Hey folks, I don't have alot of time right now to post details, but hopefully some of the players will post their own experiences and take on the regional tournament. I'll update this post with some more info when I get some free time.

Total Players: 10

Deck Types:

• 1 Pure High Elf
• 1 Order: Unitless Bolt Thrower
• 1 Destruction: Chaos Heavy Anti-Skaven
• 2 Dark Elf/Skaven
• 1 Dark Elf (some skaven? not sure)
• 2 Mono Orc
• 1 Chaos/Skaven
• 1 Order Deck Type No Name

1st Place: Order - Unitless Bolt Thrower

2nd Place: Destruction - Chaos Anti-Skaven

3rd Place: Dark Elf (some skaven? not sure)

4th Place: Chaos/Skaven

__________________________

I brought an Order deck because I thought that the tournament would be full of Destruction, I probably should have played my super optimized Dark Elf/Skaven, but alas, I wanted to be different.

I won 2-1 against my first opponent (Dark Elf/Skaven).

Against my 2nd opponent (Chaos/Skaven) I was 1-2. It was a close match, and the Chaos/Skaven deck was very fast and brutal, but also pretty predictable. I probably should have won, but I had horrible draws.

Against my 3rd opponent (Unitless Bolt Thrower) I was 0-2. Not even close, I should not even have bothered trying. Order decks cannot beat a unitless Bolt Thrower deck unless they are also a Bolt Thrower deck.

Against my 4th opponent (Dark Elf/Skaven) I was 1-2. At this point, half heartedly playing since I was clearly out of the running, but they were good matches.

Clearly, the Unitless Bolt Thrower deck should not have won. However, the way the pairings were, the Bolt Thrower deck NEVER played against an orc or skaven rush deck. As such, it made it to the victory table. Funny story really.

_____________________________

My Deck List

3x Dwarf Cannon Crew
3x Free Company
3x Huntsmen
3x Viligant Pistoliers
3x Viligant Elector
3x Reiksguard Knights
3x Dwarf Ranger
3x Zealot Hunter
3x Peasant Militia
2x Illyriel

3x Scout Camp
3x Warpstone Excavation
3x Great Book of Grudges
3x Runefang of Solland
3x Contested Village

3x Iron Discipline
3x Surrender!
3x Innovation
3x Empty the Hold

(I'll explain how the deck works with an edit later)

Nice to see some variety from the Skaven swarms.

Actually I feel I finely got a deck that can take on skaven head on. Like the 2nd place deck a pure chaos anti-skaven.

Cool report - sorry you didn't make it to the finals though! Sounds like you had fun at least.

I'm not sure that your assertion that the Bolt Thrower deck shouldn't win is correct. We have a Thrower deck that puts up very good numbers against Skaven and non-rush decks are pretty much a bye.

Clamatius said:

We were discussing this before and after Sheffield. Bolt Thrower is a tier one deck, but unfortunately Orc blitz and Dark Elf/Skaven are so broken that they have created a teir 0 which I think masks the power of the High Elf build.

Sure, but I think if you try something like Toberk's build (ours is a few cards different, but eh) then you'll find it is decent against Orc/Skaven and DE/Skaven although admittedly they are the worst matchup.

Orc/Skaven is generally worse for you than DE/Skaven since the DE deck has more dead cards (bolt throwers don't have a whole lot of blood to need, etc), the Orcs are faster and Pillage can be really annoying. I think the only games I've lost against DE/Skaven so far were when they played turn 1 Shades (or the horrific innovate, shades + shades) - scouts are pretty much the only thing you care about against them. Maybe Caught the Scent if they're actually running it, although usually only the DE control decks run that and they invariably can't put pressure on fast enough. Abandoned Mine helps a lot against the scouts but it's not always enough.

Bolt Throwers are strong against any deck that cannot pump out significant damage in the first 3 to 4 turns.

Unfortunately, after this tournament report, I'm fearing that all future tournaments will be seeing rock-paper-scissor deck designs, making the current tournament format somewhat silly and luck based on opponent match up.

