fouzt

Is there an updated list with the 1 vial cut out and sphinxes + curfew? is it 1 or 2 sphinxes? sorry if i missed it somewhere.

Also who cares if the statistical data isn't completely accurate, for most of us all it needs to show is that the deck is competitive in a diverse format. With such an interesting and unique deck, that's all many of us ask for.

Don't give into the trolls Jeff and Matt, just let them rage on while they stroke one off to their "superior net-decks".

---

// Lands
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [A] Tundra
3 [ON] Windswept Heath
3 [TE] Wasteland
2 [9E] Plains (1)
1 [BD] Island (3)

// Creatures
4 [ON] Weathered Wayfarer
2 [CS] Jotun Grunt
4 [DD2] Fathom Seer
4 [UL] Mother of Runes
4 [TSP] Serra Avenger
2 [WWK] Stoneforge Mystic
2 [CS] Vexing Sphinx

// Spells
4 [BD] Brainstorm
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [OV] Swords to Plowshares
2 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte
2 [DS] AEther Vial
3 [NE] Daze
2 [ZEN] Spell Pierce

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [LRW] Thorn of Amethyst
SB: 2 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
SB: 3 [MI] Enlightened Tutor
SB: 1 [SHM] Wheel of Sun and Moon
SB: 2 [ALA] Ethersworn Canonist
SB: 2 [WL] Aura of Silence
SB: 4 [US] Curfew

Feel free to name a better hate spell than curfew if you can find one. Without it, I 1-6'd reanimator, and with it 6-1 (games) so it seems to be fairly effective. Matchwise, it went from 0-3 to 3-0.

It seems more effective than faerie macabre could be, but the faerie would have more applications. Also, it might be better to run 1 aether spell bombs, but I'm not really that excited to bring in ET, and I doubt that it would be better to do so. Faerie Macabre seems pretty good against dredge, which is almost an autowin. I'm not too enthusiastic about it, since it doesn't seem like it would come in anywhere else.

Also, Faerie Macabre doesn't stop show and tell.

At the most recent surge of doubts: You've seen the deck in action. I'm not sure why there are *suddenly* doubts about us playing good cards.

EDIT: I just had the pleasure of winning a match even though I was force to mull 3 no land hands g1 and then 2 no land hands g2. It went to g3, starting with a loss and winning the back two, ending with an SPL forced by a wayfarer lock.