ENTRY 7: Reflection
~ Why cling to these trappings? They are but tools and affectations. ~
(Forsake the Wordly)
It's been a long hiatus between this entry and my last which means I have not one but two sets of changes to cover before moving to my main topic. If you follow me on twitter, you may know the first change.
In one of the games I played over the past month, I was able to gain the monarchy from an opponent. I gave the monarchy up for one turn throughout the rest of the game. As I've described in previous posts, this deck is not only great at attacking, but also keeps my opponent's from attacking. As such, the monarchy is an ideal method of drawing. In the game which I had the monarchy, I rarely fell below five or six cards in my hand which is extremely important in helping me recover from a boardwipe and other forms of removal.
Court of Grace not only gives me some much needed card draw in a powerful form, but it also provides me with tokens to target with Taranika and regain my crown. To add this card, i excitedly cut Myriad Construct. The creature has quite a bit working against it. Firstly, it's a 4/4 so Taranika doesn't have a ton of synergy with the card even if I place the counters on it. However, I've rarely cast it for the kicker cost. Seven mana is just too much of an investment for a card that is as conditional as Myriad Construct. Having flexibility in your deck is always important — especially in mono white and especially when working with this kind of restriction.
Cutting Unstable Obelisk was a tougher decision. On its surface, Unstable Obelisk matches the theme of this post — it's a flexible card. However, the mana cost is actually a bit prohibitive. As with Myriad Construct, seven mana is just too demanding and having the option to cast two spells in a turn is extremely valuable. Stoic Farmer provides card advantage and potentially ramp, and unlike the obelisk, foretell offers some real flexibility in this deck that I haven't actually seen from the activated ability.
While determining my. cuts for these new additions, I came to two conclusions. First r touches on the nature of my additions. So far I've only added cards that received their first printing in 2020 and 2021. This was accidental at first, but moving forward I'm going to make this a new requirement. The hope of this restriction is that, at some point, I'll have a deck with no reprints in it at all. The goal of using reprints from sets like Mystery Booster and Double Masters was to have a functional initial deck. That objective was extremely successful. My hope is with new sets in 2021 I'll have enough new printings to have a highly functional deck made with only new mono white cards. The second observation was that cuts are getting more difficult already. This means that I'm going to likely be adding more cards that are over a dollar because these will tend to provide strict improvements on commons and uncommons making up the deck. If this is the case, it means that changes will be slower as I add only a single card approximately every two weeks. I'll monitor this, and if the resulting changes feel too slow, I'll determine if I need to change my. requirements. This is my first time working through this experience so I'm continuing to work out the specifics on the fly to create an enjoyable experience with which to follow along.
EXPLORING INTERPRETATIONS OF POWER LEVEL
Discussions of Power Level is an ongoing topic in commander. I even discussed the concept previously in Entry Five of this series, but recently the Professor tackled the topic with an excellent video. Before reading, I highly encourage you to take a moment and view it.
I really enjoy the questions posed in this video and wanted to make use of the timing of my own post to apply a concrete example to the method outlined. This is also an excellent vehicle by which to explore my own Taranika deck in further detail.
The first question posed in the video is "How long do we want to play?". My Taranika deck is looking to play a game that takes at least an hour, but possibly longer. It's unlikely that Taranika could win a game in an hour on its own, but that timeline would give the deck plenty of time to function. Taranika doesn't feature any mana acceleration nor is it a linear deck. To reach peak functionality, the deck needs time to develop its mana and its board. The reason I say an hour and not longer is because the deck doesn't need to win, nor do I want it to necessarily set the pace. I've mentioned it before, but the goal is for this deck to play against a wide variety of "power levels." As such, I expect to lose more than a handful of games and am perfectly content playing in a game that I could impact, but was unlikely (but still trying) to win. That brings me to the next question — "Are you playing to win or to socialize?" In the case of Taranika, as unlikely as it may be, I'm playing to win. While I enjoy interacting with people, this is a project to explore the recently printed white cards of new sets. To do justice to this exploration, my goal is to play the cards as optimally as possible, and I appreciate when my opponents try and do so as well. To me, this doesn't mean that the "more fun play" can't be made, but that plays made because they are funnier or chaotic are avoided. It also means that I'm going to be attacking — a lot. One thing I noticed is that this Taranika deck can produce quite a bit of aggro, and that can be frustrating to people. This questions gives me the chance to make clear, I'm going to try to make attacks that give me the most value as that's important to the functionality of the list. "What DON'T you like to play against?" As I've outlined in previous entries, I've approached this project with a "take on all challengers" perspective so there aren't any strategies I'm looking to outright avoid, but each week I am looking to learn something. Play against a powerful stax strategy that shuts down my deck isn't something I'll be looking for or okay with playing against every game. Similarly, decks that can only be interacted with on the stack aren't a great matchup for this list as I don't have access to counter magic or other ways to effect spells. While I'm open to different experiences, I'm still looking for matchups where different cards and strategies in the deck can be highlighted. This final step is one I've found to be very important — "Pick a deck for the table, not just the game." Taranika is a combat oriented commander with an extremely small effect relative to other commanders in the format. She's not going to generate insane amounts of value and, at the moment, the deck will function much like a slightly upgraded precon. While I'm open to being stomped, my opponents might not want to watch me simply roll over as they cast their spells. The deck is flexible, it can hang, but if the table is looking for similarly strong decks, this might not be the game for this project, and that's okay. After writing this, the strength of this method is that it not only discusses what your deck is trying to do, but what you, as the player, are looking to experience. I don't think there is a single set of questions or heuristics that will seamlessly solve issues of balance in commander. However, have a variety of methods to develop an understanding of what you and your deck are looking for in a game helps to shrink the magnitude of this problem from table to table.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMonoWhiteBorder -- A man who loves MtG and his small dog. Archives
June 2021
Categories"MonoWhiteBorder" and corresponding content is unofficial Fan Content permitted under the Fan Content Policy. Not approved/endorsed by Wizards. Portions of the materials used are property of Wizards of the Coast. ©Wizards of the Coast LLC.
|