So, I was going to put this up Thursday with my 'Bearsday' piece - this was actually an extension from a section of it that I couldn't get to gel right - , but I figured I needed something to read at class and work tomorrow so I thought I'd put this up tonight and I would enjoy the discussion that follows.

Please guys, if you want to make a positive comment or something just rep a random NorCaler. I would however, like any posts on this subject to be first and foremost to be a discussion about the VS System and how we can get better at it.

I also wanted to put this out there so Fatalsync could get another glimpse of my writing. Shameless ftw.

Here goes:

*Ahem*

Which of the following is true:

“Syndicate Inhuman rush has a great match-up against Checkmate because it has too many guys for Checkmate to handle. The Contract renders the DEF pumps irrelevant, and Syndicate has simply too many pumps to close the game early.”

Or:

“Checkmate has a great match-up against Syndicate Inhuman rush because its characters are so large, and it’s more suited for a war of attrition because of the Fate Artifacts and Checkmate Safe House.”

Both of these can be correct in individual situations, but since they are the opposite of each other one can only be correct as a trend.

Now, if you HAVE played this match-up, I would appreciate you from refraining from posting the reality of the match-up until a few people have posted about it.

I am more curious as to those of you who have NOT played the match-up think. Please, please post your two cents on the match-up.

Moreover, how did you come to this conclusion? Is it the deck you like that’s favored more? Are you excessively paranoid of Quicksilver? How much is it judged by experiences from formats that are no longer valid?

We’ll come back to this later, but first:

Mental VS

What is Mental VS?

Mental VS is the usage of of theory used to predict the general outcome of certain match-ups. Recently, it’s become sort of a way to bash someone who seems to have no idea what they’re talking about.

The thing about Mental VS is that while we all know it’s quite bad, we often find ourselves unable to avoid doing it. Judging from the average poster on VSRealms , I would say most VS players are probably in their twenties with many other non-gaming obligations.

With such time constraints, the reality is it simply takes too long to test match-ups, and often, it’s much more convenient to speculate based on what seems to make sense.

Sometimes the logic is really hard to dispute: For example, a Darkseid deck should beat a Checkmate VU right? After all, Checkmate needs to flip those locations which Darkseid can penalize and can destroy right?

I mean, if I were to throw this out to you and you had no familiarity with the two, your first reaction would probably be affirming my statement.

It makes perfect sense.

That’s Mental VS.

Guess we don’t need to test that match-up right?

Well, things are often much more complicated then that. . .

You, Me, and Us

There are three factors – maybe two and a half – that guide constructed:

The first factor is you, our hero. What are you trying to do? What turn do you want to win? What cards are you going to play etc?

Then there’s your opponent, the bad guy. He’s trying to do some kind of stuff too, but he’s an evil jerk.

Then there’s the third factor, which is arguably the most important one: What happens when you and your opponent collide?

Your opponent is rarely going to sit around idly and let you execute your plan: He is going to be attacking and disrupting your strategy, while pushing forward with his plan.

This is where the fun of VS comes; trying to outmaneuver your opponent. The best, memorable, and most fun games of VS are a strategic game of tit for tat where both players make exchanges and try to mold the game state to fit their strategy.

It is very hard for Mental VS to accurately assess what happens when two decks interact. There are just too many subtleties when it comes to game play. Regardless of how insightful you are, unless you actually have tried a match-up, it’s hard to get a feeling for how different decks actually react under the burden of interacting with the other deck.

Does that mean Mental VS isn’t important?

No. It is important. I think Mental VS is a great tool as long as you use it properly.

The problem is, a lot of VS players use Mental VS the wrong way. I think when correctly done though, Mental VS is much more open ended.

Smarter Then the Average Bear

It’s round five of the Silver Age tournament at the VS MegaWeekend. My opponent is Tim ‘Valde’ Rivera. I pull out my thinking cap and speculate-

(Deep breath. . .)

I know Tim is playing a Deadshot deck, and that he came with Adam. I knew Adam is friends with Tommy Ashton, and I had seen him fate up Punisher, so I pegged him for playing Ashton’s build on Metagame.

It's pretty obvious that a Fated Punisher on turn four is very bad for my deck – Darkseid and Gotham Knights - which is reliant on keeping my four drop Darkseid in play in order to draw cards and flip tricks down with Ancient Throne.

Following that train of thought, my only recourse was to Fate up Darkseid as soon as humanly possible. If I do that, he’s going to have a lot of trouble Darkseid has 9 DEF, and Ashton’s build had neither pumps nor power-ups. I unfortunately, am pretty much stuck with this plan since I don’t have equipment hate.

