Cutting Black for Fun and Profit
Before we start - some basics and some theory. In a draft, cards get passed to the left in rounds one and three, and to the right in pack two. Cutting a color means to take all the good cards in a color. Hopefully, this will convince your downstream neighbors to get into other colors. In pack two, when the cards are being passed in the other direction, you can expect better cards in that color, as a result. With a bit of luck, if you cut the color hard in pack two as well - the people on your right may switch colors, or at least emphasize other colors, so you may get better cards in the cut color in pack three as well. In short, cutting a color is a bid to keep your opponents out of the cut color, leaving more of the good cards for you.
It does not always work. If your downstream neighbor opens Baneslayer Angel or Day of Judgment, they may be in white no matter how hard you cut. You also have to be somewhat flexible when cutting, since cutting too hard can mean that your deck has a lot of bad on-color cards, and you passed good stuff that you should have otherwise taken. But when it works...
Here we go, with ZZW this time.
Pack 1 pick 1:
When I draft, my first concern is whether I was going to fall victim to a bad habit - rare-drafting. I'm a compulsive rare-drafter, if money or cards I need for constructed are involved. In this case, I'm safe. I have a playset of Rite of Replication already, and the card is pretty bad.
In this pack, I see three, maybe four, cards that are worth first picking. The two cheap, evasive commons (Kor Skyfisher and Welkin Tern) are both quite good, although the Skyfisher is the better card. Rite of Replication is for fun drafts. It is insane when cast with kicker on an Ally, but I never, ever want to get to nine mana in a serious draft. The beats should have been lethal long before then. That leaves Marsh Casualties, which is by far the best card in the pack. The problem is that, in ZZW drafts, black can be fought over too hard, meaning that black can dry up and/or be spread far too thin. Taking Marsh Casualties means that you have to commit to fighting for black, and that usually means cutting black hard.
Given the title of the article, you can probably guess what I did.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 2:
This pack has two solid black cards, and two mediocre black cards. The best card in the pack is Punishing Fire, but I need to cut black. The best black creature is the Sell-Sword, which can be insane with a few friends and a couple Bojuka Brigands from Worldwake. The Diabolist is okay in allies, but meh otherwise. The best card, though, is Mind Sludge. If you are heavy black - and I'd already committed to that option - then Sludge is a bomb. In the course of seven games, I cast it four times, and my opponents discarded 17 cards as a result.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 3:
This pack is a lot more interesting. The black is, frankly, pretty bad. I don't mind the Croc, and I have played Vampire's Bite, but they are not good black. There is no good black. It could be that this is a bad pack, or it could be that an upstream drafter is also cutting black. Cutting black is a cool plan, but you have to be able to jump ship if black is gone. In this case, I don't see anything that makes me want to change colors, but I do see a fine colorless removal spell. It will almost certainly make the deck, no matter what color or colors I may wind up in.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 4:
If I had taken the Punishing Fire, I would take the Boar, here. However, I decide to stick with the cut black plan, and take the dude that will, eventually, have fear.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 5:
More red removal: Torch Slinger seems fine. I take the speedy beats, instead. I'm cutting black, and the best black decks are very, very quick. I will admit I was getting nervous about this time. I am seeing black, but not good black. No Marauders, no Disfigures, nothing exciting. This is what I would see if a player feeding me was also cutting black, in which case my plan is already doomed. If so,the only question is whether I will see that in time.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 6:
Wow! Just wow! A sixth pick Hideous End! Either this pack had some insane stuff, or the people upstream of me are idiots, or something. I check to make sure everyone is drafting - and no one is disconnected. The rare is gone, and all three uncommons, and a common. Maybe someone in white took a Journey, and all three uncommons were - what? Whatever - I can't believe it, but I'll take it. This does make one thing clear, though - no one upstream of me is cutting black, unless they are very, very, very bad at it.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 7:
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 8:
The Hideous End has almost convinced me I'm safe, but this pack has nothing a black mage would ever play. Red has appeared to be open, so I take the Lava Axe and hope I don't have to play it.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 9:
SWEET! Most of the black has tabled. I may be alone in the color. This could mean my opponents have taken bombs in other colors, or I could be lucky. The hard cuts helped, but I had to have some luck if the whole table is avoiding the color. I'm alos wondering what people are playing or doing - people took both Savage Silouhette and Greensweaver over Stonework Puma, Peaks and so forth. I''m not sure I like green that much.
My Pick:
Pack 1 pick 10:
My Sell-Sword has come back. Even the folks drafting allies are avoiding black - well, except the guy who took the Diabolist. That's understandable; Hagra Diabolist is a better card to splash off a couple swamps then the Sell-Sword. If you have to hold him a while, Diabolist is better in the late game.
