The original UG Madness deck this archetype is based on had Standstill, Arrogant Wurm, Roar of the Wurm, Circular Logic, and perhaps most importantly, Wonder. This deck could use some evasion and better card advantage (like some that doesn’t act as splash damage against your threshold count).
It’s probably true that the Pauper card pool isn’t deep enough to support a full-on Tier One threshold deck. For example, Springing Tiger fits the theme, but I’d rather have Blastoderm.
As much as i hate to agree with Richie at times i Do here and its 60second on poker bro not 60min. But ya Online should have its own version of the pro tour. Players would use their own accounts from their own computers replays viewed from a master account showing both players hands would be podcast/streamed at a later time (even 30min delay should be more then enough).
Simple fact Wotc makes WAY more off mtgo then they do paper. Simple math on that one. packs =4$ online paper u get them from a 3rd hand source for 3$ a pack and you KNOW wotc aint seeing that who 3$ a pack they're more likely seeing maybe 1-2$ so that mean that off numbers alone not even taking into account shipping and production costs of our cardboard cousins that they need to sell x2 to x4 as much product to make as much profit. So supporting their most profitable product in such a way at a later time is a likely move.
@ Hamster4Sale
As a poker player who's won at at the state level, taken 4th in a national tourney, and played against Pros you seen on Tv at the WSOP. Trust me when i say that the lights and people around you will hardly ever rattle your nerves the most unsettling thing I ever delt with was when play gets down to 3 players or heads up. The prize diffrence between those spots in those tournies can be staggering. Other then that you know you're going to be sitting at the tables for a good long while so you just settle in and let things ride as they come.
To clarify my argument, it is technically possible but the cost of doing so to gain such a small benefit (and even that could be debated - more likely it would be to the overall detriment to the game and the PT) makes it a virtual impossiblity. It will not be done.
Being an online only player, I am a huge proponent for MTGO gaining more prominence in relation to the paper game, but that said... MTGO needs the paper game to exist, paper doesn't need MTGO.
Did you mention difference between computers and internet connection speed as a reason? Sometimes it really matters, when your OS fails or smt too. MTGO tournaments for huge prizes such as PTs or Invintationals should not exist, imho.
There should be a pro-tour online once every year, because Modo is part of the pro players game now. I understand that computers aren't stable enough or the internet connection could suck, but you have to realize these problems ahead of time. Here are my solutions to stablalize the pt online:
WOTC can easily make 1000 account, and on those 1000 account, they could put every card made in the history of MODO. Doing this is a great way to get Legacy/Vintage intoduced to the PT. On those 1000 accounts, they should be named PTPlayer1-1000. They can easily use the Beta server to support the PT as well. The issue with Lag is understandable, so you should update the clock to 45 mins on each side, an hour and 1/2 may seem like stretching it, but really I think it's a grand solution. If the computer were to go down some how that the player had no control over, all WOTC would need to do is place the player to another computer. I understand that price may be the largest obsticle for WOTC to do this :-( I feel if WOTC did this online, the timer should stop, and give the player a 60 min clock the entire tournie to reconnect, the same technology online poker uses. An extra 60 minute bank would certainly help during game play. There should also only be up to 10 mins disconnectivity allowed. My feeling is that you're going to a Pro-Tour, you don't need to spend the 300 on a deck, so why not invest that money to connection speeds on your PC. I could literally list twenty rebuttals to the 10 you have here, I feel your arguement isn't thorough enough to compare the benefits against the negatives.
I have to agree that the pro tour is better kept on the paper side of things.
I also agree with all of my primarily online playing brethren who espouse the benefits of MTGO, and ultimately enjoy the online game much more for my own reasons. Like some other have mentioned, the competitive paper environment intimidates me quite a bit. I am not a good bookkeeper and I am deathly afraid of going through something like ArchGenius did, even on the FNM level.
