Ha, thanks. Actually, Oliver and I haven't had the chance to play this week because we had out-of-town guests over the weekend which is usually when we get our games in. Stay tuned, though, I'll continue with updates as we continue to play...
One quick hint on proof-reading that I was taught when working on the school newspaper.
Since you are too familiar with you own writing, you eyes will skip sections because you know what the rest of the sentence says. To avoid this, read your article word for word backwards (starting at the end). This will trick your brain into actually reading everything.
Loved the article, but I have a minor confession. I skipped right to the end to tune into the ongoing saga of your padawan learner. Alas, it was not to be.
I'm kidding, of course. Obviously, you have to change it up a bit as even the most heart-warming stories can dry out with your audience if you give them too much exposure. Your insights into the game of magic are helpful, as always. It's the personality of your voice as a writer that keeps me coming back to read your stuff though.
Goyf is so disturbing because he is so far ahead of the curve for a threat of his caliber. He requires so little resources to put into play for what he does it was almost like you started the game with a couple land already in play when you looked at the board with him on it. The respone to every deck critique during the Standard season he was in? "Needs more Goyf." "MOAR GOYF!!!!!" "-4 anything, +4 Goyf" He was simply a card that cheated our conceptions of what a 2 cc creature would do.
He's obviously a very strong card in vintage, but thats already a set full of broken stuff. I wouldn't say he makes every deck hes in automatically competitive in every format, but he was a card I honestly felt needed to be banned while he was fresh in standard. You pretty much just ran Goyf if you wanted your deck to be really good. How would wizards have sold future sight packs if they did that though? Skullclamp was an insta-ban because anyone who ran critters ran skullclamp. Skullclamp was also an uncommon everyone owned and not a set seller. Well, anyone who owned 4 goyf splashed four goyf. I don't care if his deck was purple, he ran goyf if he wanted to win. Best response to opponents Goyf? Well, play an aura on your Goyf of course. Don't own goyf? Go buy future sight, or a goyf that a store owner ripped from his own supply to meet the demand. You make a good point, Goyf is truly the perfect example of a card that was practically competitive all by itself. It also should have never, ever been printed.
However, it should be noted that Tarmogoyf was stolen from a super-secret Yu-Gi-Oh! R&D lab and then genetically engineered to look like a magic card, so he doesn't really count. :-)
The thing is, there is much less to regulate in Ext than Classic (of course) and the interactions aren't nearly as fierce. I personally won't be playing Standard Tourneys very often because I find even the block versions of Standard a bit too stifling and honestly the best spikish deck usually wins. The ole rock paper scissors thing flies out the window when magic meta tech is as fast as it is these days.
I like the idea of a tribal rules setting but I feel that Standard Tribal would be too confining. You rule out so many of the cooler tribes and the replacement as someone else replied is a bunch of very linear tribes developed by R&D (for their inscrutable reasons.) Vampires, Soldiers etc..ok I expect to see them in any Tribal setting but really...do I HAVE to play them to be competitive? In Standard Tribal I think so. Same reason I support fixing the B/R list in the classic version of the format.
The one core set league where I came in first (out of 256 players!) I ran 18 land. I was smug then, and thought I knew better than all the pros who say to usually use 17. I almost never lost a game to manascrew.
One of the improvements in my limited play since then has been learning that you need more 2 and 3 drops than I was running - I favored running "most powerful" cards over curve considerations, though I paid a little attention to curve. Pros know, one of the ways you get to the top is to increase the consistency of your deck. Having an adequate number of 2 and 3 drops doesn't just help preserve your life total early in a game where you make all your land drops... In those games where you stall for a while at 2 or 3 or even 4 land, a good curve means you're still playing enough spells that you have some chance to survive until you draw more land, so less of those games turn into an automatic loss.
When you have a curve with enough 2 and 3 drops, always playing 18 land isn't as necessary, or even desirable. Sometimes 18 land still is the right choice, depending on the deck. (And much more often in Zendikar, with landfall!) Sometimes 16 is the right number, though I shy away from that. Knowing which amount of land is right for which deck is one of those harder to master type of skills. I would say in this deck, the presence of two Divination makes 17 land a bit more reasonable an option.