My Pick:
My Pick for the rest of the pack:
Pack 2 pick 1:
Argh! Raredraft, or win the draft? The Verdant Catacombs is solid, and worth around 4 TIX, but Nighthawk is the best black card in the set. I decide to win the draft, partly because I am beginning to think I may have an article here. Cutting black has worked well so far, and I'm getting lucky besides.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 2:
Okay, the question here is whether I gamble or not. The Marauder is the better card. However, the late Hideous End seems to say that I am the only black drafter at the table. The Marauder *might* just table. I cut black hard... The Sell-Sword is also a good card, so I'm not risking much in taking it over the Marader - and if I get another Sell-Sword and some Brigands, I could have an amazing Ally sub-theme. I gamble.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 3:
Yay - a Disfigure! I love me some removal, and now I have three solid removal spells, counting the Blazing Torch.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 4:
Four solid removal spells.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 5:
Looks like black is flowing from this direction, too. I have occassionally wondered how many Vampire you have to draft to make Feast of Blood reliable, but I know it is way more than I have. However, the new and improved Looming Shade is nuts in mono-black, and I take it. I may just have an insane deck by the time I'm done. Now all I have to do is avoid getting blown out in round one and I'll have an article.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 6:
It's Christmas! It must be - I'm getting presents! I cut black hard enough that I must be the only black drafter, and it is paying off. The Quest is tempting, but I still like the removal more.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 7:
Sweet - my Marauder tabled. Wait - there are too many cards in this pack - this isn't the pack I opened! I get a free Maruader sixth pick. I cut black hard, and I got lucky, and my opponents are all idiots. Whatever - I'm taking it.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 8:
:)
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 9:
This is the pack I opened, and it has nothing for me. I take the artifact creature, because I don't want my opponent to be able to chump my fear dudes.
My Pick:
Pack 2 pick 10:
It's back! Yes! /me does a fist pump as I realize I could build a decent mono-black deck with just the cards I already have, and we have a pack and a third to go.
My Pick:
My Picks for the rest of the pack:
The fourteenth pick Kracken Hatchling seems to reinforce the "my opponents are idiots" idea. I guess I better win the draft if I want to impress anyone. What in the world are my opponent's doing?
Pack 3 pick 1:
Lodestone Golem is worth about half a TIX. so no point in raredrafting. Black has one amazing removal spell and a mediocre discard spell. I don't need the full 60 seconds for this pick.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 2:
My upstream neighbor took the rare. My choices are the little 1/1 and the wasps. The Pulse Tracker is actually very helpful in getting my opponents bloodied (life at 10 or less), but the flier flies. Besides, in this draft, the Tracker should table.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 3:
Choices! The best removal spell is Urge to Feed, and I am not willing to see if this tables. I'm taking it now.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 4:
Pulse tracker should come back. I can spend this pick hate drafting. I could take Iona's Judgment, but I have been blown out by the Shaman before. In long games, if both players have removal, or if someone has something like Chain Reaction, Deathforger Shaman can be a Fireball. I've killed opponents that way, and I don't want it happening to me. I also remember that I passed a Cunning Sparkmage earlier. Now three Disfigures and some other removal should mean I have no problems with it, but I could get unlucky, and Sparkty could elminate a lot of my creatures, which could lead to the sort of stall that the Shaman ends suddenly. I'll hate it.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 5:
I pick my Ally. Three allies so far - which is not a lot.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 6:
I am going to take the Pilgirm's Eye. I don't need the mana fixing, but Pilgrim's Eye can help me make landfall for the Marauders. More importantly, if I take it, it cannot block my Marauders, and it won't help fix my opponents' mana. It is far better for me to hide it in my sideboard than let it find its way into an opponent's deck.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 7:
Scrib Nibblers is a nice little card, in some cases, but it will never make my deck. Neither will Mire's Toll, but I could see siding it in if my opponent has a bomb.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 8:
Here the choice is between the adjustable-sized Vampire and the flier. The Quag Vampires is a nice card, but much better if it can swampwalk, at least on occassion. I'm the only black player, so I'm taking the flier.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 9:
Nothing I need, so I'll hate draft. The two cards that can bother me are the trap and the artifact. The Artifact can block my fear dudes, but I have Disfigures and other removal, so it should be no trouble. The Trap can cause problems, however, so I'll hide it in my sideboard.
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 10:
My Pick:
Pack 3 pick 11:
My Pick:
Cutting black is clearly paying off. This card is far too good to be an 11th pick.
Rest of the packs:
This draft converter created by Benjamin Peebles-Mundy.
Visit the draft converter today!
Wow, my only problem in building a deck will be an embarassment of riches. I have so many playables.
Sucks to be me, doesn't it?
In the end, I decided to bench the Blazing Torch (although I might side it in against a lot of fliers) and the three allies. The allies are good, but three allies are unlikely to ever pump each other. The rest of the cards are just slightly better, and the 23rd card came down to a choice between one Sell-Sword and the Crocodile. Here's what I played.
Here it is in a slightly different form. Ain't that mana curve purty?
