I'm sorry about mis-classifying your deck. I look at a lot of decklists over the course of a week and I try to classify decks quickly so that I can get through the lists in a reasonable amount of time. Sometime this means that I mis-classify a deck.
the reason i said it needed pictures is because it is just one continuos wall of text for the entirety of the article. It was a good article and I liked reading his ideas but the fact that there was nothing to break up the solid wall of text made it a hard read. The introduction of any kind of images be they deck lists, cards hes talking about, or just some other cards that have an interaction with the new stuff would have made the article 100% more readable.
Is it a bad sign that I actually won a few acr drafts with Bant? :) yes it is weak if you get the wrong cards but there are a few nice builds for it if you are lucky. That said those drafts I probably should have lost based purely on the picks.
I don't really get the comment on pictures - are you guys referring to adding pictures of the cards being discussed? That would be a nice idea. If not I'm not really getting how any other pictures would help.
I'm not sure with you, but I've done lots of lending online. I've lent cards within my clan, and to closer friends online and have never had issues.
Second: The argument about most paper legacy players already having a lot of the cards is a bit weak. I already own most of the legacy cards too through my classic collection. There's very few cards I need to make every single one of the top legacy decks. Most of those cards were bought at much lower prices than today also. I believe I paid 4 tix for stripmine + berserk.
My only hope is that they don't totally torpedo classic with the intro of legacy. All of the legacy restricted cards I own, and they tend to be expensive. It would be a major piss off to have no place to play them.
Generally when I don't know what I'm doing in a format, I draft aggro. This beats slow 5c... and those 2cc pro-color guys aren't good vs a properly drafted 5-color, which will have lots of high toughness low drops and varied removal.
But yes, if you don't get the blade cycle from reborn, the outlanders from shards are fine two drops. Fusion Elemental is bad there, if one of them sticks on the board. However I still would not go into bigA and expect to draft 5c and win with it, simply because the format is 'new.' The Naya deck will crush you. If you draft enough sb artifact hate, you can beat Esper. Both Grixis and even Jund matches will depend on the mana, and three colors generally is more consistent than five. You'll beat Bant though, heh.
No, you bring up a valid point. 4 mana is a luxury which you usually do not get unless you've been consistently hitting him with other discard spells in the previous turns. I'll have to try out the cloak then.
2pm this saturday? I actually might be able to make that for once!
someone else (maybe at this very site?) threw out the darksteel citadel+any zendikon land basher as an indestructible pauper guy!plus all the new ally strategies and combinations of colors is gonna be awesome.I actually thought i had a new idea when i ran changelings with ug allies.well it was new to me!But yeah definitely gonna try some bg,uw,and ug new ally dex,and thats alot of configurations all by their lonesomes.but yeah i likeded the article also
"The five-color archetype isn't as viable because of the nature of mana-fixing. Still, I'm definitely drafting it with a first pick Maelstrom mythic, and I'd consider it with a first pick Fusion Elemental in a weaker pack."
I disagree with this. First of all, Fusion Elemental is not very good because of the common outlander cycle which chumps it all day. Secondly, you ignored the reason why 5C IS viable - signaling, or lack thereof. Because this format is so new nobody really knows what they're doing yet. When people don't know what they're doing they're going to be making bad decisions which results in bad signals. The majority of decks I see are 5C and it's not like any particular shard is "open." What that means is you're basically forced to play their game and just hope you make better decisions and card evaluations.
I should also point out that the price of playing paper legacy has spiked a huge amount in the last 12 months or so. A lot of the arguments about the cost of online classic are old and have not been updated as it were for $70 Seas and $25 Wastelands.
Pete, while the price difference between std and extended is a nice extension of mikes article, i have to wonder, what is the point of the article? You spend almost the entirety of the article regurgitating mikes and then add a a few extra price graphs and say that u disagree with mikes evaluation of how onliny legacy will be imbraced, kind of. You say that it will be hopping, but only during gp season.
I think what you fail to realise is that legacy is a very fun format much more so then std, and probably more then extended on a player by player basis, depending on how they veiw broken interactions. Ie scapeshift may be pushing the line for some players while others think that its kindergarden rules compared to combo legacy decks.
So we have a fun format, we have a format where it is now almost half the price on a paper version of any given deck, and you have the fact that scg is doing about another 10 legacy 5 k's throught out the year + the american and european legacy grand prix, when exactly is the off season?