I saw a column from a Wizards staffer where he said the power level of the cards in his draft was so above average for the format, that the only way he'd be likely to lose games was manascrew, so he ran 18 lands for that reason. I know I also sometimes "split the difference" by going for an 18 land / 23 spell deck with 41 cards. That's the only way to go "between" the 42.5% of 17/40 land decks and the 45% of 18/40 land decks. If your gut tells you 43.9% is the ideal percentage of land for your current deck, 18/41 is the way to get there.
Of course if your gut tells you it knows to within 1 or 2 percent like that, it's probably just fibbing to ya. Unless you've played a staggering amount of Magic. Yes, Gabriel Nassif won a Grand Prix with a 61 card deck. But hey, he's Gabriel Nassif.
I will admit I ran 19 lands in 42 cards at my Zendikar pre-release at a local store. But I had two Fetchlands, two Heart Expeditions, and an Explorer's Scope, all of which I figured would thin the lands out, and I had 7 landfall cards in the deck. I did actually have one game round 1 where I cracked the second Expedition, and found out my deck had no basic lands left, and only one non-basic. Yes, I out-topdecked him after that point, and took down the game and the match.
If I were going to squeeze in the Turtle (or sideboard it), or another land, I think I'd take out one of the Sparkys there before I'd take out Berserkers or Lightning Elemental. Sparky can do good work in combination with other damage spells or pingers, but too often I was drawing one alone and not getting much value. Or finding him my only available two-drop, and deciding whether to waste him for a few points early damage, or hold him back and have no early plays. I could side in more Sparky against weenie decks with a ton of 1 toughness targets, but I didn't run into many of those this whole draft. The Lightning Elemental got tossed by my Stone Giant to shave a turn off an opponent's clock and give them one less turn to topdeck, and the Berserkers managed to do some good aggressive work too, against most decks they'll at least trade for something which is more than Sparky can say.
Exactly! One of the main things that pissed me off about that banning was that I was looking forward to including it in my extended decks and could not see a good reason why it was banned when it passed into extended. But then around that time (or soon thereafter) I wasn't able to play online for a year++ so the issue was tabled for me.
loved the analysis, maybe the best thought and well written i have ever seen.
"I think your articles showcase what casual can be in the hands of a good player. I could care less if your next casual deck won off the back of Armageddon. If it was inspired or interesting, I'd actually like to see it. Until a card comes out that is so broken that it can make any pile of 54 cards following it competitive by its inclusion, I think any ideas you have are pretty much fair game."
that card exists and it is tarmogoyf. it is even played in a well placed metagame deck in vintage.
In that analysis, I was thinking of Divine Verdict as one of white's many "destroy target attacking creature" type cards. Invariably, until I've played a block into the ground, I'll forget just one part of the wording and yet assume I've already memorized it and not check... Then I'll lose a creature because of it, or sometimes even a game.
One of my mottos I need to stick to better is "ALWAYS read the card". At least until you've seen it a few zillion times and really DO know it perfectly.
He does have to avoid tapping out for a creature after his swing with his little guys there, of course, or I'll be swinging back for 9-10 and possibly a real chance to race (or even topdeck fireball for the win). A player that swung in for the 5 and then concluded "He's not falling for my verdict, so I'll play something else out" might have given me some opportunity there. And of course drawing into the Inferno Elemental gives me a solid blocker even against Divine Verdict, and I can consider things like swinging in with my 1/1 to bring him within 1-shot range for the draqon, etc. I definitely should have held the dragon back.
Since I don't resell rares to buy more packs to draft with, but keep them to play in constructed, I value them differently. Especially since I play more constructed casual (at least online) than sanctioned constructed events. In paper magic, most cards cost more, and mostly I play sanctioned FNMs for prizes, so it's more tempting. I did raredraft a Damnation once when I was in red/white, after the tournament I traded it for a nice pile of legendary wizards and dragons, and a foil Dragonstorm for good measure.
I would still possibly try and grab the rare two-color-making lands in some blocks, where they are worth 10-12 bucks, certainly I'd take the various Master's Edition blocks insanely valuable duals. But M10 has the lowest value on rare two-color lands I've seen, since the set was drafted so heavily it drove the price of all the rares way down. I couldn't believe how cheaply I picked up a playset of Pithing Needles - and then they went even cheaper!