Round One:
This is almost not worth covering. My opponent mulliganned a couple times, and played nothing of note. I won the die roll and went Lacerator, Maruader, Blood Seeker plus Guul Draz Vampire, then Crypt Ripper. My opponent conceded on my turn 4, at 5 life, having played nothing but an Adventuring Gear. Game two was the same, although I did have to play a removal spell.
While I waited for round two, I watched a couple replays. A mono-green deck beat a white/red deck, and a blue green deck beat a green red deck. That is a lot of green!
Round Two:
Round two was against an opponent I had not scouted, and I didn't bother wasting time at the start of the match. Once upon a time, in paper, all scouting was illegal, and I'm not sure I like having it legal, now. As a result, I rarely scout, and never once I have been paired. It's partly because I'm a judge in MTG Paper: if it isn't legal there, I won't do it here, because I don't want to build bad habits. (In paper, scouting after your match is fine, but once you have sat for a match, getting outside assistance of any kind is a big no-no.)
The first game was swift. I won the die roll again, and went Pulse Tracker, Marauder, Tracker and Maruader, Hideous End you blocker, Gull Draz Vampire - and he conceded.
Game two, I played out some early beaters, and he played a Walking Atlas. Since it was capable of blocking my Maruader, I ended up casting a Gull Draz Vampire and Pulse Tracker, dropping a land and the casting Urge to Feed on the Atlas, killing it and pumping the other vampires. Then the fear dude kept beating until he was bloodied, then everyone started swinging. Pretty straighforward.
I don't have any great situations from this game, but I did take one screen shot. This isn't one of Godot's famous "what's the plays?" In this case, you can try to spot my mistake. It's pretty obvious.
Yeah, the Crypt Ripper isn't tapped. I have no idea why the Ripper didn't attack - I don't know if I brainfarted or just misclicked, but there is no reason not to swing. My opponent has a couple forests, and I had seen a Primal Bellow in game one, but even if he has it or Vines, he cannot kill the Crypt Ripper without triple blocking, and I can at least trade three (two creatures and a pump spell) for one. In any case, after this attack, my opponent was at 10, so I swung with everything next turn and killed him two turns later, albeit a turn after I could have otherwise.
Round Three:
Game one I won the die roll, and looked at a hand with Marauder, Hideous End, Nighthawk, Mind Sludge, Blood Seeker, Crypt Ripper and two swamps. I kept. I also noted that, even if he had watched my replays from earlier rounds, the Nighthawk should be a surprise. I had drawn it twice, but in both cases, since I was going to win shortly without it, I kept it hidden.
I had no one drop, but dropped a Marauder turn two and and Blood Seeker on turn three, with no third land. He dropped a Calcite Snapper. I drew a land turn four, swung with the Marauder and dropped the Nighthawk. On his turn four, he dropped a Windrider Eel, but I drew Urge to Feed, so I could swing with the Nighthawk (he wasn't dumb enough to chump block, then cast Guul Draz Vampire, then Urge and tapped both Blood Seeker and Guul Draz for counters. Now those vampire could run into the Snapper and live. He dropped a Graypelt Hunter next turn, and I hit it with Hideous End, putting him at nine and turning on the Guul Draz. I also ripped a land, so the Marauder could get in, too. He was at one, and drew no outs.
Game two I had Vampire Nighthawk, Hagra Croc and Mind Sludge, plus lands, in my opening hand. So slow - but I didn't want to mulligan. He had a turn three Grazing Gladehart, then a Windrider Eel, and enchanted it with Savage Silhouette. A 6/6 flying regenerator gave me some problems. I was able to Mind Sludge his hand away, and got a few critters. However, he topdecked Khalni Gem, which gave him two extra land drops. In the end, the extra land drops, combined with the Gladeheart and Windrider, let him squeak it out. It didn't help that I got greedy with a Marsh Casualties - I could have cast it to kill the Gladehart and forced a chump with a Graypelt, instead of having it trade with the Croc. I held the Marsh Casualties, hoping to draw a Disfigure or the like that would let me kill the Windrider, too. In the end, he kept hitting land drops, and he won the life total race by two points.
Game three I was on the play, and had a bit better time. I opened Lacarator, then Blood Seeker, with Mind Sludge, Tomb Hex and Disfigure in hand. I had no turn three play, but when he dropped a Gladehart turn three, I Disfigured it. On his turn four, he dropped another Gladehart, and I should have killed it with the Bloodseeker trigger on the stack, before he could play a land and trigger the lifegain. However, I had hit autoyeild on the Bloodseeker, so he got two life he should not have. Mistakes like this are one big reason I don't win PTQs.) On my turn five, though, I drew my fifth Swamp and Mind Sludged him for all five cards in his grip. He ripped an Umara Raptor, butI nailed it with Hideous End and beat him to 3, then dropped a Marauder. He drew and conceded. It was his turn six.