IA4L- I know that this may be a very very small part of the comuunity, but the majority of classic players I know wouldnt hesitate to lend some duals or such, and at second to worse (worse being no u cant borrow) they ask for collateral. The thing is that your lending out possibly hundreds of dollars worth of cards it dosent matter if its paper or legacy, that kind of trust is earned and not given lightly, would you lend out 6 duals in paper top someone your an aquaintence with? would you lend out 6 duals to someone online that you play and or talk to every day and think you can trust? I think its the same risk reward except that you cant eaisly find a modo scammer and beat them up.
also yea fow is high we all get it, but duals are dirt cheap, wouyld yopu rather pay 20-25 bucks a fow and 70 a sea and 50 a trop? or would you rather pay 50 for fow and 15 and 28 for trop and sea? the work around seems silly too, would you rather run a cheaper deck or a better deck if your playing for prizes?
I think that both this and dangerlinto's article are good but miss a few key things.
- Key cards online are very expensive.
In paper some of the most expensive legacy cards are the dual lands. You can work around this by running more fetchlands, or basics.
Online cards like Strip Mine, Force of Will, and Oath of Druids are not cards you can "cheat" on. If you're playing blue you want FoW. If you're playing Oath you need Oaths.
- Online there is less borrowing.
When playing paper (or another paper format) you can often borrow that last Tropical Island or that playset of Dazes. For a number of reasons this is less common online.
"It's been a long time since I've written...been busy..." NO ONE CARES. We read Magic articles to hear about Magic, not your life. Cut that crap out and get to the meat.
Every damn Magic article begins with that sentence, and it's completely gratuitous. So sick of reading it.
I'm sorry about mis-classifying your deck. I look at a lot of decklists over the course of a week and I try to classify decks quickly so that I can get through the lists in a reasonable amount of time. Sometime this means that I mis-classify a deck.
I'm glad you like the series.
Your last name matches my favorite musical composer from the show "DEXTER" - any relation?
the reason i said it needed pictures is because it is just one continuos wall of text for the entirety of the article. It was a good article and I liked reading his ideas but the fact that there was nothing to break up the solid wall of text made it a hard read. The introduction of any kind of images be they deck lists, cards hes talking about, or just some other cards that have an interaction with the new stuff would have made the article 100% more readable.
Is it a bad sign that I actually won a few acr drafts with Bant? :) yes it is weak if you get the wrong cards but there are a few nice builds for it if you are lucky. That said those drafts I probably should have lost based purely on the picks.
I don't really get the comment on pictures - are you guys referring to adding pictures of the cards being discussed? That would be a nice idea. If not I'm not really getting how any other pictures would help.
Treasure Hunt is crazy good. Crazy. Good.
And if you've built your deck with a bunch of cycling lands, it's even better.
I'm just happy WotC resisted the urge to make common manlands instead of Auras that make lands men, if that makes sense.
I like that Zendikon-Citadel idea though.
did u actually labeled maelstrom nexus as a bomb in acr draft?lol
I'm not sure with you, but I've done lots of lending online. I've lent cards within my clan, and to closer friends online and have never had issues.
Second: The argument about most paper legacy players already having a lot of the cards is a bit weak. I already own most of the legacy cards too through my classic collection. There's very few cards I need to make every single one of the top legacy decks. Most of those cards were bought at much lower prices than today also. I believe I paid 4 tix for stripmine + berserk.
My only hope is that they don't totally torpedo classic with the intro of legacy. All of the legacy restricted cards I own, and they tend to be expensive. It would be a major piss off to have no place to play them.
Generally when I don't know what I'm doing in a format, I draft aggro. This beats slow 5c... and those 2cc pro-color guys aren't good vs a properly drafted 5-color, which will have lots of high toughness low drops and varied removal.
But yes, if you don't get the blade cycle from reborn, the outlanders from shards are fine two drops. Fusion Elemental is bad there, if one of them sticks on the board. However I still would not go into bigA and expect to draft 5c and win with it, simply because the format is 'new.' The Naya deck will crush you. If you draft enough sb artifact hate, you can beat Esper. Both Grixis and even Jund matches will depend on the mana, and three colors generally is more consistent than five. You'll beat Bant though, heh.
I agree. Your articles are usually great but increasingly painful to read without pictures. Liven it up bud, and help us poor guys out.
Not very zen of him is it? :p
No, you bring up a valid point. 4 mana is a luxury which you usually do not get unless you've been consistently hitting him with other discard spells in the previous turns. I'll have to try out the cloak then.
