I mentioned the use of Harm's Way in game 1 as a mistake in my commentary. In fact, I think it's the most significant mistake in that game. I know that one of the key things that separates the strong players from the average ones is knowing when to hold back. Playing weaker creatures first to bait removal, holding your own removal and letting weak creatures hit you, then removing the stronger creatures later. Knowing exactly when and how to apply that principle, that's something I get right sometimes, but not all the time. I think my opponent was strong enough that he would have held his unsummon back until I played the Harm's Way or something comparable. And of course he'd always play creatures after combat, so the 1 mana would be open in his attack step. But even there, I could theoretically have made an attack on his turn with a 2 power creature, after he tapped out, and then redirected the 2 damage to his Snapping Drake. That's a hard play to spot, and one you'd more likely see in game 2 after your opponent showed you the unsummon in game 1. But I wouldn't put it past a top pro to spot a play like that. It's probably well above my current level of play skill to spot, except in hindsight.
The Soul Warden I don't think is a totally unplayable card, depending on your archetype. If you're trying to race with flyers, and your opponent is getting through with some ground-pounders, getting 6-8 lifegain can make enough difference to win you the race. I already had a Horned Turtle and a Palace Guard when the Soul Warden came around. I also raised my valuation of it here a little bit because of the 3 Righetousness. In some situations where a person wouldn't attack with a 3/3 into a Horned Turtle while you have Righteousness in hand, they WOULD attack into the Soul Warden and then lose their attacker.
I will freely admit, you should always be skeptical of picking cards based on a reason in your head that includes the word "if". A Serra Angel doesn't need an "if" to happen to be relevant in every game where you can play one. A Doom Blade only has the small "if they're not playing mono-black". The worst case is where you have a one-of card that's only any good if you draw another card that's also a one-of card in your deck. "If" cards can be playable if they're some use when the "if" doesn't happen. A singleton Prodigal Pyromancer and a singleton Gorgon Flail are both useful even if they don't come out together. The "if" gets better if you've already picked 2 or 3 Pyromancers, and a Gorgon Flail comes around - grab it! Soul Warden plus 3 Righteousness - not in the same league, certainly. I would have liked to have at least one match against a non-flying deck to see how my plan would have played out. But I don't think I'll be drafting a deck quite like this one again. While the Wall of Frost and Horned Turtle type cards wouldn't have been strong against my first round opponent in this particular case, I think on the whole they're more reliably relevant against a range of opponents than a card like Righteousness - and if you can block 10-12 points worth of hits with a good blocker, that's often better than gaining 6-8 life with a Warden. Maybe the deck would have been better with 1-2 more blockers in the 3 drop spot, since I only got a modest number of flyers and may have needed a lot of stalling time to win with them against a ground-based deck.
Interesting reply, but Godot always uses the Hero and Villain thing, so I don't see why it's suddenly a problem for you. I think that it is charming. On another note, I thought this was a great article. I liked how you examined someone elses plays in addition to adding your great commentary.
Hero and Villain are terms used in Poker precisely to make things neutral. Using "him" is quite offensive if you're playing a woman. So you're just assuming no women play magic? And he's been using those terms for a LONG time, so "usually" enjoy your articles is quite misleading - it is clear that you have not read or paid attention to his other articles. And you can take that as constructive flaming if you want. :)
Overall, nice draft, although I would definitely argue that alluring siren is not good in your deck at all, and agree that essence scatter is about a million times better than righteousness. Essence scatter is removal. I also would take horned turtle over soul warden, as the 1/1 body pretty much makes it a spell that gains you some life, and doesn't do anything of relevance. Typically I love it when I face down soul warden, as it means my opponent started with a bit more life but one less card. You ended up with a lot of 1/1's, so getting a relevant creature would be nicer.
There are a one big thing that I feel you could do better, and it is something I am still learning. When to use removal is a tough skill to master. Sometimes a creature is totally irrelevant, and you should not bother killing it. Kelinore bats in the first game being a great example. Harm's way is a very sick trick to hold, and you have other ways to kill the bats, even if just throwing a sprite at them. Seeing as sprite gets outclassed very quickly, you should be glad to trade it up.
...I had to stop reading it after round two because your insistence on using the words 'Hero' and 'Villain' every other sentence really began to grate to the point at which it became utterly distracting from the content of the article. I'd suggest using 'me' and 'him' (even if it's not you who's playing) to make the whole thing a lot nicer to read. I hope you see this as constructive criticism rather than random flaming as I usually enjoy your articles.
