lol well that was a number of different comments i cant tell which are different individuals lol so about the inside out, its there, but yes you're right about face is a much better choice, the deck lists (for the most part) aren't put together by me, though I could have mentioned that
standstill.. my mistake once again I often confuse triggered and activated and passive abilities
onefinremess... yep typo, sorry, I spell checked, but stuff like that gets missed esp in such a long article
I like the idea, but it as Kornzysiek saus, it's all in on a plan that's hardly a definate win.
The dewck needs at least another reanimate spell, and better targets preverably with shroud or evasion.
Agro decks will be able to race this since all your guys can be blocked ( except marauders which dies after 2 blocks)
Even combo can get a turn 4 kill which is still faster than your turn 1 Macetail.
Don't wanna bash creative ideas, but I really can't see this work.
I like the idea of BG with Blastoderm. Making exhume just an option instead of THE gameplan.
Reanimator is a nice option, but I would do rather UB with draw and counter as old reanimator used to be. In this deck you get journey to nowhere from WW, counterspell on exhume from every deck that has it (mainly UB, but there are always some MUC variants) and probably innocent blood/diabolic edict/doom blade from MBC, or you got your exhume discarded via duress. Not to mention that many of decks run graveyard distruption nowadays. You plan to get a fatty out and win with it. You got only 4 exhume against pool full of removal. Don't think it's gonna work.
And you have only 4 draws. What if you don't get your exhume? You concede?
hmmm just out of curiosity i think green could work. You do have early discard outlets like Wild Mongrel and Greenseeker and I think Fa'adiyah Seer was a common as well. You also gain access to ramping into effects like stir the grave...and still get access to blastoderm, A-bom, youre green so splash for the hystrodon?
hmmm wondering if the upcoming legacy format will have any effect on the zendikar fetches...it hasnt yet, though i was smart enough to buy a playset of misty rainforest for 3 a pop just in case. Blue and Green are the most used colors right?
I never felt personally attacked; you have been complimentary and respectful overall, and I'm happy you took the time to write. For every one reader who leaves a comment, there are probably 50 who feel the same way who didn't, so I am happy to have a springboard to speak to the "Swiss issue."
I see what you meant by that sentence now. I would counter that there are given *instances* of Swiss that have way more to teach than given instances of 84. I take it case by case, which in general means more 84s, but if I'm walking through a Swiss, it means in that instance I felt it made for a superior walkthrough than any recent 84.
In *this* instance, it was because it was my first ZZW draft, and had enough interesting spots to make the cut.
lol i certainly wouldn't worry about Valakut much. From other posts Im pretty sure he writes for another mtgo site and seems to just be stirring the pot here in this article. Overall I'll be honest I don't draft much but actually tried a ZZW swiss earlier in the month and came out with a hedron crab/ally u/g deck...yeah not so great and obviously not 8-4 quality drafting, so thanks for occasionally doing swiss events.
Your walkthroughs are so good that I'd read them even if you were drafting those crazy random packs on the Beta server. However, I would rather see you draft 8-4's. This is because I can't help but lose all concentration when the opponent makes a terrible play - yea, even when it's LSV at the helm. Best chance to avoid that is in an 8-4.
(No, I would not stop concentrating in one of my own matches if the opponent was playing terribly.)
The point about games being worthwhile in either "format" is moot if you are only going to write about interesting games, right?
Well, just to hammer Ryan's point home even further, I'm an average to bad player, a noob you may call me, and I'm featured on one of LSV videos on a site he writes for, that I may not be allowed to mention but includes the words "fireball" and "channell" in it's URL. It was my first 8-4 queue (triple Zen at that time), I was just rare-grabbing (got 12 rares, including 2 fetches), and I managed a sub-par BR deck which did win a game against LSV, no small feat.
The point is, in this particular draft my bellow average deck beat the first opponent handily (another noob, maybe), lost to LSV second match, and I watched all of the LSV videos afterwards and none of us was really top player except for him, not even his final's opponent.
Your views about draft tables is pretty skewed, I think: although you may safely asume all the really good players play 8-4 online, there's a huge number of average players out there that either jump onto the first to start queue without giving it a second thought, or get in there like me, to rare draft and/or take the chances on hitting a couple of broken cards and hitting the jackpot.
I did not ment to attack anyone personally and my sentence was badly phrased. I did not mean to say that Swiss drafts have no value but rather that you cannot teach anything in a Swiss that you cannot do even better in an 8 4. Yes, there are good players in a Swiss sometimes and beginners in 84's but it's rather the exception, not the rule. Keep up the good work.
