- May Qualifier: Players are wrongly afforded one loss to spare instead of two. Many players are eliminated prematurely.
- June Qualifier: Despite the official Arena schedule and multiple announcements pages listing the Qualifier as Historic for months, the tournament goes live on Arena as Pioneer. The Arena Team eventually corrects the error after players complain they had spent weeks testing Historic.
- July Qualifier: Players are afforded 36 hours to finish their Day 1 matches, and then another 36 hours to finish their Day 2 matches, instead of the 10 hours per day as is custom.
- September Qualifier: A few months prior, the Arena Team realized they had significantly undershot the number of qualifications per month and changed the Day 2 threshold from 6 wins to 4 in order to qualify more people for the Arena Championship. However, they let participants continue to play until their 6th win anyway, resulting in extremely foreseeable collusion. Possibly having become aware of this issue, the Arena Team altered Day 2 of the August Qualifier so that it cuts players off after their 4th win. For September, the Day 2 structure inexplicably reverts to the 6-win format and has remained that way since.
- October Qualifier: Players who got 4 or 5 wins in the prior month's Qualifier are incorrectly invited directly to Day 2 in the October Qualifier. Somehow, 6-win players are not invited.
- November Qualifier: Attempting to account for Daylight Savings, the Arena Team accidentally alters the two-hour entry window times in the wrong direction. Instead of 6-8am PST, entry is moved to 4-6am PST. As a result many players who had made Day 2 are unable to participate.
- November Qualifier: Day 1 participation tokens are not handed out to many players who are eligible to play in the Qualifier. To "fix" this issue, the Arena Team grants all of these people direct access to Day 2, despite a small fraction of Day 1 participants making Day 2 (under typical circumstances).
MTG Musings
A blog by Dan (@MTGNosferatu on Twitter)
Monday, November 3, 2025
Is Anybody in Charge of the Arena Qualifier Weekends?
Wednesday, July 23, 2025
What Went Wrong at Pro Tour Aetherdrift
One strange thing about important Magic tournaments is that you spend far more time preparing for them than you do actually playing in them. And then you spend even more time reflecting on them after they’re over. Compared to the months spent anticipating and reflecting on the event, Magic tournaments go by in a flash: they compress all the tough decisions, lucky breaks, and emotional highs and lows into one fateful weekend.
It’s now been over five months since I participated in Pro
Tour Aetherdrift. I haven’t played a significant tournament since then, and the
event went poorly, so it’s easy to stew over the experience despite so much
time having passed. My 7-9 record was technically my worst Pro Tour record in
six PT-level events lifetime. This isn’t statistically anomalous: I had a 56%
lifetime PT winrate entering the event and won 44% of my matches in the event,
well within a normal range of likely outcomes. What made it doubly frustrating
though was that (1) I think I’m better at Magic now than I was when I played in
these past events and (2) this was my first time on a very strong, organized
testing team.
In particular, my constructed rounds were disastrous. I went
4-2 in Aetherdrift draft and 3-7 in Standard playing Jeskai Convoke. I’ll focus
here on constructed since that’s where things went awry.
For reference, I played this list: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/6937676#paper
1. Fancy Deck Choice Syndrome
I qualified for Pro Tour Aetherdrift by playing Gruul Mice
at Arena Championship 7. On the whole, I was lucky in that event and
also played well. I felt in control of my decision-making,
and the deck fit my strengths as a player: lots of technical sequencing
decisions, risk-assessment, making my opponent’s cards line up poorly.
The Pro Tour was only two months after the Arena
Championship and Gruul Mice remained a tier one deck. The lists had barely
changed at all from the Arena Championship, and they incorporated zero new
Aetherdrift cards. Gruul Mice was on every player’s radar. It therefore seemed difficult
to get a leg up on the competition by running back the same deck. Despite this,
Gruul was so solid and hard to exploit that if I had tested by myself,
it’s highly plausible I would have just played Gruul and focused on limited.
But I wasn’t testing by myself. Rather, I was fortunate to work
with Team Handshake for the event. In this context the notion of playing Gruul
seemed especially bad: I’d be giving up the advantage of working with a top
team if I simply defaulted to the stock deck I would have played anyway. With
that said, multiple times later in the testing process I outwardly acknowledged
that I’d probably be maximizing my win percentage if I locked in Gruul and
focused on drafting, and several teammates agreed with me.