That said, I would lose all interest in the pro tour if it went to MTGO. WoTC coverage of the event is great and I love watching the video replays of pro tour finals. Knowing that I myself have some anxiety about playing mechanically sound magic in a tournament environment gives me all the more respect to those who keep calm under those circumstances.
I also love watching english commentary of pro Korean starcraft matches, a game played on a computer. That only works, though, because the majority of the games consists of watching the in-game action, which is infinitely more compelling in starcraft than the MTGO client.
The pro tour succeeds as a spectator sport for the same reason poker does. The players are reading each other, and it is the players' personality, their play choices, and our ability to appreciate their skill level that matters. Their ability to succeed under the bright lights wouldn't matter nearly as much to me if they were not doing so in plain physical view of their opponent.
I believe reason number nine is faulty. Not having to worry about triggers and rules frees up players to think properly. It shows the true skill of the players. IE, a nascar driver focuses on his driving method and skill. To a lesser extent, he knows the mechanics of the car, but he is not expected to know the exact mechanics of the car. When the car breaks down, he doesn't get out and examine the car himself, he has a team to do it for him. He's left to focus on the skill of driving.
So too, faulting players for an unintended slip of memory is just as ridiculous. Let the players worry about trying to beat the opponent, and let them shine in that fight. Don't bog them down with things they don't need to.
funny part is that everyone here is assuming that it would all have to be desktop PC's being used for all of this. Um anyone ever heard of a laptop or Netbook? :)
I like the article and I really have an interest in the deck and always appreciate videos definitely but I will just have to say that every time I saw you typed peeks instead of peaks it made me cringe and I would say you should definitely try to make sure you get someone to proofread stuff
I caution anyone who is saying that it's impossible to do to actually investigate competitive computer gaming, like the mlgpro.com set-up. Where they do in fact travel with tons of hardware, set it up, play and payout tournament Pro Tour prizes that are nothing compared to MTG's Pro Tour.
it varies but the core is the linx/geopede/ranger/bushwacker/guide/earthquake/bolt/terramorphic package that everyone plays but i run 4 blightning on a couple swamps and a couple dragonskull, along with a couple grim discovery, and 3 death marks in the board as far as use of the splash. the list i found ran anathemancer which did a number on jund but i think ruinblaster is better over all along with unstable footing to beat the fog decks with the half the paths hanging out in the board with some celestial purges as well.
hi there, would you mind sharing your current list that you use in 8-mans? I am interested to see what your dark boros list is and what you have added. There are so many lists floating around but I haven't found one that I am comfortable playing regularly. Also I was wondering what you use for your sideboard.
The main reason this will never work is that playing a PT with computers would involve a MASSIVE investment in equipment, manpower, infrastructure, and planning while returning a minimal amount of benefit and likely be to the detrement of the game overall.
Its just not ever going to be a possiblity from a logistics point of view, the rest of the argument is unneccessary. Its like arguing the pros and cons of being able to fly (Pro: I can fly! Con: Bugs in teeth). No one can do it, so why bother?
As far as dealers and selling cards, someone will figure out a way to sell online cards at a PT if it were all online. Im sure MTGOTRADERS would love the chance to try. Just cause Star City doesnt show up doesnt mean it cant happen.
That's one of the reasons I don't often comment on your drafts. I don't necessarily have the insights needed to help you draft/play better and frankly I don't often think you need it.
With criticizing WotC comes the burden of realizing that they are first and foremost a subsidiary of a huge multinational (Hasbro) and they must answer to their bosses expectations before they consider ours. So the criticisms can be fully valid and yet unrealistic in their demand. *shrugs* throw stuff up against the wall, see what sticks. It worked for Warhol.
It was the misclick at the Invitational that kept me out of MTGO for 4 years. "How horrid", I thought, "a departure from true Magic." I've since realized that it's a drop in the bucket to all the procedural stuff in real life.
"A large part of the skills required to play Magic, in the paper world, are in noting and remembering your triggers, where you are in the turn and game, and what your deck is doing."