"The one thing you should take into account though is that play decisions are always easy to judge in a vacuum. Often the skill of your opponents will influence what consists a good or bad play on your part. A good play against a weak opponent might not be the best play against a good one and vise versa."
Of course, and I do take that into account for individual decisions in my columns, but that layer of decision-making exists in all queues. You seem to operate under the assumption that you only face good players in 84, and only crappy players in Swiss, though. How many times have I heard LSV say in one of his videos after a bad card or bad play by an opponent, "I swear this is an 84, folks." When LSV observes that he's up against a weak opponent, do you skip to the next round because that match is no longer of any use to you?
Many players seem to have a warped view of the skill difference found between Swiss and 84. As someone who plays half and half, I can say that while you are certainly going to face better opponents on average in 84, there is not nearly the skill divide that some people seem to think there is, and you can face a great table in Swiss and terrible table in 84.
"I can ensure you I am not the only one that would prefer 8 4 drafts as there are in my opinion NO benefits whatsoever for the reader."
Seriously? It's that cut-and-dry for you? "If it is not an 84, it has no value." That is being stubbornly robotic. Let me put it this way: let's say I let you choose the source of my next walkthrough. Your options are a Swiss draft that I assure you is full of interesting picks and *razor* close games in which any number of tough decisions from both sides influenced the outcomes, or an 84 that I assure you basically drafted and played itself, and had few if any debatable or tricky situations. Which would you choose?
If you would answer, "The 84, because I all I want to see are 84 drafts, even if they have nothing much to think about," then allow me to direct you to countless alternate sources for dry, content-light, "Here is my draft" resources on the web.
"But wait, I want an *84* full of razor close games in which any number of tough decisions from both sides influenced the outcomes," you might say. That is what I aim for, in general. This is the first Swiss I've written up in quite a while, in fact. That being said, your baseline stance that Swiss drafts have no value for walkthroughs is just misguided, elitist, and wrong. I choose which drafts to write up based on the density of interesting pick and play decisions, not on what queue it was. *That* is what provides the best articles possible, not blindly writing up 84s without considering the quality of decisions within.
If you appreciate my writing--and I thank you for the kind words in that regard--then trust me enough to go along with the draft I chose on the assumption that if I took the time to write it up, then there are interesting decisions and useful lessons found within.
1) Not all of Godot's readers are pros like yourself. So they may achieve some level of learning that you can't because you are so far beyond what Godot has to teach.
2) Swiss is not always a gaggle of beginners and scrubs. Occasionally good players show up and not for the sharking to be done but because frankly 8 4 ISN'T always the ideal draft format. Sure you are likely (but not always) to meet players with high ratings in the 8 4s but you are likely to meet some of those same players in the swiss, because even good players have trouble going infinite. If that were not the case I am certain Godot would not waste our collective time.
3) To say that the article has no value to the reader is just erroneous. (Even if it IS your opinion as you say.) Instead tell us that it has no value to you and stop posting.
Game replays are pretty crucial in my opinion! When well written, as yours tend to be, they can convey much of (sometimes more of) the strategy presented in your article. They are also fun to read.
Fair enough Godot. The one thing you should take into account though is that play decisions are always easy to judge in a vacuum. Often the skill of your opponents will influence what consists a good or bad play on your part. A good play against a weak opponent might not be the best play against a good one and vise versa. A swiss draft is also a bad indicator of general deck power you might expect to assemble as more inexperienced opponents usually draft weaker cards and therefore benefit the better players at the table.
I can ensure you I am not the only one that would prefer 8 4 drafts as there are in my opinion NO benefits whatsoever for the reader. I do understand though that it has economic implications to go with the higher variance 8 4. But writers here get compensated after all (or am I wrong?) so the goal should not be to reduce your variance but provide the best article possible.
Your writing is top notch and it could be even better if you would go "all-in" with the power level.
lol well that was a number of different comments i cant tell which are different individuals lol so about the inside out, its there, but yes you're right about face is a much better choice, the deck lists (for the most part) aren't put together by me, though I could have mentioned that
standstill.. my mistake once again I often confuse triggered and activated and passive abilities
onefinremess... yep typo, sorry, I spell checked, but stuff like that gets missed esp in such a long article
thanks all for reading and commenting
Sorry to pick, but that drives me crazy.
