Very odd since it works perfectly for me. (Not that I can change a damned thing if I wanted to now.) I am guessing something of the formatting was changed in the post submit edit.
The snippet you posted (but which doesn't show because of the evil interactions of html interpretation in browsers is a standard part of Jam's deck list generator:
<div class="mtgodeck" This is the first line of the generator.
Going back to look at Jam's deck generator site he seems to have fiddled with the code so that there is php stuff showing up in the forms.
I guess we will have to wait and see what he does with it. Meantime I can't fix what I can't access so :/
I like the cloak of confusion. I disagree that okiba only came in for storm, i bring it in against control, but it is pretty marginal. see my article today about the search for removal. i'll be switching cloack into my sideboard now, though perhaps cutting an Augur for 3.
The card pics aren't overlapping your article, only the non-card picture, the decklists, and the double tribal rules.
IN looking at one of your previous articles, I did not have this problem. The html source for your deck lists is a bit different in this article from the previous articles. This line is in this article but not the previous article:
At a quick glance, I don't see anything in this bit of code that would cause the picture to float over the text.
Some cards might work this way, but there aren't going to be many of them. (As it turns out, not even Overrun worked this way in practice.) I think that most of these would turn out as ineligible anyway, so I wouldn't even be considering them.
While I'm sure this poster's comments were intended to make me feel sad, his remarks are silly. Political science is virtually all math at the graduate level. So while it is possible this poster's background is in math, while he was spending all of his time learning pure theory, I've actually been working on applications.
My models are not the end-all of strategy. There are issues. (From what I recall, Godot's posts were the most eloquent and constructive of the criticisms.) But it beats the hell out of a lot of the alternatives to these methods. My model does not fail at the most basic of levels, and I do not need any magical hand waving to get people to read this stuff.
Most people don't play Knight of Sursi because it's a bad card in WW. It's utterly useless against Storm, too slow for Control, and mostly irrelevant in the mirror.
Your logic on Goldmeadow Harrier is pretty questionable too.
The very simple point is; you guys are all saying "i play to win", but when somebody else comes along playing to win, and plays a better deck better than you, you all complain like this. You can't engineer a situation where you all "play to win", but all complain when somebody else also "plays to win".
I actually assembled close to his Kor list tonight and played about 15 games with it. The only notable changes were the Worldwake cards and I'm short 3 fetches (replaced with kabira crossroads).
Of those 15 games the lynx was stellar in exactly one, good in a bunch and bad in a few. Maybe the few extra fetches would make it better as would the ability to tutor up the gear when its the missing piece. I'd really have to see how the kitesail played in its place though. I did see how awesome the +2/+2 from an equipped AM could be... having another Kor can't be too bad.
After playing I definitely wouldn't take out the skyfisher, he's a really nice option. Adding the crossroads helped that I think, having a target to send back to gain more life. I also liked the spidersilk net with him. I had that in as a placeholder for the basilisk collar. Turn 4 play two skyfishers bouncing the net. Turn 5 play AM, equip the net, attack for 8... that was nice.
The other thing is 20 lands it too few given the lynx and all the equipment. I would get stuck on 2 or 3 lands far too often. Cutting 3-4 spells for land is a must, IMO.
As far as DoJ is concerned I don't think it would be that bad playing around it. The plan isn't really getting an army of weenies out. Two or three that you buff really big with equipment and AM does the job pretty well. A double striking, buffed duelist takes life out in BIG chunks.
Maybe this was covered in previous comments, but you say "every time a card hit play" you counted it. Really what you mean is, "every time a spell is cast," because you counted each spell as it hit the stack, not as it resolved, right?
I missed the other articles, but isn't your method fatally flawed? Using your approach, wouldn't Coalition Victory be viewed as the greatest card ever because when it's resolved you almost always win? How do you take into account the matches where a card sits in your hand unplayable and thus contributes to the loss? You did consider this case, right?
... what constitutes a 'fun game' or a 'casual game' differs depending on who you talk to. I'm not gonna rehash that, because it's been discussed to death, and without resolution. Suffice to say, I've joined games that were labeled as 'fun decks only' only to find out that the creator of the game is playing a combo and wants an easy job of it, or some recursion, or infinite turns. Frankly, if a EDH game bores me to death, it's not fun, and it's not casual, but that is only my opinion.