Meanwhile, some of our team (namely Simon Nielsen and Karl
Sarap) was high on Jeskai Convoke. I had previously thought the matchup vs
Gruul was bad, but our plan of Regal Bunnicorn, Sheltered by Ghosts, and Surge
of Salvation seemed to swing the matchup to at least 50/50. Moreover, Domain
was supposed to be difficult, but with sideboard counters the matchup seemed
fine. We initially thought Esper Pixie was a good matchup but in the last few
days of testing we felt the opposite. Towards the very end we added a couple of
Wilt-Leaf Lieges to our sideboard, which are a high-variance way to steal the
matchup (or alternatively sit in our hand and do basically nothing).
Overall, the matchup spread for Convoke appeared solid—probably
about as good as the matchup spread for Gruul. The tiebreaker for me was that
Convoke was unexpected and would give me a deck edge. In retrospect, I believe this
effect was too small to override my greater confidence in Gruul both in it
being a strong deck and in my ability to play it.
2. I Didn’t Have Much Time
I drew the above conclusions—that Convoke is a good deck and
with a solid matchup spread—based on relatively few games actually playing the
deck. By comparison, I had played hundreds of games with Gruul in the weeks and
months leading up to the Pro Tour. I had played a reasonable amount with
Boros Convoke—a different Convoke iteration we had been trying—and I had played
a bit with similar Convoke decks in past formats. But the Jeskai Convoke list
we registered I probably played fewer than 40 total games with before the
event. I’m not even sure I was wrong about the aforementioned conclusions, but most
of them involved trusting my teammates rather than confirming them myself. Which,
to be clear, is fine—the Convoke ringleaders, Simon and Karl, are better and
more experienced players than I am, and I certainly trust them—but I didn’t
have the level of personal comfort with the deck choice that comes from seeing
it winning in my own hands.
I also didn’t have many reps playing the games. I felt
comfortable enough playing the deck in testing. I understood the
common technical decisions and broader gameplans. (If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have
played the deck.) In the tournament itself, I didn’t feel uncomfortable making
the decisions, and almost no in-game decisions jumped out as obviously wrong.
But I didn’t play the sheer number of games required to master
the deck and it's possible I was missing subtle things.
One area where I’m sure I made mistakes was mulliganning. These
are in my opinion the most challenging decisions when playing the deck. Jeskai
Convoke asks a lot of you: you need three colors of mana AND not too many
painlands AND enablers AND payoffs. AND our version added an additional layer
of inconsistency because it was playing extra situationally powerful cards like
Bunnicorn and Sheltered by Ghosts which range from great to horrible depending
on the matchup. Overall, Convoke has a very low floor and a very high ceiling,
but you don’t have the luxury of mulliganning every hand without the right
elements. You have to take risks: keeping a one-lander that can produce a turn
2 Knight-Errant if you hit a land, for example. These decisions aren’t easy, but Simon
presented a series of mulligan decisions to the rest of the Convoke players in
the day prior to deck submission and I felt comfortable with the decisions/thought
process and found I was usually reaching the right conclusions, even with the more unintuitive hands. Thus, once again I felt comfortable
enough registering the deck. With that said, I did get several mulligan
decisions wrong during the event.
The lack of prep time had far-reaching effects beyond not
getting reps with Convoke. I also didn’t draft enough (I only got in around ten
MTGO single elimination drafts when my goal was at least twenty); I didn’t have
time to try Eli Kassis’s UW Control deck that ended up being the best choice in
the whole tournament; and most frustratingly, I had built a version of Domain
with no Caverns early in testing that I was optimistic on but I ended up not
having enough time to put it through its paces (a similar version ended up
winning the whole Pro Tour, and Domain was the most winning archetype among the
popular decks). I spent a lot of time testing and brainstorming the formats, but
with a full-time job I ended up having nowhere near enough time to do
everything I wanted.
3. Other, Non-Magic Factors
I generally perform worse in live tournaments than in online tournaments. When I do poorly in a live tournament with a deck/in a format after winning a lot online, I’m often left scratching my head. There are many possible causes:
- Do my brain synapses not fire in the same way when playing live Magic because I don’t recognize patterns in the same way I do online?
- Am I wasting mental energy tracking triggers and the physical boardstate, particularly challenging with a deck like Convoke that uses a bunch of tokens and dice?
- Am I getting physically exhausted from long days of stressful matches? By Round 16 was physical and mentally exhausted, but I felt relatively energetic up until the last couple rounds of Day 2.
