Analyzing Worlds 31

For the second year running, we have a repeat World Champion in Seth Manfield. Seth made an incredible comeback from 0-2 in Limited to completely run the table. Not only did he go from 10-0 to secure a slot in the Top 8, but he also had a flawless victory, winning all nine games.

The deck Seth and other players from Team TCG Player wielded was this Izzet Lessons deck.

Accumulate Wisdom was the first card I noticed when reading the spoiler, and WotC made it happen by adding playable lessons like Firebending Lesson, Boomerang Basics, and Combustion Technique.

While Izzet Lessons was a known quantity, the big innovation, and the part that broke the deck completely, was the addition of Artist's Talent and Monument to Endurance. This two-card combo fits into the deck as smooth as butter and gives the deck both card selection and advantage, as well as a win condition with difficult interaction.

This is one of the more broken decks I've seen in Standard. It's a great deck, but it remains to be seen how it can compete in an environment where it's a target for attack.

I played some games with the deck, and it immediately felt like one of the most powerful Standard decks I've ever played. However, it will likely start to struggle as more players adopt cards that can interact with Monument to Endurance and Artist's Talent.

We watched a game where Seth won with zero cards in the library, against very little interaction. His Monuments were in awkward positions in his deck, and even though he fully churned through his deck, winning is tough when you have that much velocity and can't get chunks of damage in during your churn.

Well-timed Naturalize effects with a solid game plan may be able to favorably attack this deck. If I were to play a tournament this weekend I'd likely play the deck; however, I would pre-board for the mirror and add some Price of Freedom and a counterspell or two to the main deck in place of some of the spot removal. You can win with Otters and Gran-Gran, but it's much less reliable.

It will be interesting to see how this list iterates over time because the core of the deck is incredibly strong. The win condition was perfect for this event, yet a sideboard pivot or pre-board could make this deck dangerous on any given weekend.

This deck is completely absurd. I had a great time initially playing it on ladder, but it got monotonous playing against a turn-one Gran-Gran basically every round.

Matt Nass really did it again.

I streamed the entirety of the Top 8 and all Limited rounds, which were a bit boring because over two days they showed only two decks that weren't that exciting being drafted. The games were fairly interesting, yet there's not much to report on what we saw.

What was interesting was a situation in the Top 8 where Seth asked to take back a play. This situation was the talk of the town for a full two days, and Twitch chat went nuts. People came into my stream all week to ask me what I thought.

Here's my breakdown of what happened. Seth played carefully by managing triggers and stumbling around slightly. From my understanding, Seth doesn't play nearly as much Magic these days as he has in the past, especially in paper. I'm not making excuses, still I can see how and why it happened. The rules state players are allowed to rescind a play if no new information is gained. This is for situations like fetching the wrong land with a fetch land or casting a removal spell and deciding another creature would be better as you start to cast the spell. No relevant information was gained despite there being a single removal spell Ken could have cast in response. It wasn't a reasonable response to what was going on, and the timing would have been dubious. One relevant factor is Seth asking the judge about the withdrawal's validity. He didn't demand it or act entitled, instead he looked to the judge for guidance about retracting his play.

During every tournament I attend, I have one friend tell me a story where they were surprised an opponent was allowed a full withdrawal. Rules, for better or worse, have become more lenient over time. While I view it as a good thing, I respect the opinion of those who would rather have stricter rules at a higher level, at least to a degree.

Seth received a lot of hate for this, as did the judging staff, but neither should receive blame. It's a fine catalyst to discuss the rule itself, which is what should take the heat. I'd love for WotC to comment on what happened and why, as well as prompt discussion around better ways to resolve similar situations. A person in my chat said they once used this rule to select their turn-one land with a fetch because they forgot to put a land in play when the opponent asked them an unrelated game detail. Things like that are much worse for the game. The language of the rules can be tricky, but they allow for situations like Seth realizing he wanted to make a different play as a trigger of his own card went on the stack. This is in contrast to brain slips, such as my stream's chatter where they clearly meant to fetch a land and got distracted in the midst of resolving it. Perhaps if all opponents were more reasonable and lenient with those types of spots, then situations like Seth's could be more stringent without punishing some players.

It's a shame that a momentous weekend was tarnished because of a silly ruling that was unlikely to affect the match's outcome, as Seth was firmly in control of the game at the time of the take back. Although that can't be factored into the ruling, we can at least acknowledge that even if the rule was different, it likely wouldn't have affected the winner of the match and event.

Worlds always has a way to instill some fire in me. I have that feeling once again after watching a player I've played alongside of win their second Worlds. This is the same person who won my first Worlds, which was also the same year I won Player of the Year. With all the Limited events on the horizon, I'm extremely excited to fall in love with tournament Magic again, even if it's just for a little while.