Play testing. Everyone knows what it is, and a lot of the community does it, but half of the people, who do it, maybe more, have very little structure in what they call play testing. This is probably because of the very vague definition that can be attributed to play testing. Playing a deck at your local store in a battleground tournament can be considered play testing just as much as methodically going over every single relevant matchup your deck is capable of running into. Because play testing can qualify as well pretty much anything so long as you’re playing a deck, it's necessary to define the goals of one’s play testing.
The extent to which you want a deck to function properly is what chiefly determines the point of play testing. If by function you mean that it works but probably won't be seen at anywhere other than the high numbered tables at a tournament or at your kitchen table, then there probably isn't as much play testing needed to reach your desired effect. If you’re hoping to do well at a Realm Championship, Darkmoon Fair, or other event of similar caliber, you might want to put a bit more work in, as your goals are much higher. For that matter, what does further testing even do for you in a competitive environment?
Play testing accomplishes several things. It lets you get to know the ins and outs of a deck. Until I started testing Desecrator Stormclaw rush I was pretty clueless as to why Tyrennius Scatheblade was in the Darkmoon Faire Stuggard deck list. I became a lot more aware of Desecrator's flip and I got to know the outs that the deck had access to in the face of problem cards such as Evasion and Cyclone. Note that I had never planned on playing Desecrator in the first place, but I've seen plenty of people try to attack a Magister Ashi with a Vexmaster Nar'jo with a fresh Tyrennius on board, only to find themselves getting the bad side of a two for one that they should have been able to avoid. The point is that understanding what your opponent is capable of and how your deck fares against it comes in very handy, and very often.
Everything from Instant casting Gift of the Wild at the end of your own turn after an opponent resolves an Invocate, to not playing Antikron against a Runetusk unless you have a Korthas Greybeard on board falls under knowing what your opponent has in his deck, what he's trying to do, and how best to stop it. It allows you to better play around threats that your opponent has, and play accordingly. Myriam Starcaller is a frequent on the list of things decks have problems against. Several of the players at my local store have adjusted by playing Mass of McGowan. We found that Runetusk lost to mass card draw, so we included Freezing band in the side. Play testing doesn't just prevent you from walking into card disadvantage that could easily be avoided, which could easily cost you the game in the current field of Runetusks, but it also helps you construct your decks against problem cards like Myriam, Invocation, or Nether Fracture.
Further play testing will tell you if your tweaks and alterations included to solve problems are actually effective. I put Myriam in a boomkin deck, trying to make it blue instead of red just for Myriam, as I thought that would be even better against control, and found that the current decks were all able to fight Myriams, especially if Myriam was the only creature in the deck. My adjustment to the Boomkin deck was unsuccessful, but sounded amazing. Thank god I tested it first and it didn't cost me a tournament. A friend of mine played Enlightenment in discard priest. Basically Enlightenment would function as an alternate win condition, and our priest decks kept losing because it didn’t have a win condition at the most opportune times. With a little testing, we would have known that the inclusion was unnecessary, and a win more strategy, aka: a wasted slot. My friend threw the deck together at the tournament. That's not to say he's a bad player, he's a very good player, who came unprepared. Even if you know what your deck has problems with, without proper testing, your changes could very well be ineffective. Even the best players can’t win on a consistent basis with bad cards.
But what is proper play testing? I would call it testing with a purpose and method to achieving that purpose. Many players go through a gauntlet, a list of the competitive decks in a format which they test against. I go through this with each card in my deck, checking how useful each card is against how many decks. There are tons of different ways to test, picking a deck and then running through a gauntlet and making tweaks, making a gauntlet and testing them all against one another because you don't know what you’re going to play yet, or even just playing a deck against your friends at the card store with no actual recording or system whatsoever. The first two I consider proper, and the second I consider improper, as it gives you incomplete information.
Often times it takes losing to realize the problems that a deck has. My decks usually change drastically based on what I lose to at small tournaments at our card store. No one at our card store plays the Aleyah Dawnborn or Lionar the Bloodcursed; two very good and frequently played decks in the current meta. When I went to realms I side boarded incorrectly against Lionar, and I thankfully never ran into Aleyah. I played the Yanna Gift of the Wild deck and lost because I Sided out Cyclone, when I should have played it so that Tatulla couldn't kill my Gift of the Wild. Cyclone also prevents Myriam from being stomped by Ras'fari Bloodfrenzy. I hadn't tested as extensively against Lionar as I had against other decks, and didn't realize that Lionar was vulnerable to abilities, and that the only means Lionar usually has to remove abilities is Tatulla. I can't say I would have won that matchup, but I would have had better odds.
Lionar was on my list of decks to look out for, and I didn't give it as much credit as I should have. I had barely played against the deck, and had certainly never played with it. If I had gone through more testing I would have been able to sideboard better. It’s probably the reason I’m writing this in the first place.
The goal of play testing is preparation. If you don’t prepare for everything, expect to lose to something. If you only test against half the decks in a format, then expect the other half to have several advantages over you. Extensive play testing helps prevent bad plays and fine tune card choices. If you don't want to take that extra step, then accept the results, those being that you won't play as well. If you don't test systematically, don't expect to cover everything, and maybe you’ll get lucky and test against the right meta. I would rather not take that chance, but testing is all about knowing what you’re after. If you’re fine with being caught off guard, then you may not want to test more. You get what you put into your testing, but what you want to get is up to you.
-Neil D.
Tags: Wow Wowtcg Worldofwarcraft Playtesting Testing
Related to:
World of Warcraft TCG
