Nice, Congrats for get over 1800. 4 Terminates with 3 cascade is too much. Thats the key of your victory, i think. And a Bitouminous Blast! You can win again all the matches with 1/1 goblins if you want...
This is my last comment to this article be it from a compliment or a complaint. Let me give you some nice handy tip for promoting discussion:
Show respect. "Nice article, but it's full of wrong things" lacks respect. You don't need to compliment them. You need to understand that saying things like, "waste of money" "broken tool" etc. is basically finding no value in the article that a person took a lot time to write. Think of it this way, you go someone's house. They decorate with hot pink walls, sparkle carpets, and Hannah Montana statues that they hand crafted. Saying the house is "Full of wrong things" "waste of money" or this is "broken" is going to upset the home owner. Show respect. If you respect the article and person but completely disagree you don't need to even give them a compliment.
Lastly you clearly do not like my style, others happen to like it. It's all opinion. You are clearly passionate so go write about it!
Someone made a comment to me earlier about why are you commenting when you could be writing more articles? That's a great idea, I wish I would have done that in the first place. Oh well, we all have those days.
"I just get sick of people posting times where they won a 4322 with so many mispicks."
I genuinely appreciate the alternative perspectives and picks you presented (a second kiss over the roar just can't be correct for this deck, though), but I'm not sure what makes you sick, exactly.
If someone presenting a flawed 4322 victory as though it were drafting brilliance triggers some nausea, that's understandable, but it’s certainly not something I could be accused of here. Also, I write up my drafts win or lose. Had I been bounced in the first round, I would have put it up just the same.
I'm sorry that reading about overcoming errors to win drafts makes you feel unwell. I eagerly await your draft walkthrough series in which you take down 84 after 84 with perfect picks and perfect play, though. In the meantime, I can't be LSV, I can only be me, and my game contains many mispicks and play mistakes. Somehow I still manage to hover around 1800 with my limited rating, though, which I think ought to be encouraging for people. You don't *have* to be LSV to be reasonably successful.
My hope and belief is that an honest, "warts and all" approach to presenting my drafts actually affords more opportunities for thoughtful critique, debate, and improvement than cherry-picking awesome drafts does.
It has been said many times that you learn more from failures than successes, and I will be presenting ample quantities of both. Perhaps pros (and maybe you?) aren't going to get much from my column, but there seem to be many readers who can learn a lot from my mistakes, which is very encouraging.
Man, you think this one had some errors, wait until you see ACR#3. Yikes. (<--foreshadowing)
So I'm assuming PureMTGO demanded that Andrew submit an article, any article... and all he had to turn in was this turd. As a semi-regular reader of QP Bandwagon, I have respect for both his limited game and his writing, but this one is an embarassment.
Hate to poke through that thin skin of yours again, Exodus, but you don't have to be LSV to see that the picks and analysis here are really bad. Two top-5 pick Anathemancers? Calling Illusory Demon a "solid flier?" Even debating Bloodbraid Elf and Veinfire Borderpost?? I don't think I need to go on. These might have been forgivable for a first-timer to a new format a month ago, but not taking the time to look back over the picks for at least some decent analysis long after the fact, says to me that he didn't care about the quality of this article (in addition to it being about a dead format). That's always disappointing to a reader, and deserving of criticism by posters.
Andrew, please take this article down and replace it with an ACR draft that's more representative of your talents.
Thanks for the comment, I tried to clarify this point by saying a Bear for 3. I have heard a lot of mention of Grizzly Bear and figured everyone would know that term. I played Unlimited and Revised my self, so am clear that is more a Grey Ogre than a Bear, but was making sure, everyone understood what I was getting at. I will try and spice up my measuring sticks for the future.
Thanks for the comment, and history lesson for those who didn't play back that far.
I appreciate the discussion, and was looking for comments as this was my first ARB ARB ARB draft online, and will be my last, unless they run a special draft later on. I think what Exodus is trying to say (although I don't want to put words in his mount), is the more constructive a comment is the better. Bashing doesn't help with a discussion, but offering up what you would have done differently helps everyone learn your viewpoint. Thanks again for all of the comments.
Sigiled Behemoth, isn't at best 23rd filler. However, I was also wrong about it being another bomb. I would say it belongs somewhere in the middle, and in a GW bant oriented deck is a fine addition to top out the curve.
Thank you for catching by rounds mistake, I missed the 1st loss.