I only mention this because I was just playing EDH tonight. I joined one game without a label, and had a ball until one guy went on an infinite combo global kill rampage with recursion. Essentially, creatures would hit play for one turn, get globally nuked, next turn same as the first. The game finally went on a mass quitting spree when the same player blew up all lands on turn 12. I spent 30 minutes with no activity but play something, watch it die, play something watch it die. Still, in this case, I expected as much, as any EDH without a label could be anything at all. Now in the second EDH game I played tonight, the creator wanted 'fun decks only' and played recursive kill with mortuary and some crazy creatures. Still, his deck wasn't that bad, and I was ok with it, but my neighbor ripped into the guy's deck and cried unfair that the game creator's deck was not 'fun', and he made him quit, which I thought was completely unnecessary. Then that same dude went on to combo out with some ridiculous sprout swarm/skullclamp/fecundity/graveyard recursion/ant queen/you name it in green, that was dealing over 500 points of damage in an attack (he kept creating tons of tokens and recurring overrun). I told him his deck was combo, and no worse than the guy he ran off, to which he replied it wasn't combo, because combo "was any deck that wins by turn 6." What? Clearly this guy had no clue, one turn alone took him over 15 mins to complete, causing the other guy to bug out from boredom. In general, I don't quit EDH games, so I played it out for the additional turn it took to overrun me.
Even as I was leaving the game, he was still protesting that it wasn't combo, which I mentioned almost 5 minutes before and had said nothing since. I'd like to think he was feeling guilty, but I have my doubts. LOL.
Anyways, the point here is, what you label your game has little effect on what kind of game you end up it. It's just too subjective.
If you're interested in wacky deckbuilding formats check out our new Build Your Own Standard PRE on Sunday 12:30 PM est in /join BYOS. Click the link Hammy provided for more information on the event.
Here's hoping Rancor drops more so I can pick em up :P.
Great points...extirpate would make a great addition - just a purist at heart, two colors max...but with needing so many fetches via the crab, perhaps I could stretch to 3, I'll give it a try and let ya know :) Thanks for the feedback...
I think anyone whose background is in statistics has already chimed in.
At this point, there's nothing left to say about a political "scientist" throwing out intentionally misleading statements about their statistics. Your model fails on the most basic levels.
"I assume that skill, luck, and the quality of a player's deck determine who wins any particular confrontation. While undoubtedly skill matters, this study is focused on the luck and card quality factors. Players actually have a great deal of control over both of these, as a poorly-constructed deck will win less often than a well-constructed one. From this, we can conclude that some cards contribute to wins more frequently than others. If an average card ever reached play in a game, we would expect its controller to have only won that game around 50% of the time. But if a truly exceptional card reached play, we would expect its controller to have won upwards of 70% of the time."
Just because you try to look like a jedi in your picture it doesn't mean that your hand waving actually works.
BECAAAAAAAUSE sometimes you just cant race a bloodwitch. You slow roll your hand and you walk them into a bloodwitch or two, and then DOJ them off, I understand this is a narrow strategy that most of you guys can't possibly understand, but sometimes, you just dont get the amazingly aggressive hand that you wanted.
I have no clue why he has DoJ in the sideboard. It will almost always hurt you more than your opponent.
Ascension is used as a sideboard card against U/W, but it is a very bad sideboard strategy. Between Kor Sanctifier, Spell Pierce, and Into the Roil, the Ascension will never activate.
Of course the main problem with White Weenie is that it has very few ways to deal with a DoJ.
thank you, this was never meant to be cutthroat. It was simply to offer an opportunity for people to get together to play Tribal. THe prizes i thought were a nice "thanks for coming out" not hey you destroyed everyone here is a prize
Except that isn't really true. In the tribal games I've played many of the players I've met were friendly, polite and not at all disrespectful. The thing about other formats is that this is usually rare, and people act as you say. Tribal players by and large act like adults.
Very odd since it works perfectly for me. (Not that I can change a damned thing if I wanted to now.) I am guessing something of the formatting was changed in the post submit edit.
The snippet you posted (but which doesn't show because of the evil interactions of html interpretation in browsers is a standard part of Jam's deck list generator:
<div class="mtgodeck" This is the first line of the generator.