Otherwise, informative article.
actually it is triggered not activated (standstill)
I always enjoy your reviews. Better luck next time!
I like the idea, but it as Kornzysiek saus, it's all in on a plan that's hardly a definate win.
The dewck needs at least another reanimate spell, and better targets preverably with shroud or evasion.
Agro decks will be able to race this since all your guys can be blocked ( except marauders which dies after 2 blocks)
Even combo can get a turn 4 kill which is still faster than your turn 1 Macetail.
Don't wanna bash creative ideas, but I really can't see this work.
I like the idea of BG with Blastoderm. Making exhume just an option instead of THE gameplan.
Reanimator is a nice option, but I would do rather UB with draw and counter as old reanimator used to be. In this deck you get journey to nowhere from WW, counterspell on exhume from every deck that has it (mainly UB, but there are always some MUC variants) and probably innocent blood/diabolic edict/doom blade from MBC, or you got your exhume discarded via duress. Not to mention that many of decks run graveyard distruption nowadays. You plan to get a fatty out and win with it. You got only 4 exhume against pool full of removal. Don't think it's gonna work.
And you have only 4 draws. What if you don't get your exhume? You concede?
Funny how this article went from positive to whiny at the end. I was doing well and then whaa whaa.. lost to mana screw.
I need a better promo card so I can afford to qualify.. sniff sniff.
..* about face.
I really need some coffee.
*facepalm* it's called inside out, and is cheaper.
Never mind.
Where's the inside out in the life.dek for an infinite damage slap to the face?
hmmm just out of curiosity i think green could work. You do have early discard outlets like Wild Mongrel and Greenseeker and I think Fa'adiyah Seer was a common as well. You also gain access to ramping into effects like stir the grave...and still get access to blastoderm, A-bom, youre green so splash for the hystrodon?
hmmm wondering if the upcoming legacy format will have any effect on the zendikar fetches...it hasnt yet, though i was smart enough to buy a playset of misty rainforest for 3 a pop just in case. Blue and Green are the most used colors right?
I never felt personally attacked; you have been complimentary and respectful overall, and I'm happy you took the time to write. For every one reader who leaves a comment, there are probably 50 who feel the same way who didn't, so I am happy to have a springboard to speak to the "Swiss issue."
I see what you meant by that sentence now. I would counter that there are given *instances* of Swiss that have way more to teach than given instances of 84. I take it case by case, which in general means more 84s, but if I'm walking through a Swiss, it means in that instance I felt it made for a superior walkthrough than any recent 84.
In *this* instance, it was because it was my first ZZW draft, and had enough interesting spots to make the cut.
lol i certainly wouldn't worry about Valakut much. From other posts Im pretty sure he writes for another mtgo site and seems to just be stirring the pot here in this article. Overall I'll be honest I don't draft much but actually tried a ZZW swiss earlier in the month and came out with a hedron crab/ally u/g deck...yeah not so great and obviously not 8-4 quality drafting, so thanks for occasionally doing swiss events.
Please save yourself the embarrassment and stop posting. Thanks.
Godot,
Thanks
Your walkthroughs are so good that I'd read them even if you were drafting those crazy random packs on the Beta server. However, I would rather see you draft 8-4's. This is because I can't help but lose all concentration when the opponent makes a terrible play - yea, even when it's LSV at the helm. Best chance to avoid that is in an 8-4.
(No, I would not stop concentrating in one of my own matches if the opponent was playing terribly.)
The point about games being worthwhile in either "format" is moot if you are only going to write about interesting games, right?
I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to put together your opponents deck, I think that gives fantastic insight into that game
Maybe it was a glitch back in the day, but i definitely killed a planeswalker with one swing of a deathtouch creature
Well, just to hammer Ryan's point home even further, I'm an average to bad player, a noob you may call me, and I'm featured on one of LSV videos on a site he writes for, that I may not be allowed to mention but includes the words "fireball" and "channell" in it's URL. It was my first 8-4 queue (triple Zen at that time), I was just rare-grabbing (got 12 rares, including 2 fetches), and I managed a sub-par BR deck which did win a game against LSV, no small feat.
The point is, in this particular draft my bellow average deck beat the first opponent handily (another noob, maybe), lost to LSV second match, and I watched all of the LSV videos afterwards and none of us was really top player except for him, not even his final's opponent.