That is definitely the way to do it. I've built a ton of decks based on Rings of Brighthearth, and will probably write a full article on it in the future...
Sorry if some of these decks feel ripped off, I guess next time I could skip some of the more obvious decks. The problem is that it's hard to write a Zendikar impressions article without talking about landfall or Vampires... And both of those decks are pretty linear. I try to give a personal twist on this stuff, but it doesn't always take.
Interesting article. My pool fir that event was utter trash. Seemed to me that there were a lot of bonkers pools that made even your friends pool look weak, which is nuts. Round 1 I faced bane slayer each game but won 2/3 somehow. After that it was decks with triple lightning bolt + Chandra or etc. Either way good read and unique
Tons of decks- I wanted to try out a fast mill with twincast and glimpse the unthinkable but it was an expensive card so I opted for the Mind Cascade which is much cheaper when Reborn came out.
But when Zendikar was slowly spoiled It was an A on my radar but when it was fully spoiled it got reduced to a mere B-.
I dont like Landfall- its too boring. I do like them trying to bring back Black. I dont know why I dont like the set as much. I did like the refreshness of ACR. Though I hadnt playd seriously since Prophecy.
Hopefully when I play it online itll change to at least a B+
Wow a lot of this feels straight ripped out ofother articles I've read recently. Then again it's mostly people all restating the obvious that landfall is decent, is linear, and vampires are a nobrainer. I think the SCG 5k did not show any innovation to standard yet. All Jund aggro decks really b/c that's what ppl hand on hand. Maybe people forgot how to build and test paper magic. I see a strong resurface of control and combo coming. Well not control as we were used to with faeries which was permission aggro but we will see tempo control and attrition becoming a dominant deck style
I've always been a big fan of your articles, and want to follow your podcast.
However whenever I try to go on the MTGCast site, it gets blocked by my office firewall, due to being a "Malicious site".
Does anyone know if there is any legitimate reason why this might be happening, as I could then query this with my IT department.
I would really appreciate it if you could point out any misplays of mine that I didn't spot. If there are places I could tighten up my game more that I'm not seeing, I really need to learn how to see them!
I didn't have enough doubt about a 3rd Looter to keep me from trying it. But I wouldn't say there's entirely NO drawback. One measure of a deck is density of threats/answers. Since some games are decided by who draws more of those, and since Looter usually doesn't function as either, there's only room for so many cards that involve mana-fixing/ramping, card draw/filtering, etc. A few card filtering Looters means the density of threats/answers among the cards you actually keep and use is higher, which is great. If you have 22 looters an an Air Elemental, or 11 Looters, 11 Divination, and an Air Elemental, your threat density is obviously way too low and one Doom Blade or Pacifism beats your whole deck. For that reason, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want 6 Looters, not sure I'd want 5... 4, maybe? At some point you're too prone to swap away the "extras" for either more Looters or land, rather than good spells. Three still seems good to me even though I didn't win this time.
I appreciate the thoughts on Righteousness, and I will lower it's valuation in my mind even more than I had already. In my defense, I'll say I had little practical experience with it, and my mindset was more one of "Can this be good?" than "Dawg, this is good!" My constructed experience is limited to considering throwing one in an FNM deck as a one-of surprise and to handle an occasional fattie, but cutting it from the main deck to sideboard when I pruned down to 60, and cutting it from the sideboard when I pruned THAT down to 15. Ironically, the one match I lost at FNM that week, it would have been an answer to the Uril the Miststalker my deck just couldn't beat. Even at that, my solution to tweaking the deck for the next time I play it is not to add any Righteousness, but rather 4 Fleshbag Marauder, which I consider to be a far superior solution.
My experience playing Righteousness in limited consists of - well, this draft. I don't recall ever drafting one or playing one before, unless I'm forgetting something. I only took it here over cards like Sage Owl, Palace Guard, Serpent of the Endless Sea, etc. I'll admit that one Wall of Frost looks better now than the Righteousness I picked over it. Had there been stronger cards in my colors I would have taken them, and I'll admit pack 1 pick 5 I probably should have snagged Deathmark or Rampant Growth.
I think one of the most serious failings of the card is if you're out of creatures, and you need to topdeck either a creature to block or race with, or removal to buy you time to do more - Righteousness does nothing till you have a creature in play. Harm's Way can do more with a blocker out, but it can still kill a Snapping Drake by itself. Safe Passage does more with blockers, but is still a Fog in worst case. Even my favorite whipping boy, Disorient, is better than Righteousness in that situation, fogging one dude for a turn. Ok, I promise to move my evaluation of Righteousness way down. I'd still maybe use it for a 23rd playable - though I always seem to draft 24 or more playables most drafts.