Rush beats Bolt Thrower and Type 2+

Bolt Thrower beats Type 1+

Type 1 beats Rush

Type 2+ beats everything randomly but loses consistently against everything too

Yep. That was part of my argument for having sideboards in the tournament format - they tend to even out the rock-paper-scissors pairing factor a bit by making it easier to defend against very linear strategies. That said, the bolt thrower vs. non-rush matchup is probably the most lopsided matchup in the game right now - e.g. if you're playing against bolt thrower with a chaos control deck or something, your chances of winning are very poor, with or without sideboards.

I think the whole "type 1" or "tier 2" labeling is rather confusing (no offense at all to Fiendish, he's the man with our spoilers after all!). If everyone agreed on what decks fell into which category (unanimously), then labels like these would make sense but I doubt we all can agree on the quality level of every deck out there. I'd agree with calling Orc/Skaven or most Skaven builds as being "better decks or top decks" but any other kind of nebulous labeling seems confusing to me.

Wytefang said:

I dont think he meant the "type 1" and "type 2" to mean anything in specific, but more as variables as in algebra. He could have just as easily said deck X and deck Y. The tier system actually does mean something and the people who said it is within the context of a specific metagame are correct. The part that is wrong is assuming that decks labeled "tier 1" are somehow not the best decks. The idea of tiered decks in W:I is really premature I think as there really aren't that many tournaments (and matches within the tournaments) to determine a solid tier system. People can right now say that DE/Skaven and Orc/Skaven are probably Tier 1 but there still aren't really enough results to say for sure.

To further define the tiers. Tier 1 are tournament winning decks that win consistently. They define the metagame in a way that if you are playing a deck that isn't tier 1, your deck has to be able to beat the top tier decks or it isn't a viable deck to take to a competative tournament. Tier 1 decks typically comprise the majority of decks at most tournaments (the two skaven decks are probably pretty close), and that is why your "rogue" deck has to be able to have game against them because you WILL play against the tier 1 decks during the course of a tournament.

Tier 2 are decks that are somewhat competative in that they are decks that DO NOT have a large showing at a tournament and can potentially win if you get lucky with you pairings. These decks are typically weaker against some of the most played decks but can still win through luck or playskill (moreso if you can capitalize on a play mistake by the opponent). This is where the Bolt Thrower deck falls as it is close enough to pull some wins but still loses out to the tier 1 decks a majority of the time (more than 50%).

There really isn't anything beyond that, but some would call all "casual" or "non-competative" decks tier 3. I prefer to just call them non-competative.

Being that tiers are typically results based, there really isn't room for a deck that is the "best" to not be ranked. If a deck is really good enough, it will be played and it will post good results. That would lead to it being played more and if it consistently posted good results, it would be classified in an appropriate tier. The whole argument that Dormouse makes doesn't really happen. If there are enough tournament results, the decks typically stay the same. When a new bomb is printed in a new BP or something, it could alter the metagame and the tiers may shift (they usually don't, the new deck is typically just considered to also be tier 1). If a card were printed the made skaven completely obsolete, THEN, yes, they would probably move away from tier 1.

As I said though, i'm not entirely sure we have enough data to date to classify the decks as of now. We can classify them like I have above, but the margin of error is greater than it would be given more results.

Some definitions for those who may not know.

-Rogue deck = A deck that is new to the public. It is a deck that someone designed and has not made a tournament appearance with. Once a deck gets recognition, it is no longer rogue. Synonymous with "homebrew" deck.

-Have Game = A good chance to win. Synonymous with "have good odds against".

Total thanks for explaining this, Darkdeal - very, very appreciated. I also agree that it's probably a bit premature to start using any kind of genuine labeling/ranking system for decks just yet. Once we have more material to go on, I could see it being more useful!

FiendishDevil said:

Has anyone come up with an Order deck that is even remotely competitive against the characterless bolt thrower? It seems likely that Order is just not fast enough (i.e. cannot win on turn 4) to reliably compete with the characterless build. Also note that the characterless build will get stronger with every new reset or damage prevention card.

I have to say it is disappointing to see the environment (at least the competitive environment) degenerate so quickly. This game is a lot of fun and has great potential, but it is hampered by a significant number of broken cards (Skaven and economic lockdown in particular) and now a deck that beats everything that plays at "normal" or medium speed.