The draft was a cakewalk - but it was a cakewalk because I picked Marsh Casualties, then forced my opponents out of black. This paid huge dividends in packs two and three, and my deck was fast and full of removal as a result. The Nighthawk, though, was just luck. :) However, it appeared in two games, and one of those I managed to lose.
In reading this over, I noticed that I talked more about my luck and two suboptimal plays than about the good plays. I did bait a couple bad blocks that I could exploit. I is not all that easy to get an opponent to throw a good creature in front of a blocker so you can blow it out with Disfigure; in most cases a decent opponent smells a trick and avoids the block. It takes some sublity to trick the opponent into making the block, but I won several games that way. I did have a lot of removal, but I had to parcel it out.
Whatever - I won. The point is that cutting black hard worked, this time, and my deck was great because of it.
PRJ
"one million words" in the draft queues.
47 Comments
You talk about how cutting black hard gave you the nuts black deck a lot but what I see is just an average black draft in which a bunch or poor drafters ignored black regardless. I don't see much in the way of cutting black except few passed red removal where you took decent playable black. Some days you just get the draft pod that all ignores a color (usually lower skilled players fixated on playing their 1st pick regardless of what colors are open). In this case people fought over the worst shared color, green. Point is your picks didn't push anyone out of a color, they were already avoiding black to begin with. The wheel of your first pack clearly shows this.
Your deck was very strong. I didn't mean it was an average deck just that your picks pack one weren't forcing the color but where average given your pack 1 pick 1. Your picks were good and I might have only changed 1 or 2 of them for a more aggressive curve
I think the one major mistake you made when making picks was not taking the lodestone golem. with your low cc creatures, it basically wouldve topped out your curve. When you are on the play a t4 lodestone is gg alot of time. You took a piece of removal instead , in a deck that already had alot of removal.
As far as forcing goes, I have been drafting alot of zzw lately and have been trying to force mono or close to mono color decks as often as I can. It is surprisingly easy, though I would recomend not going mono blue.
Sick sick draft.
I don't think this was a great example of "basics of drafting" or cutting as, well frankly, 6th sick hideous ends are silly. A fun draft write up but not a good example of basics...
but i wouldve taken the Hedron Rover over the Mire's Toll. I can't think of any card i'd sub out for Toll, and as already mentioned Rover can block Marauder (and also Bladetusk Boar, which you saw).
Overall I would say if you didn't win with this gift you would be laughed into oblivion. I also think I would've cut the Croc for Pilgrim's Eye. Your three slot is pretty empty, fliers are at a premium, it ensures you hit four mana for Crypt Ripper and Jagwasp Swarm (not to mention Mind Sludge and kicking Marsh Casualities), AND it keeps the landfall coming. Not to mention that it's just plain CA. I know the Croc can occasionally be a "Juzam Djinn", but it's also a 1 toughness for the first turn and if you miss your fifth land drop, it really stinks. Then again you have a lot of 1 drops.
But with Nighthawk and 7 solid removal spells (including maybe the best board sweeper) you probably could've played Chimney Imp and won. I think this was less an example of what happens when you cut, and more an example of what happens when a draft if gift wrapped.
Ok, so you had a few players in the draft who were below average in skill. But calling them idiots? Is this how you really feel about players with less experience / skill than you?
I completely agree with this comment. Calling opponents idiots multiple times in single article (even in questioning form) is more a picture of you than your opponents. There are way too many players on magic online without elementary culture. And this article pretends to be educational! Congratulations on winning this draft ... and SHAME ON YOU!
I agree. I've been in drafts with you where I thought my pod were idiots (obv. I won), but would never actually come out and say my draft-mates were idiots.
To misquote Inigo: "I keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I could be using the term "idiots" as a shortcut to mean my opponents were some combination of distracted, inexperienced, unprepared, sleepy, multitasking poorly, inebriated; that they preferred drafting "cute" cards or thematically, or had radically different views on pick orders which did not seem to work well in practice. Or I could be using "idiots" as a deadly insult, to imply that my opponents were "mentally retarded, ignoranamoses and/or clinically brain dead."
If you really think that I wanted to insult my opponents and could not think of a better invective than "idiot," then you are, well, idiots.
:)
How about calling them "distracted, inexperienced, unprepared, sleepy, multitasking poorly, inebriated" in the first place, instead of using the term idiots and risking offending them, when they misunderstand and decide you think they are "mentally retarded, ignoranamoses and/or clinically brain dead" ?
If any one of them stumbles upon your article and reads your comments, do you think they will be encouraged to give it another go? My guess is that it is actually more likely for them to get discouraged if this was their first steps in drafting.
I understood what you meant by 'idiot' but it still irrationally irked me to see you say it. I think that's where people are taking umbrage...it has a visceral effect. I'd use the phrase "Who is driving the bus?" or "Are they sleeping?" to indicate the same thing. For those people this was after all a car wreck.
Cutting didnt result in you having a good black deck.
Black was ignored and it was the colour you happened to be in.
The stuff that tabled from the first packs clearly shows this.