I will admit I like to do one "casual draft" of each new set, and grab all the rares and uncommons I can get. Usually everyone else does too and you get 3 rares and then load up on uncommons, but in Zendikar I got 5 rares. I'll also admit when I casual-drafted Alara Reborn, I opened up a foil Maelstrom Pulse. I sold it on the day prices hit their peak during release week frenzy, for 33 tix + a foil Path to Exile. I told myself I *could* trade down by buying a regular Maelstrom Pulse to play in decks, and spend the difference on more goodies. But what I actually did was go on a shopping spree and bought a ton of cheaper singles!
Drafting, though, is about discipline. My prizes are whatever packs I win, thats how I look at it. Those theoretically have a rare each - which I can see when I crack them in a future draft, and pass them because they're not playables or aren't in my colors... But then maybe I'll win another pack with a rare to pass! I do find myself winning matches a lot more than I did a year ago, so discipline and practice do pay off, I guess.
With your last play... I see no reason to attack for 9. Of course he has Verdict- You have a Dragon on the table. Attacking for 5 and saving some mana is much better than going full force and wasting lands. He will die in 2 turns either way. It was nice and long. Thanks. I recently just reached the 1700 point. I am now 1720 with a 1728 peak during Zen. I only imagine myself going higher. With M10 I ALWAYS went lower.
I'm always impressed with the steps you take to present your ideas. You have an article that is neatly designed, well supported with playtesting, and that reaches a great deal of its target audience. Unless every casual deck you write up consists of only playing critters and turning them sideways then your likely to at the very least irritate someone, but the important thing is that you reach the largest part of your target audience possible and in that matter I think you have played your hand the best you can.
This IS a casual deck write-up. There is nothing about your decklist that screams competitive, therefore it is casual. A deck that doesn't try to win somehow or doesn't play great cards isn't a casual deck, its a bad deck(well ok, its probably a casual bad deck, but not the only type of deck that can be called casual.) Granted your win condition is a combo but that doesn't matter. This deck isn't tier one, its tier fun(that was lame, sorry about that.) There's nothing wrong with that. You have decks designed to have their first and only function to be winning as often as humanly possible, and decks designed to do something their creator finds entertaining first and to win second. Usually if the deck isn't competitive, its casual. Basically, if the deck is not designed to win in a competitive environment it is casual by default. Competitive is easier to define than casual since you can pretty much just look at any competitive metagame and find out what decks are competiting in any given format. Since there is no easy way to measure casual on its own you define it through contrast of competitive magic.
If everyone has their own unique definition of casual, then casual has no meaning and no one has the right to point at a deck and say, "That's not casual, it doesn't belong in this game." Their accusation is pointless in this scenario. Under those rules a ravager affinity deck in Mirrodin block is perfectly casual if the owner says so. Also, under those rules nothing is casual, not even Johnnies favorite extended enchantress deck because Timmy thinks that Oblivion Ring is grossly unfair(come on it kills like EVERYTHING in his WHOLE deck.) If thats the way casual works then casual means absolutely nothing, you can't assign an objective value to the concept so it is worthless. I don't think thats the case however. Most people intuitively know ravager affinity was not casual, and most people probably know their buddies enchantress deck is.
The problematic mentality that some players of any game bring to the table is that their opponent should play in a way to help them win. I know that sounds ridiculous but think about it. In fighting games new players usually point out some move or ability a character has that is "cheap." If you use that move against them then you are being unfair by not giving them a chance to win that they can perceive. This is ludicrous. Unless you are cheating you have the same shot at winning that they do because you got to make the same choices they did. It's up to each player to secure their own win, and take credit for their wins and losses. In firt person shooters you see the same thing, this gun is cheap, that tactic is cheap etc. etc.
Well in Magic it's not throws or rocket launchers that are "cheap," it's counters, sweepers and resource denial that people find cheap when they need an excuse for why they can't win. They find these things cheap for pretty much the same reason, they have difficulties playing around them or they simply would rather not have to. Fortunately for the player playing the hated tactic, the dissaproving player didn't make the game, Wizards made the game. You can play by his rules if you want to but the only rules you HAVE to play by ethically are wizards rules and any other rules you have agreed to play by. So if someone doesn't want to ever play against combo, then they should go ahead and put that info forward before the game is played. This way if someone comes into their room and rips out a combo deck they have a legitimate gripe. It's not fair however for someone to walk into a room and expect everyone else there to play by their own rules, as it is the rules of the game that supersede personal "rules."