However, Ashton’s deck also runs Level 12 Intelligence - Tim had Zinco but for the sake of my example the difference is mostly irrelevant - which could smash my Amulet of Nabu and put me in a situation where I would have to double pump in order to escape the stun. However, my deck ran no recursion, and thus powering up is a route we’d rather avoid since it denies me of my late game curve.

My only recourse then, was to hold my Bat Got Your Tongue for his equipment hate. The plan was to try to gum up the board and let my engine draw me the pumps and negation needed to break ahead on turn six – where Terrax generally removes Punisher from the equation.

However, given that Ashton’s deck runs only one copy of Punisher, his build is heavily reliant on using search effects to nab it.

Thus, perhaps I should use my negation to stop his search?

So the conclusion of my Mental VS is that this match-up is dependent on a few factors, mainly: Can I Fate up early? Can I negate his equipment hate? Should I negate his search?

Using Mental VS, I was able to create an angle of attack, a strategic blueprint for success.

Notice that I don’t make a judgment about the match-up. I don’t say this should be easy because of x, or it should be tough because of y. That’s missing the whole point of correctly done Mental VS. The entire purpose of this speculation is to draw focus on certain aspects of the match-up that you can exploited, and not to make assumptions.

Unless you have played enough games of it to know the deck’s capabilities – in this situation, how often they can muster more copies of equipment hate then you negate, or how often can you fate-up etc - making any sort of overall assessment is very premature. More importantly, trying to figure out whether or not you are favored is nothing compared to finding out how you should approach the match-up.

What I can do, is isolate the variables I need to control, then tie that into my main game plan and follow through.

The thing is... my Mental VS was wrong. Rivera had another out:

Rann.

See, your opponent’s aren’t stupid, and I think that’s a big problem of Mental VS – you more or less assume the other guy is a dummy.

Maybe the first few rounds, you’ll run into some dunces. If you want to make top 8 though, you’re going to eventually meet players that are equally or even more dedicated then you. These players might even be better then you. Is it really smart to treat these two categories of players the same?

This is why I’ve never been a big fan of hate decks in VS. The good players know the hate is coming. They’ve planned for it. That’s why they’re good. The people you’re going to beat with your absurd amount of hate are the bad players.

The thing is... these are the players you likely could’ve beat with a non-hate deck. You really don’t need help beating these guys.

Your Fatality and Total Anarchy deck might beat Ahmed on paper, but how bad does your deck become when they have the Alley? Sure, tech in Have a Blast too. Even then, are you really guaranteed to consistently beat Ahmed?

I doubt it – all you’ve done is make your deck vulnerable to bad draws and to other decks.

Now does the fact that Tim had Rann make my thought process invalid? I don’t think so. I made the incorrect assumption that if I had met the above criteria of protecting my artifacts I would win when in reality that wasn’t the case. Despite that however, I still think that my assessment of the match-up is more or less correct.

However, theory does not make reality.

Mental VS is a tool that is best used as a guideline, never as an indicator.

Probes and Carriers

Another mistake with Mental VS is people often look at metrics that don’t matter.

When we compare decks, I think two factors are most crucial: Card economy and board control.

Card economy is probably more familiar to you guys as card or hand advantage, but I choose to use it because it’s more encompassing. The difference is I feel that card economy isn't just about going through raw cards, but just the motion of moving cards through searches and draw effects. The deck thinning of search effects, and draws all over time add up to help you.

You don’t necessarily have to be up on cards as long as you are going up towards quality.

Ahmed is a great example; this guy makes winning so easy because he gets you everything you need. He guarantees you card quality by virtue of his power.

Card engines don't have to be bound in a linear fashion like Ahmed and his locations though. The Fate set is also an engine of cards but more diverse, as is the synergy of Press, Minerva, and the Science Spire of Kree VU.

Card economy is very important because good draws will allow you to establish and cement your board position. The more cards you draw, the more likely you will draw into pumps, exhaustion, search which all give you a better chance of controlling the board or ending the game on your terms.

The other half is board presence. The focus here is the characters: How big are they, what their powers do etc. This part is pretty easy to speculate on – just line up your curve against their curve and sees what advantages emerge in relation with each other.

These two are tied together intimately and it can be very hard to make a clear division between them. Without going too far into theory, I feel that:

In the match-ups between two slower decks, the deck with the better card economy will win out.

In the match-ups between a slow deck and a fast deck, the deck with the better board presence will win out.

In the match-ups between two fast decks, the deck with the better card economy will win out.

I'm sure we can think of exceptions, but these are true in the most case.

Beneath The Superficial

Going back to the Darkseid vs Checkmate example:

Darkseid's Elite have a pretty robust engine of card economics. Darkseid, Apokolptian Oppressor is almost always guaranteed to nab a card or three and Ancient Throne turns each bad card you draw into a good one.