And I agree with the above about lodestone.
It wouldnt be a raredraft, but simply the best pick for your deck.
look at his first 5 picks. had he not been forcing black, as even he says, he'd have gone into red (and so would most of us). after p1p1 black you get 4 red picks until p1p6 hideous end. i think the draft becomes quite unpredictable at that point. i'll admit this isn't quite a classic example of cutting a color, but maybe more about making an early color commitment and sticking to it.
and it also seems to me that some of the disfigures in pack2 come because he's taken all the black away from neighbors to the right.
correct. The black in the later packs was there because I cut it. Cards like Disfigure are not splashed in non-black decks, but cards like Tomb Hex and Burst Lightning can be. I suspect a number of green splash decks may have started out thinking black, and been forced out into other colors. We cannot know, short of looking at all the packs and talking to all the drafters, but that appears likely. We had a couple three color green decks, and that i consistent with losing a color.
I am guessing Swiss...Cutting a color in a group which likely does not have proper card evaluations means nothing. Taking one of the best uncommons in the set, followed up by one of the best commons for mono-B, and recognizing that a 6th pick Hideous End might mean black is open.
Try this in 8-4 and let us know how it goes.
Mentally retarded = also very politically incorrect and to some downright offensive.
You all have to realize that in most of his writings he thinks he is above almost everyone. This is nothing to fret over. So let it not bother you. One who calls another an idiot is surely an idiot. Is that okay with everyone who is angry?
yea, i dont mean to hate, so i will try to stay as nuetral as a anon faceless commenter will be accepted. to say you are cutting or to show us how to cut doesnt really pan out due to the fact that black was totally skipped over the whole draft, which happens. of course that happens when i am not in black or when i am the one giving it up. go figure. did any of the replays show a black drafter? only one hidious end would mean someone tried it a bit.
to echo though, try this concept again and show to us what you mean by cutting. say try with white or red where there is competition
Go vote for him to represent you at the community cup, you idiots!!!
Pete Jahn writing limited articles is a joke....
then what the f^%&^K are you doing wasting time reading it, or bothering to write a post? Get a life.
28 comments so far, and the amount of vitriol is amazing. What the hell did I ever do to you people?
I have now been writing Magic articles for just a bit under 11 years. In all that time, I have had maybe three sets of feedback that have made me really think "f*ck this, life's too short." This is one.
I'm not a pro. Never claimed to be. I'm not a limited expert, and have often said that I'm not. I'm just a writer. It takes hours to get an article together, and the amount I get paid is about half minimum wage in my state. I can make a whole lot more per hour building furniture. However, I, like most of us writers, write because I want to share stories and maybe teach a little something. We writers are trying to contribute a little something to the community, etc. We do what we can because we can. Why do you feel a need to piss on that?
Mr Anonymous, what single useful, productive, meaningful thing have you done in your entire wretched little life to justify yourself? I have to say that I have never heard of you doing anything. Is your entire purpose in life simply to spread the misery or your empty, meaningless existence to everyone you can? Well, f#$%@k you, you've succeeded. Right now, I'm hurt and pissed, and if any of you would care to come to my house, I would be more than happy to see if I really can literally beat the crap out of someone. I would love to try.
Yes, I know, I'm pissing back at anonymous shits on the Internet. I'm mad enough that I don't care how futile and pointless that is.
And as for that last poster - at the moment, at least - I don't have to log on anonymously to post in my own defense. I do so under my own name, and what's more, I even know what the shift key does, you moldy little rat turd. Christ, you don't even know that raredrafters mainly hit the 8-4 queues. That's the best place to score a pile of rares...
Yes, I know how pointless this is, but I need to spew a little hatred, bitterness and venom right now, because I am pretty full of it. Maybe this is therapeutic. Maybe this will post will be deleted by JXC. And maybe I should go to bed and dream pleasant little dreams. Dreams like: "Hello Mr. Baseball Bat. Hello Mr. Kneecap belonging to A. Nony. Mous. So glad you two could meet."
To all of you who put their names to the feedback, thank you for your comments. Even when they are negative, they can at least help me - and other writers - get a little better.
To those of you who did not see fit to include your name, f@ck you.
PRJ
This^^^ Just Yes! Unfortunately there is no way to remove anonymous from these boards unless puremtgo adopted an Identification policy similar to other sites where you have to use your MTGO ID and confirm it online before being allowed to post.
WOW! I am not kidding, in my company similar tirade resulted in mandatory mental health check of the employee. The poor guy ended up, you know where. Relax man, I can say for myself that I mostly love your articles. Just be at peace with yourself that you are doing public business and you are subject to public opinion.
The haters will hate. The rest of us love you. Don't pay the haters the heed they do not deserve. Meanwhile I do not usually enjoy draft related articles that much (Godot being the notable exception) but your articles definitely are hitting a missing niche. Drafting for the non expert is a chance taking mess. Seeing how to plan for the various picks and color selection and how to take advantage of mixed signals etc are all important bits of data.