I think your articles showcase what casual can be in the hands of a good player. I could care less if your next casual deck won off the back of Armageddon. If it was inspired or interesting, I'd actually like to see it. Until a card comes out that is so broken that it can make any pile of 54 cards following it competitive by its inclusion, I think any ideas you have are pretty much fair game.
If you build a deck in your journeys that is so dominant in the casual room that you crush everyone, then maybe the deck is more competitive than you think and you should see if you can expand it onto the competitive scene as a rogue deck or a new archtype. Until then though, keep up the good (casual) work.
the reason top was bannd in extended was because of the time all the activations were taking and it was pushing too many matches into draws. This in a paper environment is a negative since they dont run chess clocks. It was never so broken that it ruined the game it just took too long. I mean countertop was a decent deck but not a beast like affinity which did get banned over power levels.
pack 3 pick 10: Why the goblin here? sparkys good in the sideboard, even if u dont wanna play him main, or canyon minotaur is always better.
Also, I'd play the turtle or another minotaur (from the above pick) over lightning elemental, as youve got alot of bombs and card advantage, so you just want to set up a good late game. Also, that deck wants another land; maybe over the berzerkers? without looters or ponders, or being in green, you want 18 lands in m10 drafts.
You are right, this was a mistake on my part. When you use Magosi, it needs to return to your hand... so having more than one counter doesn't help you at all. My bad!
You mentioned a couple cards that could double the counters on Magosi? How would this help? When you tap it and remove a counter, i assume you can only remove one counter...is this not true? Can you remove infinite amount of counters thus gaining one turn per counter? i just feel like i'm missing something about why multiple counters would matter. Thanks!
You mentioned a couple cards that could double the counters on Magosi. How would this help? When you tap it and remove a counter, i assume you can only remove one counter...is this not true? Can you remove infinite amount of counters thus gaining one turn per counter? i just feel like i'm missing something about why multiple counters would matter. Thanks!
Kanye?
Ha, thanks. Actually, Oliver and I haven't had the chance to play this week because we had out-of-town guests over the weekend which is usually when we get our games in. Stay tuned, though, I'll continue with updates as we continue to play...
One quick hint on proof-reading that I was taught when working on the school newspaper.
Since you are too familiar with you own writing, you eyes will skip sections because you know what the rest of the sentence says. To avoid this, read your article word for word backwards (starting at the end). This will trick your brain into actually reading everything.
Great article. Keep them coming...
Loved the article, but I have a minor confession. I skipped right to the end to tune into the ongoing saga of your padawan learner. Alas, it was not to be.
I'm kidding, of course. Obviously, you have to change it up a bit as even the most heart-warming stories can dry out with your audience if you give them too much exposure. Your insights into the game of magic are helpful, as always. It's the personality of your voice as a writer that keeps me coming back to read your stuff though.
Thanks again.
Awesome post man, thanks for writing it.
this wuz da greatst artical of all time shawty.
Goyf is so disturbing because he is so far ahead of the curve for a threat of his caliber. He requires so little resources to put into play for what he does it was almost like you started the game with a couple land already in play when you looked at the board with him on it. The respone to every deck critique during the Standard season he was in? "Needs more Goyf." "MOAR GOYF!!!!!" "-4 anything, +4 Goyf" He was simply a card that cheated our conceptions of what a 2 cc creature would do.
He's obviously a very strong card in vintage, but thats already a set full of broken stuff. I wouldn't say he makes every deck hes in automatically competitive in every format, but he was a card I honestly felt needed to be banned while he was fresh in standard. You pretty much just ran Goyf if you wanted your deck to be really good. How would wizards have sold future sight packs if they did that though? Skullclamp was an insta-ban because anyone who ran critters ran skullclamp. Skullclamp was also an uncommon everyone owned and not a set seller. Well, anyone who owned 4 goyf splashed four goyf. I don't care if his deck was purple, he ran goyf if he wanted to win. Best response to opponents Goyf? Well, play an aura on your Goyf of course. Don't own goyf? Go buy future sight, or a goyf that a store owner ripped from his own supply to meet the demand. You make a good point, Goyf is truly the perfect example of a card that was practically competitive all by itself. It also should have never, ever been printed.
However, it should be noted that Tarmogoyf was stolen from a super-secret Yu-Gi-Oh! R&D lab and then genetically engineered to look like a magic card, so he doesn't really count. :-)
Roflmao I have a friend with prize packs dating back 10+ years...he could bath in them quite literally.