You say that like forgetting = bad, so there's justice. Not so. If I forget (or "forget") and my opponent doesn't notice either, I can benefit. And we've seen that players can get punished for _remembering_ their opponent's triggers if they were dumb enough to point it out at the wrong time. (Forget Gindy, it's happened other times. Dragon Broodmother at GP Seattle, for example.)
World Champs 2005, there was an odd interaction between Yosei and Seedborn Muse. Mori untapped when he shouldn't have, and beat Karsten. It was his own cards he didn't understand, and possibly had done that previously throught the tournament. Frank's fault for not noticing? Maybe, but then Katsushiro's *benefit* for not noticing?
The fact is that if the mistake is an accident, the benefit is arbitrary. If a mistake is a calculated attempt to cheat, paper rewards the cheater. (e.g. a Gindy situation where you remain silent afterwards, aka a Kibler situation.)
So even if everything is caught, the rules don't strictly punish forgetting triggers. And unlike MTGO, many many illegal plays go uncaught. There's no way that real life is superior here. Especially not with current floor rules.
The best parallel to misclicks is shuffling errors. Both happen, but are impossible on the other side.
Argument 8 is a strawman. Playing to the clock is not cheating; your time is clearly marked and you both have the same amount. And while friends helping when playing at home is quite an issue, that has nothing to do with the topic. 4 people standing around behind your computer at the PT would surely be noticeable. PMing is only an issue if no attempt is made to stop it.
See, you're criticizing the idea as if this was going to happen tomorrow. I'm picturing a couple years of effort heading in this direction. If people need cards they'll get them. If the computer is intrusive, why not touch-screen tablets, inclined toward the player? A lot of these things can be worked out.
The only substantive issue is loss of player interaction. Which is pretty huge, and not easily fixed. But make no mistake, rule enforcement has miles to go and a human will never get there the way a machine will. (Idea though: simul play for top 8, with an observer for each player making the same plays in a computer. Perfect reporting, and electronic judge backup, without changing what we like about paper.)
I have to agree with the other two posters. You made a lot more mistakes in these videos than the jund videos and it all started with the hands you kept. Any 5 land hand is an auto mulligan with this deck and when you don't have a play until turn 4 you can't keep. Seriously you're playing an AGGRO deck against a somewhat controlling deck with lifegain...why on earth would you think turn 4 ajani vengeant or ranger would be good. I get that your on the draw and can draw something but if you don't draw a one or two drop in the first 2 draws your dead and even then you still need a lot of help. I feel like you need to really think about your mulligan decisions more and while I wish you luck at States I have to say that you need to make sure you play better than you have been playing especially since I assume you are a good player.
In my opinion, a better playing environment is one where you don't have to worry about all of the bookkeeping involved in the game. I don't really want to constantly worry about whether or not my deck or my opponent's deck is sufficiently random.
It seems like your opinion is that remembering the bookkeeping is a major part of the game and thus a very good reason to not move the Pro Tour to Magic Online. It all depends on what you value about the game.
Much of the bookkeeping takes the fun out the game for me.
I don't really see Magic Online and paper Magic as two different games. Variants perhaps, but calling them different games goes a bit too far in my mind. If Magic Online and paper Magic are two different games, then you would have to call Casual Magic, semi-professional Magic, FNM, and Pro Tour Magic different games because they are played with significant differences in rule enforcement and expectations. But I guess I'm getting into semantics, which in the end, makes for a rather pointless debate.
As much as a love MTGO, its not Magic to me (or a majority of players I would venture to guess). Its a reasonable facimilie that certainly has advantages over the real thing, but when I think "Magic", sitting at home playing a computer game bu myself is not what pops into my head. I know that this article being on PureMTGO leads to a big pro-online bias from readers, but can you imagine a pro tour played on computers? How many people are going top travel across the country/glaobe to watch a bunch of people playing on a computer screen? I doubt many.