However, Ahmed Samsarra is also very good - strong understatement - at finding cards. In fact, the quality of what Ahmed finds is likely better then the quality of what Darkseid draws even if he does go through more physical cards.

So for the sake of discussion, let's call it even - even though I do think Ahemd is ahead.

The clincher, is that Checkmate is much better at controlling the board. If the Checkmate player goes Alan Scott on four, he’s already put the Darkseid player in a deficit of cards.

See, the Darkseid player then needs to either burn cards to get through the White King, OR team attack and weaken his board. Factor in Fate Artifacts and Safe Houses and it should be apparent that Alan Scott actually 'draws' Checkmate quite a few cards.

The other thing is Brother Eye. This card should be banned or something – lol – reusable pumps are insane. Each activation is in some ways the same as drawing a card (a pump) .

Now in a match-up where you have a comparable – if not better – source of card economy and a much more powerful set of cards to dominate the board, I ask you: Does Darkseid really have the up on Ahmed Samsarra?

Now, of course you can obviously tweak your Darkseid deck to beat Checkmate decks etc, but in my experience I’ve always found that the Dark God has trouble with the Dark Skinned God –no racist, yes awesome - despite how favorable the match-up would seem.

Bear Has Spoken

Bad Mental VS is a big reason I think why so many people dislike the Fate Artifacts. At the most superficial level, people look at the Fate Artifacts and see that the Amulet makes a guy very big.

So if you smash their Amulet, you win, right? Big = bad, small = good, right?

This is lazy, irresponsible and most importantly BAD deckbuilding.

BAD

BAD

BAD

(I think it stems a lot from other CCGs where hosers that auto wreck you are much more prevalent.)

"Few players recall big pots they have won, strange as it seems, but every player can remember with remarkable accuracy the outstanding tough beats of his career."

-Jack King

The funny thing is, the exact opposite is true in CCGs. People never remember when cards are bad. They can however, remember with alarming clarity a certain time card X was good. Since deckbuilding is a form of expression, if you tell them to change it it’s an affront to them, an insult to their skill that directly contradicts their logic.

So, if I told you that you might have a better match-up against Fate Gear by taking out your equipment hate, would you believe me?

See, I think if more players looked deeper, they would realize the root of the problem with their strategy against Fate Gear. Many people fail to consciously recognize that Fate Gear decks are ALWAYS engine decks. These decks are tuned to find the Fate Artifacts as soon as possible.

Now let's say you smash one equipment, probably the Amulet. Considering that there deck is built around finding the Fate Artifacts as soon as possible, what is the likelihood of them not finding a piece of equipment if they run 8 copies of equipment search plus the Filtering from Helm of Nabu?

(Again, it’s harder then it was before in DJL, but bear with me.)

The other half of the equation: Decks that play equipment hate are generally NOT engine decks. The reality then is that 99% of the time, your opponent is much better at reloading the Fate Artifacts then you are at destroying them.

One definition of a good strategy is to attack the opponent at their weakest point. Now, I ask you: How intelligent is the plan of destroying the Fate Artifacts of a deck whose entire focus is to find them?

Now, there certainly is a weakness, a momentary weakness that can be exploited by destroying equipment. You can lead them toward a situation, but unless you pounce on that opportunity chances are they’re just going to re-Fate. The thing is, most people think the equipment hate is an answer to the problem, when it’s just a tool used to get the solution into place.

Equipment hate and board presence defeats the Fate Artifacts. If you are relying on your equipment hate to create a favorable board presence, you are wrong.

A lot of people don't go this far. They think "I play equipment hate... I should win, but I'm not winning." The Fate Artifacts must be broken.

Have you ever wondered why Checkmate decks don’t play equipment hate? It’s a very simple question, and the answer is also very simple:

They don’t need to.

Checkmate simply has so much raw power and synergy. On the attack phase, Brother Eye effectively renders the Fate Artifacts meaningless. On the DEF, Checkmate Safe House considerably weakens the value of Nabu’s Toys. Add on to all that four drops that range from the size of a five drop to a six drop, and the answer is eerily rational.

Look at decks like Syndicate Inhumans and KreeVU. These decks have so much power that they can easily ignore the opponent and plow through the Fate Artifacts.

If you cannot fight the opponent's board presence, you have to go through the other route - crushing them with your engine. This essentially means that you draw lots of equipment hate so you can permanently KO the same Artifact over and over again, or re-use your the same equipment hate off Ancient Throne or Emma Frost.

However, if you kind of straddle in the middle and play a rather normal fair deck with some amount of equipment hate and think it will power you through, you are mistaken.