The thing is, there is much less to regulate in Ext than Classic (of course) and the interactions aren't nearly as fierce. I personally won't be playing Standard Tourneys very often because I find even the block versions of Standard a bit too stifling and honestly the best spikish deck usually wins. The ole rock paper scissors thing flies out the window when magic meta tech is as fast as it is these days.
I like the idea of a tribal rules setting but I feel that Standard Tribal would be too confining. You rule out so many of the cooler tribes and the replacement as someone else replied is a bunch of very linear tribes developed by R&D (for their inscrutable reasons.) Vampires, Soldiers etc..ok I expect to see them in any Tribal setting but really...do I HAVE to play them to be competitive? In Standard Tribal I think so. Same reason I support fixing the B/R list in the classic version of the format.
The one core set league where I came in first (out of 256 players!) I ran 18 land. I was smug then, and thought I knew better than all the pros who say to usually use 17. I almost never lost a game to manascrew.
One of the improvements in my limited play since then has been learning that you need more 2 and 3 drops than I was running - I favored running "most powerful" cards over curve considerations, though I paid a little attention to curve. Pros know, one of the ways you get to the top is to increase the consistency of your deck. Having an adequate number of 2 and 3 drops doesn't just help preserve your life total early in a game where you make all your land drops... In those games where you stall for a while at 2 or 3 or even 4 land, a good curve means you're still playing enough spells that you have some chance to survive until you draw more land, so less of those games turn into an automatic loss.
When you have a curve with enough 2 and 3 drops, always playing 18 land isn't as necessary, or even desirable. Sometimes 18 land still is the right choice, depending on the deck. (And much more often in Zendikar, with landfall!) Sometimes 16 is the right number, though I shy away from that. Knowing which amount of land is right for which deck is one of those harder to master type of skills. I would say in this deck, the presence of two Divination makes 17 land a bit more reasonable an option.
I saw a column from a Wizards staffer where he said the power level of the cards in his draft was so above average for the format, that the only way he'd be likely to lose games was manascrew, so he ran 18 lands for that reason. I know I also sometimes "split the difference" by going for an 18 land / 23 spell deck with 41 cards. That's the only way to go "between" the 42.5% of 17/40 land decks and the 45% of 18/40 land decks. If your gut tells you 43.9% is the ideal percentage of land for your current deck, 18/41 is the way to get there.
Of course if your gut tells you it knows to within 1 or 2 percent like that, it's probably just fibbing to ya. Unless you've played a staggering amount of Magic. Yes, Gabriel Nassif won a Grand Prix with a 61 card deck. But hey, he's Gabriel Nassif.
I will admit I ran 19 lands in 42 cards at my Zendikar pre-release at a local store. But I had two Fetchlands, two Heart Expeditions, and an Explorer's Scope, all of which I figured would thin the lands out, and I had 7 landfall cards in the deck. I did actually have one game round 1 where I cracked the second Expedition, and found out my deck had no basic lands left, and only one non-basic. Yes, I out-topdecked him after that point, and took down the game and the match.
If I were going to squeeze in the Turtle (or sideboard it), or another land, I think I'd take out one of the Sparkys there before I'd take out Berserkers or Lightning Elemental. Sparky can do good work in combination with other damage spells or pingers, but too often I was drawing one alone and not getting much value. Or finding him my only available two-drop, and deciding whether to waste him for a few points early damage, or hold him back and have no early plays. I could side in more Sparky against weenie decks with a ton of 1 toughness targets, but I didn't run into many of those this whole draft. The Lightning Elemental got tossed by my Stone Giant to shave a turn off an opponent's clock and give them one less turn to topdeck, and the Berserkers managed to do some good aggressive work too, against most decks they'll at least trade for something which is more than Sparky can say.
Exactly! One of the main things that pissed me off about that banning was that I was looking forward to including it in my extended decks and could not see a good reason why it was banned when it passed into extended. But then around that time (or soon thereafter) I wasn't able to play online for a year++ so the issue was tabled for me.
loved the analysis, maybe the best thought and well written i have ever seen.