As for the misclick vs missed trigger debate, there is a very big difference between the two. A misclick is being clumsy/uncoordinated/unfamiliar with the interface and not doing what you meant to do. This should never decide a match. Missing a mandatory trigger on your own permanent is just sloppy play, being distracted, and not having tested your deck enough. Thats what seperates the Pros from the rest of us, and thats how it should be.
I think this has been a good conversation, and I'm planning on continuing to make suggestions on where I see the need for improvements.
I think it's very important to provide construct feedback. I don't really like criticizing anything too harshly unless I have a suggestion to make it better.
Communication is very important in situations like this, and I don't want WotC to think that all of our suggestions boil down to "give us more," "charge us less," or "spend money and fix it"
Great article! I liked reading the history behind Oath. I've never played a paper version of Oath either. I've only seen it run a lot (it was incredibly popular in the area I was living).
I am making my own Oathline as well, and while I geared it towards working in an Oath team for multiplayer, I went through the same reasoning you did in deciding to add helmline to the mix. Having helmline in Oath is not bad for a mirror matchup (against Oath combo decks), good dredge hosing (and dredge is still strong in classic format), and can potentially kill turn 3-4 (or turn 2-3 if it were teamed oath in a 2Headed Giant game, and my partner got to use Oath right after it resolved on my side) even if we didn't include mana acceleration, so it can race with other fast decks. I don't know as much about the effects on 1v1, but I think that it will at least be faster and more challenging against ad nauseam and dredge in multiplayer than most other decks.
Speaking of multi,... part of the reason I really like Oath because it scales well for teams/multiplayer similarly to how Painterstone and Helmline scale up for multiplayer. The Oath combos are great to hear about here too, and makes me wish Yawg's Win would come to classic sooner. I've seen a couple people (names withheld) trying out Oath combo decks (minus the Oath, since it isn't available yet) in the tourney prac room already (different from each other's and different from my own ideas). Can't wait to see the effects and what becomes viable.
The original UG Madness deck this archetype is based on had Standstill, Arrogant Wurm, Roar of the Wurm, Circular Logic, and perhaps most importantly, Wonder. This deck could use some evasion and better card advantage (like some that doesn’t act as splash damage against your threshold count).
It’s probably true that the Pauper card pool isn’t deep enough to support a full-on Tier One threshold deck. For example, Springing Tiger fits the theme, but I’d rather have Blastoderm.
really great work on this series, didnt meant to just but critical this really is an amazing series
As much as i hate to agree with Richie at times i Do here and its 60second on poker bro not 60min. But ya Online should have its own version of the pro tour. Players would use their own accounts from their own computers replays viewed from a master account showing both players hands would be podcast/streamed at a later time (even 30min delay should be more then enough).
Simple fact Wotc makes WAY more off mtgo then they do paper. Simple math on that one. packs =4$ online paper u get them from a 3rd hand source for 3$ a pack and you KNOW wotc aint seeing that who 3$ a pack they're more likely seeing maybe 1-2$ so that mean that off numbers alone not even taking into account shipping and production costs of our cardboard cousins that they need to sell x2 to x4 as much product to make as much profit. So supporting their most profitable product in such a way at a later time is a likely move.
@ Hamster4Sale
As a poker player who's won at at the state level, taken 4th in a national tourney, and played against Pros you seen on Tv at the WSOP. Trust me when i say that the lights and people around you will hardly ever rattle your nerves the most unsettling thing I ever delt with was when play gets down to 3 players or heads up. The prize diffrence between those spots in those tournies can be staggering. Other then that you know you're going to be sitting at the tables for a good long while so you just settle in and let things ride as they come.
To clarify my argument, it is technically possible but the cost of doing so to gain such a small benefit (and even that could be debated - more likely it would be to the overall detriment to the game and the PT) makes it a virtual impossiblity. It will not be done.
Being an online only player, I am a huge proponent for MTGO gaining more prominence in relation to the paper game, but that said... MTGO needs the paper game to exist, paper doesn't need MTGO.
Did you mention difference between computers and internet connection speed as a reason? Sometimes it really matters, when your OS fails or smt too. MTGO tournaments for huge prizes such as PTs or Invintationals should not exist, imho.