Your views about draft tables is pretty skewed, I think: although you may safely asume all the really good players play 8-4 online, there's a huge number of average players out there that either jump onto the first to start queue without giving it a second thought, or get in there like me, to rare draft and/or take the chances on hitting a couple of broken cards and hitting the jackpot.
I did not ment to attack anyone personally and my sentence was badly phrased. I did not mean to say that Swiss drafts have no value but rather that you cannot teach anything in a Swiss that you cannot do even better in an 8 4. Yes, there are good players in a Swiss sometimes and beginners in 84's but it's rather the exception, not the rule. Keep up the good work.
Me, I am no elitist and love your view on whatever you happen to write....another fine article Godot.
"The one thing you should take into account though is that play decisions are always easy to judge in a vacuum. Often the skill of your opponents will influence what consists a good or bad play on your part. A good play against a weak opponent might not be the best play against a good one and vise versa."
Of course, and I do take that into account for individual decisions in my columns, but that layer of decision-making exists in all queues. You seem to operate under the assumption that you only face good players in 84, and only crappy players in Swiss, though. How many times have I heard LSV say in one of his videos after a bad card or bad play by an opponent, "I swear this is an 84, folks." When LSV observes that he's up against a weak opponent, do you skip to the next round because that match is no longer of any use to you?
Many players seem to have a warped view of the skill difference found between Swiss and 84. As someone who plays half and half, I can say that while you are certainly going to face better opponents on average in 84, there is not nearly the skill divide that some people seem to think there is, and you can face a great table in Swiss and terrible table in 84.
"I can ensure you I am not the only one that would prefer 8 4 drafts as there are in my opinion NO benefits whatsoever for the reader."
Seriously? It's that cut-and-dry for you? "If it is not an 84, it has no value." That is being stubbornly robotic. Let me put it this way: let's say I let you choose the source of my next walkthrough. Your options are a Swiss draft that I assure you is full of interesting picks and *razor* close games in which any number of tough decisions from both sides influenced the outcomes, or an 84 that I assure you basically drafted and played itself, and had few if any debatable or tricky situations. Which would you choose?
If you would answer, "The 84, because I all I want to see are 84 drafts, even if they have nothing much to think about," then allow me to direct you to countless alternate sources for dry, content-light, "Here is my draft" resources on the web.
"But wait, I want an *84* full of razor close games in which any number of tough decisions from both sides influenced the outcomes," you might say. That is what I aim for, in general. This is the first Swiss I've written up in quite a while, in fact. That being said, your baseline stance that Swiss drafts have no value for walkthroughs is just misguided, elitist, and wrong. I choose which drafts to write up based on the density of interesting pick and play decisions, not on what queue it was. *That* is what provides the best articles possible, not blindly writing up 84s without considering the quality of decisions within.
If you appreciate my writing--and I thank you for the kind words in that regard--then trust me enough to go along with the draft I chose on the assumption that if I took the time to write it up, then there are interesting decisions and useful lessons found within.
1) Not all of Godot's readers are pros like yourself. So they may achieve some level of learning that you can't because you are so far beyond what Godot has to teach.
2) Swiss is not always a gaggle of beginners and scrubs. Occasionally good players show up and not for the sharking to be done but because frankly 8 4 ISN'T always the ideal draft format. Sure you are likely (but not always) to meet players with high ratings in the 8 4s but you are likely to meet some of those same players in the swiss, because even good players have trouble going infinite. If that were not the case I am certain Godot would not waste our collective time.
3) To say that the article has no value to the reader is just erroneous. (Even if it IS your opinion as you say.) Instead tell us that it has no value to you and stop posting.
Game replays are pretty crucial in my opinion! When well written, as yours tend to be, they can convey much of (sometimes more of) the strategy presented in your article. They are also fun to read.
Fair enough Godot. The one thing you should take into account though is that play decisions are always easy to judge in a vacuum. Often the skill of your opponents will influence what consists a good or bad play on your part. A good play against a weak opponent might not be the best play against a good one and vise versa. A swiss draft is also a bad indicator of general deck power you might expect to assemble as more inexperienced opponents usually draft weaker cards and therefore benefit the better players at the table.
I can ensure you I am not the only one that would prefer 8 4 drafts as there are in my opinion NO benefits whatsoever for the reader. I do understand though that it has economic implications to go with the higher variance 8 4. But writers here get compensated after all (or am I wrong?) so the goal should not be to reduce your variance but provide the best article possible.
Your writing is top notch and it could be even better if you would go "all-in" with the power level.