- Am I not shuffling enough? My draws were bad; am I not sufficiently randomizing? Sounds unlikely, but who knows?
- Am I getting cheated? None of my opponents seemed suspicious. But so many cheaters are caught after years of what was presumed to be clean play, which indicates many people are not catching cheats—am I one of those people getting cheated?
I find all of these possibilities unsettling, because each
tests abilities I don’t consider core to being a good Magic player. But the
last possibility is the most unsettling.
I can fix most or all of these things by simply playing more live tournaments. The problem is, I don’t enjoy live tournaments very much. They require acquiring cards on short notice; they involve expensive travel; they’re exhausting; and most of all, they are a big time commitment in the face of many competing obligations. Going forward, I will try to attend some more live tournaments here and there, both to get more live reps and to hopefully change my mindset such that I start to enjoy attending them more. Traveling with friends is one easy way to improve the experience.
4. Maybe It Was Just Bad Luck
I cast a turn 2 Knight-Errant only once or twice the entire
tournament. My Gruul opponents had the Heartfire Hero into Valiant enabler draw
most games. Many opening hands were clear mulligans (lacking critical pieces
with no upside of a powerful start). I never assembled Bunnicorn + Sheltered vs
Gruul, and I never put a Liege into play versus Pixie. While I certainly made some questionable
mulligan decisions, it felt like almost all my close calls were in situations like
the following: I’m on the draw against Gruul, I’ve already mulliganned once,
and they ended up having a turn 4 kill. Which is to say: I surely did some
things wrong (not mulliganning to five), but in those situations it felt like
the optimal play would increase my likelihood of winning from, let’s say, 10% to
13%.
Across the ten constructed rounds it was rare for my deck to function well
for multiple games in the same match. My opponents didn’t have poor draws. Most
of my losses were blowouts. It didn’t feel like there was much I could do,
other than mulligan (or not mulligan) a few borderline hands. I felt like Convoke
had betrayed me. Maybe I was just very unlucky. But the days were long, and I
didn’t have a full mastery of my deck, so maybe there are subtle plays I totally missed at the time.
The two days of Pro Tour Aetherdrift were a blur of
frustration and regret. (Notably, the days spent with my team leading up to the
event were extremely fun.) Five months later, I’m no more sure of where things
went wrong than I was on the flight home, but going forward I will resolve to do the
following:
- Default to the deck I am much more familiar with when deciding between two choices that seem similarly good. Even if I feel comfortable with the choice with which I have fewer reps, I will choose the one with which I have far more reps.
- Assume I have less time than I think I do and cut my losses when it gets late in the testing process. That means locking in a deck earlier and focusing on tuning the final slots/getting reps or, in the case of the Pro Tour, focusing on the draft format.
- Attend at least one or two RC/Spotlight Series events per year, traveling there with friends.
Monday, December 30, 2024
Arena Championship 7
- It was very strong against Dimir's game 1 configuration, which usually included no Preacher/Sheoldred and sometimes even cards like Saiba Cryptomancer and Faebloom Trick. Small blue creatures don't block well against big Gruul creatures.
- It was (at least slightly) favored against the decks trying to prey on Dimir, including Convoke, Simic Tempo, and Zur Domain.
- Golgari, which I believe to be Gruul's worst matchup among the common decks, was being pushed out of the format by Dimir.
Monday, July 15, 2024
Qualifying for the Arena Championship
- Get home from Thursday night concert at 1am (Pacific Time)
- Wake up at 6am, drink a coffee, speedrun the qualifier play-in to finish by 9am to hang out with my family
- Get home from Friday night concert at 1am
- Wake up at 6am, drink a coffee, speedrun day 1 of the qualifier to finish by 9am to hang out with my family
- Get home from Saturday night concert at 1am
- Wake up at 6am, drink two coffees, speedrun day 2 of the qualifier to finish by 9am to rush to airport for flight home
Monday, October 2, 2023
When You Can't Afford to Play Around It
One of the earliest things we learn in our foray into competitive Magic is to not play around cards we cannot beat. If you are at 3 life and your opponent attacks their 2/2 into your 3/3, you always block because, if you play around a pump spell by not blocking, they cast the pump spell on their 2/2 and you lose. Another example: your aggro deck has 6 power on the board and you just attacked your control opponent to 8. If your last card in hand is a 2/2 you should play it, because if the opponent casts Wrath of God effect next turn you are losing anyway, even if you hold the 2/2.