Psssst that's next weeks articles!
There should be a pro-tour online once every year, because Modo is part of the pro players game now. I understand that computers aren't stable enough or the internet connection could suck, but you have to realize these problems ahead of time. Here are my solutions to stablalize the pt online:
WOTC can easily make 1000 account, and on those 1000 account, they could put every card made in the history of MODO. Doing this is a great way to get Legacy/Vintage intoduced to the PT. On those 1000 accounts, they should be named PTPlayer1-1000. They can easily use the Beta server to support the PT as well. The issue with Lag is understandable, so you should update the clock to 45 mins on each side, an hour and 1/2 may seem like stretching it, but really I think it's a grand solution. If the computer were to go down some how that the player had no control over, all WOTC would need to do is place the player to another computer. I understand that price may be the largest obsticle for WOTC to do this :-( I feel if WOTC did this online, the timer should stop, and give the player a 60 min clock the entire tournie to reconnect, the same technology online poker uses. An extra 60 minute bank would certainly help during game play. There should also only be up to 10 mins disconnectivity allowed. My feeling is that you're going to a Pro-Tour, you don't need to spend the 300 on a deck, so why not invest that money to connection speeds on your PC. I could literally list twenty rebuttals to the 10 you have here, I feel your arguement isn't thorough enough to compare the benefits against the negatives.
I have to agree that the pro tour is better kept on the paper side of things.
I also agree with all of my primarily online playing brethren who espouse the benefits of MTGO, and ultimately enjoy the online game much more for my own reasons. Like some other have mentioned, the competitive paper environment intimidates me quite a bit. I am not a good bookkeeper and I am deathly afraid of going through something like ArchGenius did, even on the FNM level.
That said, I would lose all interest in the pro tour if it went to MTGO. WoTC coverage of the event is great and I love watching the video replays of pro tour finals. Knowing that I myself have some anxiety about playing mechanically sound magic in a tournament environment gives me all the more respect to those who keep calm under those circumstances.
I also love watching english commentary of pro Korean starcraft matches, a game played on a computer. That only works, though, because the majority of the games consists of watching the in-game action, which is infinitely more compelling in starcraft than the MTGO client.
The pro tour succeeds as a spectator sport for the same reason poker does. The players are reading each other, and it is the players' personality, their play choices, and our ability to appreciate their skill level that matters. Their ability to succeed under the bright lights wouldn't matter nearly as much to me if they were not doing so in plain physical view of their opponent.
I believe reason number nine is faulty. Not having to worry about triggers and rules frees up players to think properly. It shows the true skill of the players. IE, a nascar driver focuses on his driving method and skill. To a lesser extent, he knows the mechanics of the car, but he is not expected to know the exact mechanics of the car. When the car breaks down, he doesn't get out and examine the car himself, he has a team to do it for him. He's left to focus on the skill of driving.
So too, faulting players for an unintended slip of memory is just as ridiculous. Let the players worry about trying to beat the opponent, and let them shine in that fight. Don't bog them down with things they don't need to.
funny part is that everyone here is assuming that it would all have to be desktop PC's being used for all of this. Um anyone ever heard of a laptop or Netbook? :)
And that is the danger of using MS Office to proof stuff under a deadline while writing until 2am :(
I like the article and I really have an interest in the deck and always appreciate videos definitely but I will just have to say that every time I saw you typed peeks instead of peaks it made me cringe and I would say you should definitely try to make sure you get someone to proofread stuff
I imagine it would look something like this...
http://videogametournaments.blogspot.com/2009/09/mlg-dallas-09.html
I caution anyone who is saying that it's impossible to do to actually investigate competitive computer gaming, like the mlgpro.com set-up. Where they do in fact travel with tons of hardware, set it up, play and payout tournament Pro Tour prizes that are nothing compared to MTG's Pro Tour.