"I think your articles showcase what casual can be in the hands of a good player. I could care less if your next casual deck won off the back of Armageddon. If it was inspired or interesting, I'd actually like to see it. Until a card comes out that is so broken that it can make any pile of 54 cards following it competitive by its inclusion, I think any ideas you have are pretty much fair game."
that card exists and it is tarmogoyf. it is even played in a well placed metagame deck in vintage.
In that analysis, I was thinking of Divine Verdict as one of white's many "destroy target attacking creature" type cards. Invariably, until I've played a block into the ground, I'll forget just one part of the wording and yet assume I've already memorized it and not check... Then I'll lose a creature because of it, or sometimes even a game.
One of my mottos I need to stick to better is "ALWAYS read the card". At least until you've seen it a few zillion times and really DO know it perfectly.
He does have to avoid tapping out for a creature after his swing with his little guys there, of course, or I'll be swinging back for 9-10 and possibly a real chance to race (or even topdeck fireball for the win). A player that swung in for the 5 and then concluded "He's not falling for my verdict, so I'll play something else out" might have given me some opportunity there. And of course drawing into the Inferno Elemental gives me a solid blocker even against Divine Verdict, and I can consider things like swinging in with my 1/1 to bring him within 1-shot range for the draqon, etc. I definitely should have held the dragon back.
Since I don't resell rares to buy more packs to draft with, but keep them to play in constructed, I value them differently. Especially since I play more constructed casual (at least online) than sanctioned constructed events. In paper magic, most cards cost more, and mostly I play sanctioned FNMs for prizes, so it's more tempting. I did raredraft a Damnation once when I was in red/white, after the tournament I traded it for a nice pile of legendary wizards and dragons, and a foil Dragonstorm for good measure.
I would still possibly try and grab the rare two-color-making lands in some blocks, where they are worth 10-12 bucks, certainly I'd take the various Master's Edition blocks insanely valuable duals. But M10 has the lowest value on rare two-color lands I've seen, since the set was drafted so heavily it drove the price of all the rares way down. I couldn't believe how cheaply I picked up a playset of Pithing Needles - and then they went even cheaper!
I will admit I like to do one "casual draft" of each new set, and grab all the rares and uncommons I can get. Usually everyone else does too and you get 3 rares and then load up on uncommons, but in Zendikar I got 5 rares. I'll also admit when I casual-drafted Alara Reborn, I opened up a foil Maelstrom Pulse. I sold it on the day prices hit their peak during release week frenzy, for 33 tix + a foil Path to Exile. I told myself I *could* trade down by buying a regular Maelstrom Pulse to play in decks, and spend the difference on more goodies. But what I actually did was go on a shopping spree and bought a ton of cheaper singles!
Drafting, though, is about discipline. My prizes are whatever packs I win, thats how I look at it. Those theoretically have a rare each - which I can see when I crack them in a future draft, and pass them because they're not playables or aren't in my colors... But then maybe I'll win another pack with a rare to pass! I do find myself winning matches a lot more than I did a year ago, so discipline and practice do pay off, I guess.
With your last play... I see no reason to attack for 9. Of course he has Verdict- You have a Dragon on the table. Attacking for 5 and saving some mana is much better than going full force and wasting lands. He will die in 2 turns either way. It was nice and long. Thanks. I recently just reached the 1700 point. I am now 1720 with a 1728 peak during Zen. I only imagine myself going higher. With M10 I ALWAYS went lower.
I'm always impressed with the steps you take to present your ideas. You have an article that is neatly designed, well supported with playtesting, and that reaches a great deal of its target audience. Unless every casual deck you write up consists of only playing critters and turning them sideways then your likely to at the very least irritate someone, but the important thing is that you reach the largest part of your target audience possible and in that matter I think you have played your hand the best you can.
This IS a casual deck write-up. There is nothing about your decklist that screams competitive, therefore it is casual. A deck that doesn't try to win somehow or doesn't play great cards isn't a casual deck, its a bad deck(well ok, its probably a casual bad deck, but not the only type of deck that can be called casual.) Granted your win condition is a combo but that doesn't matter. This deck isn't tier one, its tier fun(that was lame, sorry about that.) There's nothing wrong with that. You have decks designed to have their first and only function to be winning as often as humanly possible, and decks designed to do something their creator finds entertaining first and to win second. Usually if the deck isn't competitive, its casual. Basically, if the deck is not designed to win in a competitive environment it is casual by default. Competitive is easier to define than casual since you can pretty much just look at any competitive metagame and find out what decks are competiting in any given format. Since there is no easy way to measure casual on its own you define it through contrast of competitive magic.