Dwarves actually do quite well against Boilt Thrower. They can swarm/blitz quite well and multiple units with toughness forces the opponent to dig for Flames of the Phoenix before being able to try and efficiently kill the Dwarf player. Add to that Demolition! and in some decks a positive desire to develop zones and you're left with a deck that can stack up quite well.

darkdeal said:

The biggest complaint I have with these forums is they completely ignore the largest group of players of this game, and so do all arguments about banning and nerfing cards. Thankfully FFg does not.

And yes, the whole argument I put forward does happen. I saw it in Magic when I played when they first started their tournament program and it got worse with the pro-tour and net-decking. I've played other games that managed to use different classifications that were more generalized and the player-base never developed down the highly stratified lines of those that have. This isn't really theory-crafting. Psychology being what it is I have no solid control roup by which I can prove my point but the research done in neuro-linguistic programming and gestalt principles do support this.

So I'm curious what you would side board to face the various decks then. Lets assume a ten card side board and the various decks most likely to be brought into a tournament being...

Orc Blitz

Orc/Skaven Rush

DElf/Skaven Rush

DElf/Skaven Control

Chaos/Skaven Rush

Chaos/Skaven Control

Unitless Bolt Thrower

Dwarf Aggro

Empire Mobility

dormouse said:

dormouse said:

As I said, with this game, it is probably premature to rank decks in such a way. But in a game as large as M:tG is now, or even smaller games like World of Warcraft TCG, it doesn't really happen. It is exceedingly rare that somebody finds some new tech that others do not find. It is also rare that it is casual players that find it as they aren't the ones putting in thousands of hours playtesting decks or spending the money to have the perfect cardpool. It will also get less likely when W:I starts changing the tournament scene to limit what sets can be played in decks. Truly casual players don't pay attention to those restrictions.

As a note, there is always a point right after a rotation, that is when a new set comes in and older sets rotate out of being legal for tournament play, that there are no tiered decks as the entire format basically starts over. But as soon as there are a round of tournmants to show results, decks start falling into place.

Do not expect rotation in any of the LCG's. Nate and I had a discussion about it and the fundamental nature by which it would violate the vision of the LCG. Understand I am not saying there won't ever be rotation, but the original idea behind the LCG was supplement packs were printed in a limited run and would not be reprinted, only the Core Set would see reprinting. That as cards wee no longer available and new cards came about allowing for new strategies that older cards would often fall out of use with the exception of the more powerful cards. Nate said he was really considering spot banning rather than rotation to remove cards that started to constrict design space or started dominating the environment.

With James in charge of this particular LCG I have no idea if this is still the case. I'm assuming Erric will be consulted by both gentlemen before any plan is put forward and I would be incredibly surprised if Christian doesn't have input on this, but I do expect all the LCG's to be handled in the same fashion by whichever means they decide on.

I have seen more casually minded players find really interesting combos. That to me translates as players with sharp quick minds that may play in tournaments but don't feel the need to play the best deck(s) available at all times, saving those for actual tournaments and the various strategy and testing sessions leading up to them. Playing with cards that had been summarily dismissed by the competitive meta will sometimes lead to discoveries. This should not be taken to say competition minded players never refer back to older cards that were considered too inefficient to use, in an attempt to find some way of breaking something, but again it tends to be the quickest of the quick, the sharpest of the sharp, and those with the most mental flexibility when it comes to thinking outside of the box... and we definitely have some people on this board that qualify... though I'd go so far as to say most competition minded players won't. Thinking outside of the box is not what they do. Net decking and minor tweaking is what they do. Sticking to formulas about unit/support/tactic numbers, deck size, and other assumed truths because of the structure it provides. We have some of those here too. And we have some that fall inbewteen. They have very ordered minds that cling to certain truisms, but will evaluate and re-evaluate cards and combos and tactics, constantly trying to find ways to beat or redefine the metagame, rather than trying to keep up or climb to the top of it.

Wow, thats some pretty bad pop psychology you have going there combined with a brush so broad it might block out the sun.