Going back to look at Jam's deck generator site he seems to have fiddled with the code so that there is php stuff showing up in the forms.
I guess we will have to wait and see what he does with it. Meantime I can't fix what I can't access so :/
not to be that guy, but you quit showing after one event..why are you even in this conversation?
Weird picture eh? Does no one appreciate hand drawn art anymore? *shakes his head*
I like the cloak of confusion. I disagree that okiba only came in for storm, i bring it in against control, but it is pretty marginal. see my article today about the search for removal. i'll be switching cloack into my sideboard now, though perhaps cutting an Augur for 3.
Yeah, I can't see a lot of the text as the grey boxes and that weird picture at the top are over the top of a large proportion of the article.
The card pics aren't overlapping your article, only the non-card picture, the decklists, and the double tribal rules.
IN looking at one of your previous articles, I did not have this problem. The html source for your deck lists is a bit different in this article from the previous articles. This line is in this article but not the previous article:
At a quick glance, I don't see anything in this bit of code that would cause the picture to float over the text.
Excellent article, Doctor. Keep them coming. With you, Spikeboy and other Pauper writers we are in heaven :)
Some cards might work this way, but there aren't going to be many of them. (As it turns out, not even Overrun worked this way in practice.) I think that most of these would turn out as ineligible anyway, so I wouldn't even be considering them.
Stack is correct. I was just looking for other ways to say similar things.
While I'm sure this poster's comments were intended to make me feel sad, his remarks are silly. Political science is virtually all math at the graduate level. So while it is possible this poster's background is in math, while he was spending all of his time learning pure theory, I've actually been working on applications.
My models are not the end-all of strategy. There are issues. (From what I recall, Godot's posts were the most eloquent and constructive of the criticisms.) But it beats the hell out of a lot of the alternatives to these methods. My model does not fail at the most basic of levels, and I do not need any magical hand waving to get people to read this stuff.
Most people don't play Knight of Sursi because it's a bad card in WW. It's utterly useless against Storm, too slow for Control, and mostly irrelevant in the mirror.
Your logic on Goldmeadow Harrier is pretty questionable too.
The very simple point is; you guys are all saying "i play to win", but when somebody else comes along playing to win, and plays a better deck better than you, you all complain like this. You can't engineer a situation where you all "play to win", but all complain when somebody else also "plays to win".
I actually assembled close to his Kor list tonight and played about 15 games with it. The only notable changes were the Worldwake cards and I'm short 3 fetches (replaced with kabira crossroads).
Of those 15 games the lynx was stellar in exactly one, good in a bunch and bad in a few. Maybe the few extra fetches would make it better as would the ability to tutor up the gear when its the missing piece. I'd really have to see how the kitesail played in its place though. I did see how awesome the +2/+2 from an equipped AM could be... having another Kor can't be too bad.
After playing I definitely wouldn't take out the skyfisher, he's a really nice option. Adding the crossroads helped that I think, having a target to send back to gain more life. I also liked the spidersilk net with him. I had that in as a placeholder for the basilisk collar. Turn 4 play two skyfishers bouncing the net. Turn 5 play AM, equip the net, attack for 8... that was nice.
The other thing is 20 lands it too few given the lynx and all the equipment. I would get stuck on 2 or 3 lands far too often. Cutting 3-4 spells for land is a must, IMO.
As far as DoJ is concerned I don't think it would be that bad playing around it. The plan isn't really getting an army of weenies out. Two or three that you buff really big with equipment and AM does the job pretty well. A double striking, buffed duelist takes life out in BIG chunks.
Maybe this was covered in previous comments, but you say "every time a card hit play" you counted it. Really what you mean is, "every time a spell is cast," because you counted each spell as it hit the stack, not as it resolved, right?
Just making sure.
lol next article sounds amazing
I missed the other articles, but isn't your method fatally flawed? Using your approach, wouldn't Coalition Victory be viewed as the greatest card ever because when it's resolved you almost always win? How do you take into account the matches where a card sits in your hand unplayable and thus contributes to the loss? You did consider this case, right?