2pm this saturday? I actually might be able to make that for once!
someone else (maybe at this very site?) threw out the darksteel citadel+any zendikon land basher as an indestructible pauper guy!plus all the new ally strategies and combinations of colors is gonna be awesome.I actually thought i had a new idea when i ran changelings with ug allies.well it was new to me!But yeah definitely gonna try some bg,uw,and ug new ally dex,and thats alot of configurations all by their lonesomes.but yeah i likeded the article also
Oh look at me, I'm ungratefully spewing my self-centered opinion at someone on the internet. I'm important.
"The five-color archetype isn't as viable because of the nature of mana-fixing. Still, I'm definitely drafting it with a first pick Maelstrom mythic, and I'd consider it with a first pick Fusion Elemental in a weaker pack."
I disagree with this. First of all, Fusion Elemental is not very good because of the common outlander cycle which chumps it all day. Secondly, you ignored the reason why 5C IS viable - signaling, or lack thereof. Because this format is so new nobody really knows what they're doing yet. When people don't know what they're doing they're going to be making bad decisions which results in bad signals. The majority of decks I see are 5C and it's not like any particular shard is "open." What that means is you're basically forced to play their game and just hope you make better decisions and card evaluations.
I should also point out that the price of playing paper legacy has spiked a huge amount in the last 12 months or so. A lot of the arguments about the cost of online classic are old and have not been updated as it were for $70 Seas and $25 Wastelands.
a few pictures in there are never a bad thing sir, it almost felt like i was reading a text book. other wise i likeded it.
Pete, while the price difference between std and extended is a nice extension of mikes article, i have to wonder, what is the point of the article? You spend almost the entirety of the article regurgitating mikes and then add a a few extra price graphs and say that u disagree with mikes evaluation of how onliny legacy will be imbraced, kind of. You say that it will be hopping, but only during gp season.
I think what you fail to realise is that legacy is a very fun format much more so then std, and probably more then extended on a player by player basis, depending on how they veiw broken interactions. Ie scapeshift may be pushing the line for some players while others think that its kindergarden rules compared to combo legacy decks.
So we have a fun format, we have a format where it is now almost half the price on a paper version of any given deck, and you have the fact that scg is doing about another 10 legacy 5 k's throught out the year + the american and european legacy grand prix, when exactly is the off season?
IA4L- I know that this may be a very very small part of the comuunity, but the majority of classic players I know wouldnt hesitate to lend some duals or such, and at second to worse (worse being no u cant borrow) they ask for collateral. The thing is that your lending out possibly hundreds of dollars worth of cards it dosent matter if its paper or legacy, that kind of trust is earned and not given lightly, would you lend out 6 duals in paper top someone your an aquaintence with? would you lend out 6 duals to someone online that you play and or talk to every day and think you can trust? I think its the same risk reward except that you cant eaisly find a modo scammer and beat them up.
also yea fow is high we all get it, but duals are dirt cheap, wouyld yopu rather pay 20-25 bucks a fow and 70 a sea and 50 a trop? or would you rather pay 50 for fow and 15 and 28 for trop and sea? the work around seems silly too, would you rather run a cheaper deck or a better deck if your playing for prizes?
Then don't.
I think that both this and dangerlinto's article are good but miss a few key things.
- Key cards online are very expensive.
In paper some of the most expensive legacy cards are the dual lands. You can work around this by running more fetchlands, or basics.
Online cards like Strip Mine, Force of Will, and Oath of Druids are not cards you can "cheat" on. If you're playing blue you want FoW. If you're playing Oath you need Oaths.
- Online there is less borrowing.
When playing paper (or another paper format) you can often borrow that last Tropical Island or that playset of Dazes. For a number of reasons this is less common online.
My only thought is with Legacy comming online this year I expect around Urza's block time, what effect would this have on ME4 sales.
Some cards would be sellers but maybe not the expectd Mox's and Lotus if they are included.
I don't think Wind Zendikon would push MUC over the edge. It already has a free 2/4 flyer. I'm not sure a 2/2 flyer that costs U is that much better.
Quicksand on the other hand I believe is a different story.
"It's been a long time since I've written...been busy..." NO ONE CARES. We read Magic articles to hear about Magic, not your life. Cut that crap out and get to the meat.
Every damn Magic article begins with that sentence, and it's completely gratuitous. So sick of reading it.
i like the freshness of bigA, however, i still havent prefered them to say zzz, idk y, it just falls that way in my game plan.
good article though