I don't agree, Andwat - Dormouse has raised some excellent points.

dormouse said:

This is quite important. The fundamental nature of the game was to deny new players access to old cards? I'm sure that casual players wouldn't mind that much, but the more competitive playerbase might have an issue with that. If I convince a few new players to satrt this summer I have to tell them that they can no longer get the Corruption Cycle cards (apart from hunting down odd packs here and there) and so they can;t play with card X even though it's legal for me to build a deck using it?

dormouse said:

Wow, you really have a chip on your shoulder about competitve play. I think that you've confused good competitive players with bad players who play good decks designed by others.

Andwat said:

Interesting interpretation... also completely wrong.

crowdedmind said:

Actually I don't. You were one of the players I was referring to being competitively minded but able to think outside of the box, defining and refing the meta rather than trying to keep up with it. I enjoy healthy competition, like to challenge myself, and enjoy the camaraderie that results from competing against people with balanced social lives.

Can you honestly tell me you haven't seen these kinds of players... players who are socially/casually minded, but extremely talented in design and skill who like to test themselves in competition or competitive players who net deck and play the popular deck type that is winning tournaments and get blindsided when a new deck/combo/strategy crops up and slowly starts making its way trough the meta and then switch immediately to that new hotness? I've been playing various games CCG and otherwise competitively for years, and I'm pretty sure you have as well. I can't be the only one who has noticed these types of players. There are plenty of negative stereotypes about casual players I could comment on, but casual players very nearly by definition, don't get out much into our world. They may game at game stores rather than in their homes/apartments, but they usually are pretty insular, and they rarely go to big tournaments or post obsessively on boards dedicated to their game, so commenting on their various flawed archetypes is rather pointless, except to make competitive minded players feel better about the fact that within their ranks are some real asshats.

I am a competitive player. That doesn't mean I can't speak the truth as I see it about my compatriots. Munchkins are predictable evil in gaming, and you will find their equivalent in pretty much any field, sport, or hobby. What is the point of ignoring their existence? If they get called out on it, maybe a couple of them will seek to be better sports, try creating decks on their own, or realize that while winning is nice, how you win, and how you act when you win is every bit as, if not more important.

I still think that you're being too broad when using the term 'competitive player'. It seem like the negative competitive player you're referring to is an average player who plays a game where very powerful decklists are circulated so all they do is follow what the playerbase says is good. A combination of not playing Magic and living in the UK means that I've not really come across many of this player, but I understand that they make up a not-insignificant proportion of many Magic tournaments. To me, they're not good players (although I've been trying not to use the word 'good'). Good players are people that can build decent decks and play well. They are able to understand the environment and make those minor tweaks to a deck that take it from a basic build of archetype to one that has increased utility and synergy. I'm sure that there are casual players who would make good competitive players but you don't really meet them at they tend not to have the cards available to build the deck they'd like to. I'd much prefer to label players good, average and bad rather than competitive and casual because we're only really going to be talking about players who attend tournaments. I realise that using adjectives such as good and bad are likely to cause problems however so I'm refraining from doing so.

I'd also like to point out that I don't think that we've really seen an innovative deck yet (although ironically we've seen lots of decks with Innovation). The destruction blitz builds are so obvious and their power comes from a handful of overpowered cards (and one actually broken one) that it's no surprise people are building them. I'd even go so far as to say that Bolt Thrower is not really that innovative a build. The first thing some players do when looking at a new game is see what the core intention is and then see if you can build a deck that is the polar opposite. The core intention of Invasion is units hitting each other and so building a deck with no units is the first step to avoid that. We may still see a unit-less deck that's innovative but Repeater Bolt Thrower took away the need to worry about what your win condition was going to be and it's so different as to be obvious.

We will see innovative builds do well in the future, but we currently have a limited card pool (the equivalent of only one expansion) that has been stretched across an environment lasting 6+ months. There are some builds that are bubbling under (I've got an Empire defensive switch deck that's almost there), but we need something to stop blitz being the default build before anything else can flourish.

For Wytefang:

Switch refers to switching between two styles of play or victory conditions (or having the capability to do so) during a game. Defensive (or step up) switch is an initially defensive control build which switches to an explosive aggro finish. Aggressive (or step down) switch is an initially, well, aggressive aggro deck that can switch to control to finish the game.

Thanks, CrowdedMind. Exellent definition because I was assuming you meant switching zones with Empire units (their specialty as we all know). Appreciate the explanation. Sounds cool.