I think my new official position on Righteousness is you're supposed to rate them as a sideboard option, then sideboard them in against Enormous Baloth. Seems tailor made to be a perfect solution against Enormous Baloth! Except when you Mind Control it instead, which I've done once on paper and once now online, seems good.
Again, would really like to hear what tactical misplays you spotted so I can learn from them. Thanks!
I may be undervaluing the Essence Scatter, since it's a form of removal and regretably my deck didn't get any Scatters. Still, I think the Griffin is an ok pick in p3p3 too, since my deck was short on the flyers that are the core of the archetype, since it gave me a second 4 drop, and his first strike keeps bears home all day. Still, if I Essence Scatter a bomb creature sometimes, the Scatter certainly has the potential to be more powerful sometimes (if not always), so it may be the more correct pick there?
I agree with the Sleep pick as reasonable over a third looter. Glorious Charge I didn't want a second copy of, I've heard various writers say it's a bit weak. Maybe I undervalue it, to take a sideboard-only card over it? I need to get to try it in some actual game situations.
As for that Wall of Frost... Ok, I think I'm not allowed to recommend Righteousness over ANY reasonably solid card until I've done a pilgrimage to Richard Garfield's back yard as penance, and said 100 "Hail Akromas" while clutching a necklace made of +1/+2 bead tokens.
Have you considered Ancient Amphitheater? Both the Crusher and the Grunts allow it to come into play untapped, and it's a reasonably priced ($$) dual land for your deck.
I mentioned the use of Harm's Way in game 1 as a mistake in my commentary. In fact, I think it's the most significant mistake in that game. I know that one of the key things that separates the strong players from the average ones is knowing when to hold back. Playing weaker creatures first to bait removal, holding your own removal and letting weak creatures hit you, then removing the stronger creatures later. Knowing exactly when and how to apply that principle, that's something I get right sometimes, but not all the time. I think my opponent was strong enough that he would have held his unsummon back until I played the Harm's Way or something comparable. And of course he'd always play creatures after combat, so the 1 mana would be open in his attack step. But even there, I could theoretically have made an attack on his turn with a 2 power creature, after he tapped out, and then redirected the 2 damage to his Snapping Drake. That's a hard play to spot, and one you'd more likely see in game 2 after your opponent showed you the unsummon in game 1. But I wouldn't put it past a top pro to spot a play like that. It's probably well above my current level of play skill to spot, except in hindsight.
The Soul Warden I don't think is a totally unplayable card, depending on your archetype. If you're trying to race with flyers, and your opponent is getting through with some ground-pounders, getting 6-8 lifegain can make enough difference to win you the race. I already had a Horned Turtle and a Palace Guard when the Soul Warden came around. I also raised my valuation of it here a little bit because of the 3 Righetousness. In some situations where a person wouldn't attack with a 3/3 into a Horned Turtle while you have Righteousness in hand, they WOULD attack into the Soul Warden and then lose their attacker.
I will freely admit, you should always be skeptical of picking cards based on a reason in your head that includes the word "if". A Serra Angel doesn't need an "if" to happen to be relevant in every game where you can play one. A Doom Blade only has the small "if they're not playing mono-black". The worst case is where you have a one-of card that's only any good if you draw another card that's also a one-of card in your deck. "If" cards can be playable if they're some use when the "if" doesn't happen. A singleton Prodigal Pyromancer and a singleton Gorgon Flail are both useful even if they don't come out together. The "if" gets better if you've already picked 2 or 3 Pyromancers, and a Gorgon Flail comes around - grab it! Soul Warden plus 3 Righteousness - not in the same league, certainly. I would have liked to have at least one match against a non-flying deck to see how my plan would have played out. But I don't think I'll be drafting a deck quite like this one again. While the Wall of Frost and Horned Turtle type cards wouldn't have been strong against my first round opponent in this particular case, I think on the whole they're more reliably relevant against a range of opponents than a card like Righteousness - and if you can block 10-12 points worth of hits with a good blocker, that's often better than gaining 6-8 life with a Warden. Maybe the deck would have been better with 1-2 more blockers in the 3 drop spot, since I only got a modest number of flyers and may have needed a lot of stalling time to win with them against a ground-based deck.
ill admit its kind of annoying but i can normally read past it as in the meat of the article far makes up for any small qualms i have
Interesting reply, but Godot always uses the Hero and Villain thing, so I don't see why it's suddenly a problem for you. I think that it is charming. On another note, I thought this was a great article. I liked how you examined someone elses plays in addition to adding your great commentary.