... what constitutes a 'fun game' or a 'casual game' differs depending on who you talk to. I'm not gonna rehash that, because it's been discussed to death, and without resolution. Suffice to say, I've joined games that were labeled as 'fun decks only' only to find out that the creator of the game is playing a combo and wants an easy job of it, or some recursion, or infinite turns. Frankly, if a EDH game bores me to death, it's not fun, and it's not casual, but that is only my opinion.
I only mention this because I was just playing EDH tonight. I joined one game without a label, and had a ball until one guy went on an infinite combo global kill rampage with recursion. Essentially, creatures would hit play for one turn, get globally nuked, next turn same as the first. The game finally went on a mass quitting spree when the same player blew up all lands on turn 12. I spent 30 minutes with no activity but play something, watch it die, play something watch it die. Still, in this case, I expected as much, as any EDH without a label could be anything at all. Now in the second EDH game I played tonight, the creator wanted 'fun decks only' and played recursive kill with mortuary and some crazy creatures. Still, his deck wasn't that bad, and I was ok with it, but my neighbor ripped into the guy's deck and cried unfair that the game creator's deck was not 'fun', and he made him quit, which I thought was completely unnecessary. Then that same dude went on to combo out with some ridiculous sprout swarm/skullclamp/fecundity/graveyard recursion/ant queen/you name it in green, that was dealing over 500 points of damage in an attack (he kept creating tons of tokens and recurring overrun). I told him his deck was combo, and no worse than the guy he ran off, to which he replied it wasn't combo, because combo "was any deck that wins by turn 6." What? Clearly this guy had no clue, one turn alone took him over 15 mins to complete, causing the other guy to bug out from boredom. In general, I don't quit EDH games, so I played it out for the additional turn it took to overrun me.
Even as I was leaving the game, he was still protesting that it wasn't combo, which I mentioned almost 5 minutes before and had said nothing since. I'd like to think he was feeling guilty, but I have my doubts. LOL.
Anyways, the point here is, what you label your game has little effect on what kind of game you end up it. It's just too subjective.
If you're interested in wacky deckbuilding formats check out our new Build Your Own Standard PRE on Sunday 12:30 PM est in /join BYOS. Click the link Hammy provided for more information on the event.
Here's hoping Rancor drops more so I can pick em up :P.
Great points...extirpate would make a great addition - just a purist at heart, two colors max...but with needing so many fetches via the crab, perhaps I could stretch to 3, I'll give it a try and let ya know :) Thanks for the feedback...
I think anyone whose background is in statistics has already chimed in.
At this point, there's nothing left to say about a political "scientist" throwing out intentionally misleading statements about their statistics. Your model fails on the most basic levels.
"I assume that skill, luck, and the quality of a player's deck determine who wins any particular confrontation. While undoubtedly skill matters, this study is focused on the luck and card quality factors. Players actually have a great deal of control over both of these, as a poorly-constructed deck will win less often than a well-constructed one. From this, we can conclude that some cards contribute to wins more frequently than others. If an average card ever reached play in a game, we would expect its controller to have only won that game around 50% of the time. But if a truly exceptional card reached play, we would expect its controller to have won upwards of 70% of the time."
Just because you try to look like a jedi in your picture it doesn't mean that your hand waving actually works.
keep an open mind and it might become a serious competitor
BECAAAAAAAUSE sometimes you just cant race a bloodwitch. You slow roll your hand and you walk them into a bloodwitch or two, and then DOJ them off, I understand this is a narrow strategy that most of you guys can't possibly understand, but sometimes, you just dont get the amazingly aggressive hand that you wanted.
I have no clue why he has DoJ in the sideboard. It will almost always hurt you more than your opponent.
Ascension is used as a sideboard card against U/W, but it is a very bad sideboard strategy. Between Kor Sanctifier, Spell Pierce, and Into the Roil, the Ascension will never activate.
Of course the main problem with White Weenie is that it has very few ways to deal with a DoJ.
thank you, this was never meant to be cutthroat. It was simply to offer an opportunity for people to get together to play Tribal. THe prizes i thought were a nice "thanks for coming out" not hey you destroyed everyone here is a prize
Except that isn't really true. In the tribal games I've played many of the players I've met were friendly, polite and not at all disrespectful. The thing about other formats is that this is usually rare, and people act as you say. Tribal players by and large act like adults.