it varies but the core is the linx/geopede/ranger/bushwacker/guide/earthquake/bolt/terramorphic package that everyone plays but i run 4 blightning on a couple swamps and a couple dragonskull, along with a couple grim discovery, and 3 death marks in the board as far as use of the splash. the list i found ran anathemancer which did a number on jund but i think ruinblaster is better over all along with unstable footing to beat the fog decks with the half the paths hanging out in the board with some celestial purges as well.
hi there, would you mind sharing your current list that you use in 8-mans? I am interested to see what your dark boros list is and what you have added. There are so many lists floating around but I haven't found one that I am comfortable playing regularly. Also I was wondering what you use for your sideboard.
The main reason this will never work is that playing a PT with computers would involve a MASSIVE investment in equipment, manpower, infrastructure, and planning while returning a minimal amount of benefit and likely be to the detrement of the game overall.
Its just not ever going to be a possiblity from a logistics point of view, the rest of the argument is unneccessary. Its like arguing the pros and cons of being able to fly (Pro: I can fly! Con: Bugs in teeth). No one can do it, so why bother?
As far as dealers and selling cards, someone will figure out a way to sell online cards at a PT if it were all online. Im sure MTGOTRADERS would love the chance to try. Just cause Star City doesnt show up doesnt mean it cant happen.
Yep, I was thinking of Kibler also.
That's one of the reasons I don't often comment on your drafts. I don't necessarily have the insights needed to help you draft/play better and frankly I don't often think you need it.
With criticizing WotC comes the burden of realizing that they are first and foremost a subsidiary of a huge multinational (Hasbro) and they must answer to their bosses expectations before they consider ours. So the criticisms can be fully valid and yet unrealistic in their demand. *shrugs* throw stuff up against the wall, see what sticks. It worked for Warhol.
It was the misclick at the Invitational that kept me out of MTGO for 4 years. "How horrid", I thought, "a departure from true Magic." I've since realized that it's a drop in the bucket to all the procedural stuff in real life.
"A large part of the skills required to play Magic, in the paper world, are in noting and remembering your triggers, where you are in the turn and game, and what your deck is doing."
You say that like forgetting = bad, so there's justice. Not so. If I forget (or "forget") and my opponent doesn't notice either, I can benefit. And we've seen that players can get punished for _remembering_ their opponent's triggers if they were dumb enough to point it out at the wrong time. (Forget Gindy, it's happened other times. Dragon Broodmother at GP Seattle, for example.)
World Champs 2005, there was an odd interaction between Yosei and Seedborn Muse. Mori untapped when he shouldn't have, and beat Karsten. It was his own cards he didn't understand, and possibly had done that previously throught the tournament. Frank's fault for not noticing? Maybe, but then Katsushiro's *benefit* for not noticing?
The fact is that if the mistake is an accident, the benefit is arbitrary. If a mistake is a calculated attempt to cheat, paper rewards the cheater. (e.g. a Gindy situation where you remain silent afterwards, aka a Kibler situation.)
So even if everything is caught, the rules don't strictly punish forgetting triggers. And unlike MTGO, many many illegal plays go uncaught. There's no way that real life is superior here. Especially not with current floor rules.
The best parallel to misclicks is shuffling errors. Both happen, but are impossible on the other side.
Argument 8 is a strawman. Playing to the clock is not cheating; your time is clearly marked and you both have the same amount. And while friends helping when playing at home is quite an issue, that has nothing to do with the topic. 4 people standing around behind your computer at the PT would surely be noticeable. PMing is only an issue if no attempt is made to stop it.
See, you're criticizing the idea as if this was going to happen tomorrow. I'm picturing a couple years of effort heading in this direction. If people need cards they'll get them. If the computer is intrusive, why not touch-screen tablets, inclined toward the player? A lot of these things can be worked out.
The only substantive issue is loss of player interaction. Which is pretty huge, and not easily fixed. But make no mistake, rule enforcement has miles to go and a human will never get there the way a machine will. (Idea though: simul play for top 8, with an observer for each player making the same plays in a computer. Perfect reporting, and electronic judge backup, without changing what we like about paper.)