Hero and Villain are terms used in Poker precisely to make things neutral. Using "him" is quite offensive if you're playing a woman. So you're just assuming no women play magic? And he's been using those terms for a LONG time, so "usually" enjoy your articles is quite misleading - it is clear that you have not read or paid attention to his other articles. And you can take that as constructive flaming if you want. :)
Overall, nice draft, although I would definitely argue that alluring siren is not good in your deck at all, and agree that essence scatter is about a million times better than righteousness. Essence scatter is removal. I also would take horned turtle over soul warden, as the 1/1 body pretty much makes it a spell that gains you some life, and doesn't do anything of relevance. Typically I love it when I face down soul warden, as it means my opponent started with a bit more life but one less card. You ended up with a lot of 1/1's, so getting a relevant creature would be nicer.
There are a one big thing that I feel you could do better, and it is something I am still learning. When to use removal is a tough skill to master. Sometimes a creature is totally irrelevant, and you should not bother killing it. Kelinore bats in the first game being a great example. Harm's way is a very sick trick to hold, and you have other ways to kill the bats, even if just throwing a sprite at them. Seeing as sprite gets outclassed very quickly, you should be glad to trade it up.
...I had to stop reading it after round two because your insistence on using the words 'Hero' and 'Villain' every other sentence really began to grate to the point at which it became utterly distracting from the content of the article. I'd suggest using 'me' and 'him' (even if it's not you who's playing) to make the whole thing a lot nicer to read. I hope you see this as constructive criticism rather than random flaming as I usually enjoy your articles.
Thanks for this really interesting article. A great read.
to bad Reveillark is about to rotate , its such a good card..
this deck is dead without Reveillark
When it comes to combo-ish Johnny terminology, Gottleib knows better than me =)
The article you linked is fantastic, BTW.
That is definitely the way to do it. I've built a ton of decks based on Rings of Brighthearth, and will probably write a full article on it in the future...
Sorry if some of these decks feel ripped off, I guess next time I could skip some of the more obvious decks. The problem is that it's hard to write a Zendikar impressions article without talking about landfall or Vampires... And both of those decks are pretty linear. I try to give a personal twist on this stuff, but it doesn't always take.
Nonbo? You meant Bombo right?
http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mg119
That is a good idea and I already have them which is a bonus.
Good article again of course. I am not all that thrilled with the Zendikar set but I am curious to see how these predictions pan out.
Interesting article. My pool fir that event was utter trash. Seemed to me that there were a lot of bonkers pools that made even your friends pool look weak, which is nuts. Round 1 I faced bane slayer each game but won 2/3 somehow. After that it was decks with triple lightning bolt + Chandra or etc. Either way good read and unique
Tons of decks- I wanted to try out a fast mill with twincast and glimpse the unthinkable but it was an expensive card so I opted for the Mind Cascade which is much cheaper when Reborn came out.
But when Zendikar was slowly spoiled It was an A on my radar but when it was fully spoiled it got reduced to a mere B-.
I dont like Landfall- its too boring. I do like them trying to bring back Black. I dont know why I dont like the set as much. I did like the refreshness of ACR. Though I hadnt playd seriously since Prophecy.
Hopefully when I play it online itll change to at least a B+
Nice article. Speaking as a Johnny, though, the card you want to combo Magosi with is Rings of Brighthearth. Skip 1, take 2, ad infinitum.
Wow a lot of this feels straight ripped out ofother articles I've read recently. Then again it's mostly people all restating the obvious that landfall is decent, is linear, and vampires are a nobrainer. I think the SCG 5k did not show any innovation to standard yet. All Jund aggro decks really b/c that's what ppl hand on hand. Maybe people forgot how to build and test paper magic. I see a strong resurface of control and combo coming. Well not control as we were used to with faeries which was permission aggro but we will see tempo control and attrition becoming a dominant deck style
Hi
I've always been a big fan of your articles, and want to follow your podcast.
However whenever I try to go on the MTGCast site, it gets blocked by my office firewall, due to being a "Malicious site".
Does anyone know if there is any legitimate reason why this might be happening, as I could then query this with my IT department.
