Quick hits

I've been out of the country for a family issue, but I have had my laptop and been able to do a little bit of testing. Here's what I know so far:

Tezzeret is really freaking hard to play! For a million dollars, if I had to correctly cast Gifts Ungiven, I wouldn't be able to do it. Heck, for $100 if I had to split Gifts Ungiven correctly, I wouldn't be able to do it. Trinket Mage and the Transmute cards are also really hard to play because you can get so many things, and depending your list, if you misuse one of your tutor targets, you're screwed for the game. My plan is to proxy the deck up and just goldfish it tons to see what the plays are, without the pressure of real game situations.

Other than that, it seems like Rubin Zoo is the deck to beat, and I'm leaning toward something that outraces it. Probably not Steppe Lynx Zoo since that version of Zoo actually makes Punishing Fire pretty good, but more like the bogeyman from two years ago: Dredge. Tuning that deck will come to guessing how much hate people will be packing in their maindeck and adjusting the Dredge maindeck appropriately. For example, I think I want Darkblast to have some kind of answer to Gaddock Teeg. If I think people will be packing Ravenous Traps and Leylines, however, maybe I'd be better off playing Rubin Zoo or Tezzeret.

I also haven't touched sideboards yet. It seems that you can tune your sideboard to beat any deck in the format. Again, comes down to guessing what the metagame will be and what other adjustments decks will be making between now and the first PTQ (which happens to be Seattle this season!)

Still plugging along...

Let's talk about Extended and Testing

I went 5-3 at States with Bram Snepvanger's Boros list. I was happy with the deck excpet that I'd probably make the Burst Lightnings into Earthquakes, which may necessitate swapping Teetering Peaks for Terramorphic Expanse to make my dudes more likely to live through it, but I like Kor Skyfisher too much to take it out for something else in that case.

One thing I'd like to do more of at the beginning of the season for Extended is side-by-side testing to play both sides of the matchup. It was great for learning the format because instead of trying out one deck for yourself at a time, you're trying out two. It's also important to know how the other deck plays to read into your opponent's plays. A valuable piece of advice I read back in the day on, believe or not, Team Academy was about how the writer (probably Andystok) couldn't beat a certain deck, so he switched to that deck and bashed it tons. Then he couldn't beat a deck that beat that deck, so he bashed that tons. But, then couldn't beat his original deck, so he switched, but now he could beat the deck he originally couldn't beat since he knew how it played and what it cared about.

Switching decks in playtesting is also a good idea for learning the format. It also takes the playskill skew out of the picture if you really want to learn what the matchup is actually like. But the common playtest partner will probably be reluctant to switch since he'd rather get as many games in with his deck than a deck he isn't going to play. With side-by-side testing, there is no skew. Even though you've seen the other hand, it makes you ask the question if playing/not playing into something is worth it.

I could also go as slow or as fast as I wanted when figuring out lines and plays, and I could learn about the matchups I cared about, rather than whatever the person at the store with a deck was battling. A lot of times I'd make a play from the other side of the Boros deck, and then switch windows to my Boros hand and blow him out the next turn, so I'd back up and make a tighter play and see if would change the outcome of the game.

Other logistical considerations for side-by-side testing is that coordinating games and playtest sessions is a pain when you or your playtest partners have real life to juggle, the awkwardness of discussing over MWS, and the time it takes to proxy up paper decks for live testing. I think I'd consider traditional live testing more of practice and side-by-side testing true testing and experimentation and discovery. I'm going to have a lot of time this week to bash the Extended decks from Worlds against each other, so I'll probably be keeping tabs here about what I learn.

For those interested, my gauntlet is Tezzeret, Rubin Zoo, Dredge, Hypergenesis, and All-In Red, as these were the decks that put multiple people into 5-1 at Worlds. With the exception of All-In Red, off the top of my head, I think these also all had representatives in the 6-0 bracket. The other decks I'll try but not necessarily consider part of the litmus test for other decks are Bant, Scapeshift, Dark Depths, UB Faeries, UW Control, and Mono-Red Burn.

Fear of Constructed

When I sit down for most Constructed tournaments, I have a fear that I don't have in Limited tournaments.

Bad matchups scare the crap out of me. When your opponent can play his first land and you know you've only got a 40% chance of winning this game, that scares the crap out of me.

When your opponent can play a card that just ruins your entire plan like Kataki, that scares me.

When your opponent draws more relevant cards in a mirror match than you and you just lose, that scares me.

I've never had the same confidence in Constructed as Limited. In Limited, your decks are much more even, and you can plan for bombs, and you can attack and block, and you'll hardly ever be surprised by card choices. In Constructed, so much work happens before you sit down and draw any cards.

Tomorrow I'm playing Boros Bushwhacker at State Championships. I think I'm even to a slight favorite against Jund since you can blow them out and their mana can be really awkward, even though I am declining on Goblin Ruinblasters since I don't think deck can reliably get to four mana on turn 4 (the only turn where it's really good). The deck's also really good against GW strategies that try to beat Jund since you're just faster and they rely on Noble Hierarchs which you can burn. I really don't see an edge in the Jund matchup, and I've been playing that online since it came out. I like Boros because it can feel like a combo deck like UR Dragonstorm back from Standard. I've played a lot of games in side-by-side testing with it, so we'll see how it goes tomorrow.

I think afterwards I'll evaluate my preparation for this tournament and figure out what needs to change for Extended season. As of right now, I really prefer side-by-side testing to random playtesting since you can be much more methodical with what matchups you want to test and what data you want to collect, rather than being at the mercy of the person in your group you're playing against getting bored with a deck or wanting to battle the deck he's already decided on. I also like being able to backup and revisit different lines of play that you don't understand without bogging down a playtest partner.