As far as the anon posters go, sometimes they say some interesting and even positive things but I for one would love to see them go away. Anonymous posting is mostly just laziness anyway. Requiring a log in might cause some problems with spoof posters but mostly I think it will go far towards improving communication on this site.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH that was amazing. and Pathetic.
First of all, I don't think the author meant to insult anyone. I agree that his choice of words may not have been the best, but let's stop beating a dead horse.
Also on the subject of whether or not his examples demonstrated cutting a color adequately, I'm not experienced a drafter enough to comment. However, if all these commenters think they know it better than the author then maybe they should consider writing an article for the benefit of others.
One thing I do know is that some people do tend to ignore black completely in ZZW drafts. I myself have done it before and paid for it dearly when I was matched up against the mono-b player who got the nuts draft (3 x Vampire Hexmage, Hideous End, multiple Disfigure, Marsh Casualties, Gatekeeper of Malakir, plus more!).
The problem is a lot of inexperienced drafters (and I count myself in them) often here that it's so hard to fight for black blah blah blah, that they just go ahead and ignore it altogether.
I don't agree with all the negative feedback here.
Although black was pretty much ignored from the start it probably took alot of sweat picking that vampire nighthawk over the fetch in swiss.
This part needs work though
"I is not all that easy to get an opponent to throw a good creature in front of a blocker so you can blow it out with Disfigure"
I never block blockers, beacause they don't kill me :) The only one throwing good creatures at blockers should be you :P
This should be an article about how to get lucky in drafting against people who don't know what they are doing.
No comments about this line? "I have a playset of Rite of Replication already, and the card is pretty bad." I have found that rite of replication is a great card, and have been able to kick it for the win multiple times. And when you can't kick it, you get the best creature on the board. If you play it on an opponent's creature you avoid most blow outs too. I think it would be a fine first pick (not over the casualties though).
As far as cutting black, did you start the draft intending to cut black or just pick the best card in your first pack? I think you just first picked a bomb and decided to stick with it. I've seen this go both ways. In this case, it worked. Many times it doesn't, especially with black in Zendikar. Not really a great draft for an article on cutting a color, and not a huge risk after getting a 6th pick Hideous end.
This draft was a swiss or..?
Agree with 3rd comment but I may add in ZZW draft I really wouldn't recommend mono white as well. It just doesn't seem to work
I think that anyone who's being critical for the article referring to the opponents as idiots isn't being honest with themselves. I understand playing paper magic where your opponent is sitting right there in front of you, but online, I wager that everyone who sees blatant misplays or bad picks isn't giving their esteemed, faceless opponents the allowance of a politically correct designation in their internal monologues.
Chill, guys.
whoa, this was a swiss draft? ive said it be4 and i say it again, you cant learn anything from swiss drafting. the people who swiss are out of their minds and cannot justify picks. usually its 2 qp sharks and 6 rare drafters. oy! i was unmoved when i saw the 'cutting' ability, but now its just a WOW moment in magic draft capture.
oh, and im pretty sure that comment from anon defending this guy is this guy, just saying
I mean, Pete, lets be serious here. You may have been writing articles for 11 years, but you write for EVERYONE.
A) This is poor editing on PureMTGO's part. I would have never let an article pass if it called potential readers "idiots" or "mentally retarded" even if they truly were.
B) Your reaction is even MORE out of line, you blatantly buy into what the trolls want. Have you not been on the internet for more than 2 years? This happens all the time.
C) Swiss draft? Really? You get paid enough to pay for a draft set(from what I know about what pure pays), why not risk it in 8-4?
The problem with the piece isn't that it was swiss or that you called your opponents idiots due to poor plays, its that it doesn't do what its stated aim was which was to show the power of cutting a color. The sixth pick hideous end in the first pack shows that no one was playing black. You could make the argument that no one changed over to black because you were cutting it but its difficult to really say so one way or the other. After that, the match reports are boring because your deck is so strong so it ends up being a poor piece of writing of little strategic value. I think that's all that people were trying to say. I'm sorry if you got offended but I believe your response crosses the line and makes you look bad and supremely arrogant (so you wrote a bad piece. no big deal. it happens. no need to defend yourself and snap. you've written great pieces before and you'll do it again) where beforehand it looked like they were in the wrong.
For an article with the title "Basics of Drafting" you seem to have a lot of disdain for casual and/or inexperienced drafters. Aren't they your target audience? Claiming that "idiots" all of a sudden means "tired and distracted" is a pretty weak defense, and then to come back on later and go on a tirade just made it worse. You should have just admitted you make a poor choice of words and left it at that.
To start off, I rarely if ever, comment on articles on the internet. In this case I will make the exception.
First of all, after reading the article in full I found a bitter taste left in my mouth. The arrogance with which you write, and the loathing you offer your fellow player in the form of insults is pretty pathetic. From your picture you appear to be an adult. You claim to have been writing for 11 years. You would think that at some point in your 11 years of writing you would have learned a little something about what your readers expect. You should have seen that this was a poor article to begin with, simply by proofreading it.