I realize that this article is a bit long and a bit abstract, but I hope I've made a point that you should really test the match-ups when you can. There's nothing wrong with forecasting a match-up, but if you discard a match-up just on theory you're going to be very surprised. For the MegaWeekend, I was astonished to discover that BEDS had an incredible match-up against Syndicate rush - which is hard to believe considering your two and three are concealed - and a mediocre match-up against Bizarro - which is heavily reliant on locations.

Let me know what you think in the forums! I hope a good discussion can be borne from this. I tried to cut this short - maybe should've been two articles - but it's still preffy hefty!

Peace

-TDB

Good god man, thats a longer article then first intended.

Great article. I haven't read any of the blogs, but if they're half as good as this was, I'm going to start reading more.

Thanks guys, but anyone want to take a stab at the Syndiquick v Checkmate VU match-up

I like to say I think the match up is dependent on the player. Anyone could make the same deck with the internet, but knowing how to play it makes a difference, ie Brian Foley's son had the same deck he did but did not fair too well. One of my opponent at legends was running Euginio's tim drake deck but didn't fair too well with it. The pilot makes the choices during a match and the one who is better or makes less mistake will come out the victor.

If the two are on equal skill level however, I believe it would be on lady luck with your draws. It would also depend who has the favored initiative.

Check is very hard if they play Ahmed visible

If they conceal him you should win

Ive played this match up a bunch

My response will be brief, though I think it is interesting match up to think about mentally without any play testing, which requires more time then I can give it. Good call on the VS players being students in their twenties with lots of obligations, you got me pinned pretty well.
As far as making a mental Vs Decision between Checkmate vs Inhumans/syndicate, I would have to go with your analysis of Checkmate being the winner.
The shear size of the checkmate characters is too large for syndicate to stun with ease, and would cause way too much burn from cards like The Contract. Especially with introduction of Alan Scott who is a possible 13/13 on turn 4 (fated out), it just seems like Inhumans/syndicate would have to waste so many pumps and team attacks just getting the stun. In the end the amount of breakthrough they would cause would not be proportionate to the amount of damage they take to achieve it. Slowly as the turns progress, Checkmate characters continue to get bigger, while syndicate attempts to swarm back with probably less and less overall attack on their characters as opposed to checkmate. If syndicate doesn’t win by 4, then Maxwell lord is going to allow some massive breakthrough on a small character. Even Syndicates own plot twist to cause loss of reinforcement don’t amount to much if you have team attack all the time just to stun the opposing characters.

I want to meet this person that conceals Ahmed against SS/IN. 0_0;

From my experience, SS/IN has a slight advantage over the standard checkmate. If they play Alan Scott, that means they go mono and risk double king KO unless they play Threat. That also depends what the 2 drop is. Dr. Psycho? Sarge Steel? Talia? SS/IN plays Answer with Odds and that pretty much negates Ahmed. The right play is always keep your 2 drop and Ahmed visible and able to reinforce each other instead of Ahmed fetching something. It's better to search for a drop next turn instead of dying that turn.

Although Bear's plan of fating up Speed Queen on turn 2 certainly helps any match-up >_>

Well, thinking about the QuickSyn vs. Checkmate thing...

I guess it depends on the builds. But in a void, I would have to say that Checkmate soaks too much damage for QuickSyn to deal. Ahmed would have to be played visible, of course, which is always dangerous, but since QuickSyn plays Slyde, it's probably for the best. Having to deal with 2+ Safehouses is a difficult task for any rush deck.

I'm not positive Checkmate plays Alan Scott unless they have a way to not get Kinged. But with both him and Ahmed on the table, I just can't see QuickSyn pushing through enough damage.

Bearr-iffic!

Great!

As for Syndiquick vs Check/VU, I would have to go with Syndiquick, because checkmate early game kinda blows.

Fantastic writing. I adore the fact that you tackled the strong bias toward "Mental Vs." Very chewy subject.

Answer this: At Hobby League this week, without me because I was wrapped up in the election, the gang devised a special format. Last week they drew character cards from a hat. Three cards each, all the cards were different team affiliations. Then they each picked one affiliation and built a Random Punks mono deck. I can't wait until next week to find out how it went.

Is that "Mental Vs.", or not? (Whatever it is, it is incredibly thrilling to see an energized local community playing like that.)

My QuickSyn build owns Checkmate because it runs Skreeee, Finishing Move, Sand Trap and Have A Blast... or whatever else my proxy engine decides to cough up.

Lets not forget about the reintroduction of swift escape for Checkmate, which is especially useful in matchup like this. You could run both Amhed and Alan, without worrying too much. Plus Sarge Steel with the boost is great in this matchup.

I didn't know we were talking about Checkmate/VU though, the explanations only refer to Checkmate. Don't see any VU.

Half of those cards don't help 0_o;

They do mentally.