The reason we use these examples to teach this concept is that they reduce the concept to very simple terms. In the event the opponent does have the card we’re worried about, regardless of the choice we make we clearly lose the game on the spot. Literally on the spot, in the case of the pump spell example; in the Wrath example, our win percentage is reduced to ~0% on the spot, even if the game may continue for several more turns. Both examples occur in the very late stages of the game. But to maximize our chance of winning, we can’t wait until the final turns of a game; we always need to be on the lookout for these cases. These situations occur all the time, as early as the first turn.
Example #1:
You’re playing Murktide in Modern against 4C Beanstalk Omnath. Your opponent is on the play and has kept 7 cards. You mulligan to 6. Your opponent plays a fetchland and passes (presumably to fetch a Triome on your end step). You draw for your first turn and your hand consists of lands, Ragavan, Consider, Counterspell, and Expressive Iteration. The question: whether to hold up Consider or cast turn 1 Ragavan into a possible Wrenn and Six, which, if the opponent has it, will likely win them the game on the spot.
In this situation, I cast Ragavan. If you don’t cast the Ragavan you’ll still likely lose to Wrenn if the opponent has it, and now you’ll lose to most non-Wrenn draws too. For example, what if their 2-drop is Beanstalk instead of Wrenn? Now you can’t pressure them and they’ll grind you out. Even if the opponent is around 50% to cast Wrenn and, say, 80% to win if they immediately kill your Ragavan (i.e., you’re 40% to lose the game right away if you cast the Ragavan), your win percentage is even lower if you pass the turn. It’s tempting to hold up Consider, but I don’t think this is a winning play.
Example #2:
I remember a few years ago I was prepping for one of the Arena Pro Tours, the Strixhaven Championship. Our team was pretty set on Phoenix, but in the final day or two of testing Jeskai Control emerged as a dark horse. We were interested in Jeskai in part because it had a great Phoenix matchup. It had cards like Anger of the Gods and Rest in Peace to stop the Phoenixes and plenty of cheap removal and counters for the other threats. From the Phoenix side, we were trying out Improbable Alliance as a threat that could dodge the removal of the control deck. (Spoiler alert: we determined Alliance wasn’t reliable enough and didn’t end up playing it. We also determined Phoenix was too strong in general and so we dismissed Jeskai.)
I was watching a teammate test Phoenix against Jeskai. I can’t recall the exact hands, but I remember it was the Phoenix player’s turn 2 on the draw, it was post-sideboard, and the Jeskai deck had 2 mana up, representing one of 7 counterspells they could cast here (Dovin’s Veto or Mystical Dispute). The Phoenix player played their second land and their hand was several cantrips and an Improbable Alliance. The question was: should they play the Improbable Alliance into a likely counter, thus leaving them with zero threats, or should they play around a counter by instead playing a couple of 1-mana cantrips? The player elected to cast the cantrips. I didn’t think much of the play in the moment, but I remember Matti Kuisma and Sam Rolph (two extremely strong players) butting in that they’d have cast the Alliance.
Reflecting on it, I think casting Alliance was clearly the correct play. It feels very bad to slam your only threat into a likely counter, significantly reducing your chances of winning the game on the spot if they have it. But the overall situation (and the matchup) was too bad to play passively; even if the opponent was, say, 65% to have a counter, spending your early turns casting cantrips instead of trying to pressure the control opponent is a recipe for a very likely loss. Moreover, Veto is impossible to play around: it is a hard counter that you cannot interact with, even if you were to find a counter of your own. Given your hand and given the matchup, you need to try and steal this game, so you should take your ~35% shot to put a sticky threat onto the board and try to ride it to victory. In fact, while 35% sounds bad, that number gets even worse as the game progresses, as the Jeskai player sees more cards and has more chances to find a counter.
Is Anybody in Charge of the Arena Qualifier Weekends?
The Arena Qualifier Weekends are known for their convenience, letting you play important matches on demand. They are known for feeding the A...
-
The Arena Qualifier Weekends are known for their convenience, letting you play important matches on demand. They are known for feeding the A...
-
Two weekends ago I participated in Arena Championship 7, playing Gruul Aggro. I prepared for the event with fellow Arena Championship compe...
-
One strange thing about important Magic tournaments is that you spend far more time preparing for them than you do actually playing in them....