Then you take exception with the comments. I laughed and then just shook my head at your reply. Seriously? This is how an adult reacts to what equates to mostly teens replies. Not that it should even matter. I would find it fairly humorous if some 11 year old "anonymous" came to your house to get his "literal crap beaten from his literal body." Your whole rant shows you don't think before you write. 11 years of writing and you have to succumb to "f#$%@k you" kinds of comments? Maybe instead of getting paid to write self glorifying articles like this, in a failed attempt at covering the real intent of it, with a Title like "cutting colors", You should invest some of your money in a Creative Writing course and Maybe some Anger Management therapy. It is quite obvious you have the need for both.
On a final note, I am going to say something you should already know. You are writing articles on the internet. This means that anyone and everyone is welcome to leave any comment they desire at any time that this article is posted. This includes worship hounds, Trolls, Flames, genuine criticism and genuine praise. This also occurs almost immediately. You wrote an article where more people commented negatively than positively. Take that for what it is. It was a poor article. Learn from that and carry on. Don't argue with the general public, "your readers", take what they have to say, comment where warranted and write a better article next time. This is the first article I have read of yours, and I can tell you now it will probably be my last. If I were the owners of puremtgo.com I would never have you write another article for me again and would look to find a better author and one who can control themselves. Take this comment how you like. chances are I won't read a reply.
Pete,
I have commented several times on your articles, as I think your one of the better writers on PureMTGO.
This article did not really teach me anything, and I do think calling people idiots is bad form.
But for all the people on here just being rude, well are you not fighting a fire with fire?
Pete's articles are usually of a good standard, and to be honest Pete's right.... what have most of us done to enhance the Magic community? And also have we not all uttered in our heads when an opponent makes a bad play.... "Idiot", I think we have. The mistake Pete made, was saying it out loud.
Just my thoughts on what is fast becoming an out of hand debate.
One last comment, then I'm probably done, too.
First: "idiots"
I thought it was pretty clear that I was joking. Apparently it was not. For those of you that thought it was an insult, I apologize. Not intended. Nor was I really saying that I thought the opponents were bad - but some of them clearly had a different/atypical set of card valuations. Which is fine.
Second: Cutting / Hideous End
I don't think that black was "ignored" in the draft. I think it was cut. As for the End, who knows what was in that pack to start with. For those of you that listen to the Limited Resources podcast, remember the insane crack-a-pack a while back? It had, IIRC, an Eldrazi Monument, Foil Malakir Bloodwitch, Vampire Nighthawk, Burst Lightning, Skyfisher, Welkin Tern and some other good stuff. Let's assume that a player opened a pack like this (because it explains the End, without resorting to assuming that everyone else is just too bad to recognize really good removal.)
Player opening takes either Monument (to keep colors open), the Witch or Burst Lightning (to avoid battling in black.)
Players 2& 3 probably take the other two cards.
Players 4 & 5, therefor, have a choice of Hideous End, Skyfisher, Tern and Burst Lightning. Assuming that they were already set in their colors, and the colors were not black, passing the Hideous End is reasonable. Burst over end if you are not black is certainly correct. Skyfisher over En, if you can't play End, also seems correct. Seeing Hideous End could mean that the players took junk over great cards - or it could mean that the pack was insane to start with.
Now we cannot know what cards the players who took the Bloodwitch and Nighthawk, assuming those were there, may have seen in packs 2, 3 and maybe 4, but we know what they could see in the rest of the packs. After all, I passed them - the person that opened the Hideous End was 2 seats to my left.
My pack 1, their pack 3: Hagra Croc, Blood Seeker,
Pack 2: Hagra Diabolist, Bog Tatters, Sell-Sword
Pack 3: Ravenous Trap, Croc, Vampire's Bite
Pack 4: Blood Tribute, Piranah Marsh
Pack 5: Bog Tatters, Sasdistic Sacrament
Pack 6: Blood Seeker, Descecrated Earth
Pack 7: no black
Pack 8: Mire Blight
Pack 9: Croc
Pack 10: Bog Tatters
etc.
Even if someone opened insane black, that run of cards should show that black was being cut, and it could/should have forced the Bloodwitch and Nighthawk players out of black.
The exact contents of the Hideous End pack don't matter - the point is that a couple bombs, a foil/rare drafter and a few people already set in other colors can explain the Hideous End.
(I probably should have included this in the article. ah, well. Hindsight is 20/20...)
Third: Swiss drafts
I have nothing but praise for Swiss drafts, because if you want to try different strategies, if you are learning, or just want to relax, they are better value than the lose-and-you-are-out formats. I play them. I also play 4-3-2-2s and 8-4s. Further, I know that 8-4 drafts generally produces better articles, which is why we writers generally avoid using Swiss drafts as examples.
