Common Sense: Work Out the Fundamentals

Posted on October 12, 2011 by souljah632

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Common Sense: Work Out the Fundamentals”.

 

  1. It would be worth to examine the UWR Trinket Mage deck more thoroughly. Okay, it doesn’t have an obvious plan for the fundamental turn, but does it actually not work?

  2. Not to repsond on behalf of Jon, but I think one of his points in this article is that a deck doesn’t actually work if it doesn’t have a plan for the fundamental turn.

  3. And that point would be nicely supported by showing that this particular deck really does not work.

  4. @milegyenanevem: Never in the course of the article did I state that the Trinkets deck did not do what the designer had intended it to do. if his goal is to replay pyrite spellbomb as many times as it takes to win, I can see this deck fulfilling that goal, in an unknown number of turns.

    To be fair, no one is going to play a deck that doesn’t do what it is supposed to. The issue i raised to my friend is not whether his game plan was something he could execute, but rather something he should execute.

    Taking a glance at the typical Pauper Daily Event Top Decks every Thursday on the Magicthegathering.com, this deck doesn’t combat the predominant strategies in any way I want to approach the format. I mean, Affinity has plenty of cards that can kill you if you don’t do your math right. White Weenie gains less concrete value but plays more formidable creatures. Izzetpost has the whole “inevitability” thing on lock and the high velocity decks like Infect or any version of Storm can snatch a win on turn 2 if they see all the right cards.

    What does this deck do to fight them? It has eight two-drop creatures (four of which I don’t want to play before turn five unless I have to), zero ways to trade evenly with a dude like Spire Golem, Myr Enforcer or Ulamog’s Crusher, and 2 options to interact with your opponent with one land in play.

    How do I win these matchups again?

    As to the supposed inevitability, control decks who focus their efforts on stopping the blue creatures in the Trinkets deck can usually coast to victory because the pressure this deck represents does not force the blue mage to shift their game plan. Pyrite Spellbomb or no, I wouldn’t choose to play this deck right now or advise it to anyone because it lets opposing decks build momentum without offering any resistance, placing its pilot firmly on the back foot. This isn’t a time in Pauper’s chronicled metagame where I wanna be reactive.

    Every deckbuilder asks themselves “What do I think this list can do?” Its the most fun aspect of this game, in my opinion. You can try to break cards that seem harmless and blowout the standard bearers of a given format with the right tech on hand. But that’s not what the article is about. The question this article should cause players to ask is this: ‘Is this what I want to be doing?”

    For players breaking into 2-man queues and tournament-level Pauper, the answer might not seem obvious at first. But the more and more you examine the matchups you have to plan ahead for, the more obvious it becomes this is not the route most players should be looking to take.

    As towards your impassioned defense of this list, Trinket Mage holds a place in my 10 favorite Pauper cards with a firm grasp, but the format is spread out so far that its just not the right time to invest in antique shopping on turn 3. Maybe a year ago, heck even 6 months ago, the format may have been more friendly to this type of deck. But I have to admit, baubles and bonesplitters don’t answer enough threats to make them a great choice.

    I think, with some sideboard analysis and a lenghty scouring of obscure commons, this list could be designed to beat anything. That being said, this deck cannot beat everything, and once the format becomes more defined I think U/x Trinkets will be a great deck. Until such a time comes I have to advise players what I think gives them a new perspective and a competitive edge through my writing, and this deck list simply is not it.

  5. I can understand the main problems with the deck: it doesn’t win early, and doesn’t obstruct the other deck enough. The latter is not a problem for the infect deck because it wins before the opponent would win, the former is not a problem for a control deck because it doesn’t let the opponent win when that opponent would win otherwise. Or with Fundamentsl Turns: if your deck’s fndamental turn is later then your opponent’s deck, then you should do something to make his FT arrive later.

    What the designer intends is to win. The only problem is if the deck doesn’t do that. What I would have loved to see in this article is a longer introduction with describing some games where thich deck loses, and then explaining that the reason is the Fundamental Turn.