I have to agree with the other two posters. You made a lot more mistakes in these videos than the jund videos and it all started with the hands you kept. Any 5 land hand is an auto mulligan with this deck and when you don't have a play until turn 4 you can't keep. Seriously you're playing an AGGRO deck against a somewhat controlling deck with lifegain...why on earth would you think turn 4 ajani vengeant or ranger would be good. I get that your on the draw and can draw something but if you don't draw a one or two drop in the first 2 draws your dead and even then you still need a lot of help. I feel like you need to really think about your mulligan decisions more and while I wish you luck at States I have to say that you need to make sure you play better than you have been playing especially since I assume you are a good player.
Yes, better is a very subjective term.
In my opinion, a better playing environment is one where you don't have to worry about all of the bookkeeping involved in the game. I don't really want to constantly worry about whether or not my deck or my opponent's deck is sufficiently random.
It seems like your opinion is that remembering the bookkeeping is a major part of the game and thus a very good reason to not move the Pro Tour to Magic Online. It all depends on what you value about the game.
Much of the bookkeeping takes the fun out the game for me.
I don't really see Magic Online and paper Magic as two different games. Variants perhaps, but calling them different games goes a bit too far in my mind. If Magic Online and paper Magic are two different games, then you would have to call Casual Magic, semi-professional Magic, FNM, and Pro Tour Magic different games because they are played with significant differences in rule enforcement and expectations. But I guess I'm getting into semantics, which in the end, makes for a rather pointless debate.
As much as a love MTGO, its not Magic to me (or a majority of players I would venture to guess). Its a reasonable facimilie that certainly has advantages over the real thing, but when I think "Magic", sitting at home playing a computer game bu myself is not what pops into my head. I know that this article being on PureMTGO leads to a big pro-online bias from readers, but can you imagine a pro tour played on computers? How many people are going top travel across the country/glaobe to watch a bunch of people playing on a computer screen? I doubt many.
As for the misclick vs missed trigger debate, there is a very big difference between the two. A misclick is being clumsy/uncoordinated/unfamiliar with the interface and not doing what you meant to do. This should never decide a match. Missing a mandatory trigger on your own permanent is just sloppy play, being distracted, and not having tested your deck enough. Thats what seperates the Pros from the rest of us, and thats how it should be.
I think this has been a good conversation, and I'm planning on continuing to make suggestions on where I see the need for improvements.
I think it's very important to provide construct feedback. I don't really like criticizing anything too harshly unless I have a suggestion to make it better.
Communication is very important in situations like this, and I don't want WotC to think that all of our suggestions boil down to "give us more," "charge us less," or "spend money and fix it"
Great article! I liked reading the history behind Oath. I've never played a paper version of Oath either. I've only seen it run a lot (it was incredibly popular in the area I was living).
I am making my own Oathline as well, and while I geared it towards working in an Oath team for multiplayer, I went through the same reasoning you did in deciding to add helmline to the mix. Having helmline in Oath is not bad for a mirror matchup (against Oath combo decks), good dredge hosing (and dredge is still strong in classic format), and can potentially kill turn 3-4 (or turn 2-3 if it were teamed oath in a 2Headed Giant game, and my partner got to use Oath right after it resolved on my side) even if we didn't include mana acceleration, so it can race with other fast decks. I don't know as much about the effects on 1v1, but I think that it will at least be faster and more challenging against ad nauseam and dredge in multiplayer than most other decks.
Speaking of multi,... part of the reason I really like Oath because it scales well for teams/multiplayer similarly to how Painterstone and Helmline scale up for multiplayer. The Oath combos are great to hear about here too, and makes me wish Yawg's Win would come to classic sooner. I've seen a couple people (names withheld) trying out Oath combo decks (minus the Oath, since it isn't available yet) in the tourney prac room already (different from each other's and different from my own ideas). Can't wait to see the effects and what becomes viable.