What I do find amusing is that one anonomous poster wondered what format (I never said - seemed obvious / irrelevant), and a couple posts later someone takes it as gospel and is ranting about Swiss drafts.
Nice to see you calm and collected again. And message to Swiss draft haters - it is the format that is equal in QP value for championship series, as I know 8-4 is not awarding 3 points to winners. I am lousy beginner myself with sub 1600 limited rating and I can say I won 3 8-4 drafts, zero 4-3-2-2 drafts and 1 swiss draft - and I played in roughly equal number of them.
Skipping all the "this isn't a good example of cutting" stuff.
However, I'm a little confused on the "what mistake did I make here" example.
Yes, I saw that you had a ton of untapped swamps and hadn't attacked with the Crypt Ripper.
However, what about the Guul Draz Vamp? Wouldn't not attacking with it also be a mistake?
At that point it's a 4/3 with intimidate, and you'd still have the other two creatures for defense.
I haven't been playing any Zend or WW, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with the cards, so if I've missed
something obvious please feel free to educate me :)
"This should be an article about how to get lucky in drafting against people who don't know what they are doing."
Agreed.
6th pick Hideous End = no one is playing black, and you happened to get lucky enough to have been cutting that color. Which then, when compounding the right alignment of the cosmos, somehow the first pack was weak in black. Considering that about 75% of black in Zendikar is above average in strength, this required quite a bit of luck. Generally speaking, there is enough good black cards for everyone at the table in Zendikar, you happened to be seated in the right seat, in the right draft, under the right pool of cards. It worked this time, but it's only once in a blue moon that it works this well.
The guy across the table from you could have been "cutting" black as well, which he could easily have done inadvertently by just picking the strongest 4 cards from the first 4 picks (which a lot of the time, will be black) and you would end up w/ crappy black cards in the end anyways.
To tote this method as a "basic" to the game, you really need to let people know that it can screw you very badly if you don't adapt at a certain point. Your trying to be instructional, but only give a very one sided view of the picture, which is misleading to new players.
I don't know if this is just the magic online community, magic players in general, or internet users in general, but I am horrified at how rude people are to each other - on both sides of this issue. I think everyone should probably take a big, deep breath and relax.
Honestly speaking, I didn't think this was a great example of cutting a color, but that's just my opinion. I've pulled this off and then the very next draft taken a 6th pick hideous end which turned out to be a fluke.
I wasn't offended by "idiots" - I was thinking the same thing when I saw that pick! It was meant in humour I am sure.
I am shocked at Pete's response in the comments though. It's hard to have a tough skin when so many people are flaming you, but in my opinion you can't feed the trolls or they keep coming back for more.
Pete - I hope you don't quit writing, you do a fine job and hopefully this blows over quickly.
HamDog
Pete
Liked the article. And I agree with you, you were drafting with idiots. Leaving a Hideous End until pick 6 in pack 1, and then passing all of the Disfigures in Pack 2 confirm your words. I do however disagree with your earlier post about not splashing for Disfigures, I have done, still do, and will continue to do so effectively.
Solid read, man.
The most glaring part about the draft was how 3-5 players seemed to be fighting over Green. Considering how often there is only 1 or 2 players at the table drafting Green and they end up getting stomped on, it really reveals a lot about the skill-level of the draft.
While it is true that cutting Black hard in the first pack may have helped in getting all those Disfigures passed to you in the second pack, it is clear that no one was playing Black because of the plethora of first-pickable Black cards being shipped to you in the first and third packs.
Moreover, it looked like from the match summaries, that no one was playing Black at all. Yet a lot of people were splashing Green . . .
I'm sure any experienced player would rather splash for 2-3 Disfigures over CC Green cards. Think about the players in the second pack. Okay you see a Marauder and decide not to take it, but man, when you see a Disfigure, I think most players would decide to gamble that Black may be open (considering that his or her current splash color can't be any good at this point). And then when you see a 2nd Disfigure passed to you, you know Black is open. So for this player to ignore Black isn't a good sign of his or her skill-level.
And of course someone grabbed the Fetchland, which I guess you could argue that it supports some Green landfall strategies, is most likely a Rare Draft, since they can't use it for the 2nd color.
Pete, you write good articles, and I'm a fan. But what did you expect with a write-up like this? Triple Marauder, Triple Disfigure, and a host of aggressive 1-drops: maybe you could pull this off on Release Day on MTGO, but seriously, after about a week later, people wised up, and the Mono-Red and Mono-Black decks were a thing of the past.
What do you think would have happened if you decided to "CUT RED" and stick to it till the death? Probably a crash and burn =/
Q: How do you call a draft where you pick three Hideous End, three Disfigure, two Mind Sludge, a Burst Lightning and lose to a Br deck?
A: ZZZ.
(real story)
Alara was so much more fun :-).
Well of course a deck with 3 Hideous End may lose to a Black-dominate deck: they're kind of like drawing blanks.