If everyone has their own unique definition of casual, then casual has no meaning and no one has the right to point at a deck and say, "That's not casual, it doesn't belong in this game." Their accusation is pointless in this scenario. Under those rules a ravager affinity deck in Mirrodin block is perfectly casual if the owner says so. Also, under those rules nothing is casual, not even Johnnies favorite extended enchantress deck because Timmy thinks that Oblivion Ring is grossly unfair(come on it kills like EVERYTHING in his WHOLE deck.) If thats the way casual works then casual means absolutely nothing, you can't assign an objective value to the concept so it is worthless. I don't think thats the case however. Most people intuitively know ravager affinity was not casual, and most people probably know their buddies enchantress deck is.
The problematic mentality that some players of any game bring to the table is that their opponent should play in a way to help them win. I know that sounds ridiculous but think about it. In fighting games new players usually point out some move or ability a character has that is "cheap." If you use that move against them then you are being unfair by not giving them a chance to win that they can perceive. This is ludicrous. Unless you are cheating you have the same shot at winning that they do because you got to make the same choices they did. It's up to each player to secure their own win, and take credit for their wins and losses. In firt person shooters you see the same thing, this gun is cheap, that tactic is cheap etc. etc.
Well in Magic it's not throws or rocket launchers that are "cheap," it's counters, sweepers and resource denial that people find cheap when they need an excuse for why they can't win. They find these things cheap for pretty much the same reason, they have difficulties playing around them or they simply would rather not have to. Fortunately for the player playing the hated tactic, the dissaproving player didn't make the game, Wizards made the game. You can play by his rules if you want to but the only rules you HAVE to play by ethically are wizards rules and any other rules you have agreed to play by. So if someone doesn't want to ever play against combo, then they should go ahead and put that info forward before the game is played. This way if someone comes into their room and rips out a combo deck they have a legitimate gripe. It's not fair however for someone to walk into a room and expect everyone else there to play by their own rules, as it is the rules of the game that supersede personal "rules."
I think your articles showcase what casual can be in the hands of a good player. I could care less if your next casual deck won off the back of Armageddon. If it was inspired or interesting, I'd actually like to see it. Until a card comes out that is so broken that it can make any pile of 54 cards following it competitive by its inclusion, I think any ideas you have are pretty much fair game.
If you build a deck in your journeys that is so dominant in the casual room that you crush everyone, then maybe the deck is more competitive than you think and you should see if you can expand it onto the competitive scene as a rogue deck or a new archtype. Until then though, keep up the good (casual) work.
I believe you mean risque...
I also found it cute.
um i was able to access it just fine though i did need to sign into mymtgo first
the reason top was bannd in extended was because of the time all the activations were taking and it was pushing too many matches into draws. This in a paper environment is a negative since they dont run chess clocks. It was never so broken that it ruined the game it just took too long. I mean countertop was a decent deck but not a beast like affinity which did get banned over power levels.
pack 3 pick 10: Why the goblin here? sparkys good in the sideboard, even if u dont wanna play him main, or canyon minotaur is always better.
Also, I'd play the turtle or another minotaur (from the above pick) over lightning elemental, as youve got alot of bombs and card advantage, so you just want to set up a good late game. Also, that deck wants another land; maybe over the berzerkers? without looters or ponders, or being in green, you want 18 lands in m10 drafts.
The "CLICK HERE TO VIEW IF YOU'RE COOL, SINCE IT'S A LITTLE RISKY" part made my laugh out loud. Thx for saving my day ! :)
Good article too.
You are right, this was a mistake on my part. When you use Magosi, it needs to return to your hand... so having more than one counter doesn't help you at all. My bad!
I second extended
You mentioned a couple cards that could double the counters on Magosi? How would this help? When you tap it and remove a counter, i assume you can only remove one counter...is this not true? Can you remove infinite amount of counters thus gaining one turn per counter? i just feel like i'm missing something about why multiple counters would matter. Thanks!
You mentioned a couple cards that could double the counters on Magosi. How would this help? When you tap it and remove a counter, i assume you can only remove one counter...is this not true? Can you remove infinite amount of counters thus gaining one turn per counter? i just feel like i'm missing something about why multiple counters would matter. Thanks!