Cheers
The Ultimatum I was running in my deck was the Titanic Ultimatum. Not the one you linked.
I've got about 30 rats and last time I tried a couple months ago it did work.
I would really appreciate it if you could point out any misplays of mine that I didn't spot. If there are places I could tighten up my game more that I'm not seeing, I really need to learn how to see them!
I didn't have enough doubt about a 3rd Looter to keep me from trying it. But I wouldn't say there's entirely NO drawback. One measure of a deck is density of threats/answers. Since some games are decided by who draws more of those, and since Looter usually doesn't function as either, there's only room for so many cards that involve mana-fixing/ramping, card draw/filtering, etc. A few card filtering Looters means the density of threats/answers among the cards you actually keep and use is higher, which is great. If you have 22 looters an an Air Elemental, or 11 Looters, 11 Divination, and an Air Elemental, your threat density is obviously way too low and one Doom Blade or Pacifism beats your whole deck. For that reason, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want 6 Looters, not sure I'd want 5... 4, maybe? At some point you're too prone to swap away the "extras" for either more Looters or land, rather than good spells. Three still seems good to me even though I didn't win this time.
I appreciate the thoughts on Righteousness, and I will lower it's valuation in my mind even more than I had already. In my defense, I'll say I had little practical experience with it, and my mindset was more one of "Can this be good?" than "Dawg, this is good!" My constructed experience is limited to considering throwing one in an FNM deck as a one-of surprise and to handle an occasional fattie, but cutting it from the main deck to sideboard when I pruned down to 60, and cutting it from the sideboard when I pruned THAT down to 15. Ironically, the one match I lost at FNM that week, it would have been an answer to the Uril the Miststalker my deck just couldn't beat. Even at that, my solution to tweaking the deck for the next time I play it is not to add any Righteousness, but rather 4 Fleshbag Marauder, which I consider to be a far superior solution.
My experience playing Righteousness in limited consists of - well, this draft. I don't recall ever drafting one or playing one before, unless I'm forgetting something. I only took it here over cards like Sage Owl, Palace Guard, Serpent of the Endless Sea, etc. I'll admit that one Wall of Frost looks better now than the Righteousness I picked over it. Had there been stronger cards in my colors I would have taken them, and I'll admit pack 1 pick 5 I probably should have snagged Deathmark or Rampant Growth.
I think one of the most serious failings of the card is if you're out of creatures, and you need to topdeck either a creature to block or race with, or removal to buy you time to do more - Righteousness does nothing till you have a creature in play. Harm's Way can do more with a blocker out, but it can still kill a Snapping Drake by itself. Safe Passage does more with blockers, but is still a Fog in worst case. Even my favorite whipping boy, Disorient, is better than Righteousness in that situation, fogging one dude for a turn. Ok, I promise to move my evaluation of Righteousness way down. I'd still maybe use it for a 23rd playable - though I always seem to draft 24 or more playables most drafts.
I think my new official position on Righteousness is you're supposed to rate them as a sideboard option, then sideboard them in against Enormous Baloth. Seems tailor made to be a perfect solution against Enormous Baloth! Except when you Mind Control it instead, which I've done once on paper and once now online, seems good.
Again, would really like to hear what tactical misplays you spotted so I can learn from them. Thanks!
I may be undervaluing the Essence Scatter, since it's a form of removal and regretably my deck didn't get any Scatters. Still, I think the Griffin is an ok pick in p3p3 too, since my deck was short on the flyers that are the core of the archetype, since it gave me a second 4 drop, and his first strike keeps bears home all day. Still, if I Essence Scatter a bomb creature sometimes, the Scatter certainly has the potential to be more powerful sometimes (if not always), so it may be the more correct pick there?
I agree with the Sleep pick as reasonable over a third looter. Glorious Charge I didn't want a second copy of, I've heard various writers say it's a bit weak. Maybe I undervalue it, to take a sideboard-only card over it? I need to get to try it in some actual game situations.
As for that Wall of Frost... Ok, I think I'm not allowed to recommend Righteousness over ANY reasonably solid card until I've done a pilgrimage to Richard Garfield's back yard as penance, and said 100 "Hail Akromas" while clutching a necklace made of +1/+2 bead tokens.
thats a good point if memory serves me correctly they are like bottom of the barrel rares. A playset costs 1 ticket at mtgotraders.com
Have you considered Ancient Amphitheater? Both the Crusher and the Grunts allow it to come into play untapped, and it's a reasonably priced ($$) dual land for your deck.