I still stand by Illusory Demon. Although, it's probably not as good as I think it is, I don't mind playing a 2 drop and then a flying 5 turn clock. Even in late game, it's a fine top deck as it is a threat in the air. Still, the drawback, is a major drawback. And I understand your point.
As for the posting time, this was created as a part of the Bandwagon Series and have been published in order. There is a certain amount of lag time between when the event takes place and when the article gets published. Hopefully, there can still be something to learn from it.
I am listing the picks as I would have made them, by P1P4 I would have been in UW aggro splash g. Kiss was actually wrong for this type of deck and roar or welkin guide were the correct picks in both cases, I just really like kiss :)
so, you don't keep anything in consideration unless the comment begins with compliments? Ok, next time i'll tell you "nice article, but it's full of wrong things"... Will this be better? accepting cricitism is a way to improve...
Comments here are made for critique too, not just for flattering, or insulting, like some idiot above.
If you read what I've written you clearly can understand that I'm against the "budget" experience if it is equal to waste money. For example last week there was here an article about equipoise, a very well written and nice article, that at the end had a bidget equipoise deck. Well, you don't know how many times i've seen those decks in these days, and every time they crumbled horribly to everything. Now, what do you think are the feelings of the guys that spent 5/6 $ on that budget deck, finding themselves with a broken tool? That's the reason why you (intended as the people writing the articles) should be objective about the cards you "review", and that was what I contested about the article. Some things must be clear to the readers, so they can improve their magic experience too.
The aim of this post was not to say "yeah mongrel is one the best pauper creature". I really dont know enough the pauper format to argue that.
I only wanted to highlight the reasons why this card generates a natural enthusiasm among players (as i do). As well, experimented players (like you are) know that perfectly and probably more. But maybe it will provide a bit more information on that card for people who didnt know it very well, whatever the format...
Consider my comment as some words spontaneously coming from my heart, not for an additional argument to the debate about the deck on any side :)
I am not sure how useful this type of post is. It is certainly easy to go back after the fact and say "you should have gone UWg from the beginning, see?".
Just because the deck would have been more focused had he gone that route doesn't mean that he should have made those picks as they were presented to him right?
I think Kiss is OK at best, and pretty awful in any type of aggro build. You are advocating that he should have been aggro the whole time but including two 6 drops that do literally zero damage in an aggro deck seems counter intuitive to me..
I am not sure how useful this type of post is. It is certainly easy to go back after the fact and say "you should have gone UWg from the beginning, see?".
Just because the deck would have been more focused had he gone that route doesn't mean that he should have made those picks as they were presented to him right?
I think Kiss is OK at best, and pretty awful in any type of aggro build. You are advocating that he should have been aggro the whole time but including two 6 drops that do literally zero damage in an aggro deck seems counter intuitive to me..
Many of these picks were off. You should've just focused on a UWg aggro deck from the start. And I think you under estimate Kiss. I would've picked up both of them, it is card advantage and life gain. Very important in limited. Of course it doesn't really fit in with an aggro deck but neither does captured sunlight and I would much rather run Kiss than sunlight or Ethersworn Canonist.
P1P2 Screecher
P1P3 KotSE
P1P5 Kiss
P1P6 Kiss
P2P3 Fracture
P2P4 Outlander (Don't really like any of the choices here, we are trying to be UW with a small splash of G in which case a G land cycler doesn't really help and we don't have enough artifacts to make Mechanist or court the clear pick, so I'd take the outlander but wouldn't be super happy about it as it's in our "splash" colors)
P2P5 Outlander (they have gotten a lot better)
P2P7 Outlander
P2P9 Lapse but controlled instincts would also be okay.
P3P1 Stormblade
P3P8 Recluse
P3P9 Plowbeast
This deck would've been much more focused with a stronger UW base which would've made the mana much easier. With recluse, Naya Panorama and the borderpost you can proabably get away with just running three or four forests as you only have 6 or 7 spells which require a forest. Anyways thats my all IMHO, look forward to more articles. I just get sick of people posting times where they won a 4322 with so many mispicks.
Thank you! I am flattered to be honored by even being considered as a favorite.
Aside from that a comment like this that disagrees with the content of the article is more productive for me, as a writer, and for the readers as well. It promotes discussion rather then reactions. It gets to the heart of the issue Why is Aven Mimeomancer in this deck?
The two answers, in order to make Aven Mimeomancer more useful (see the first comment) rethink the cards.
Another maybe just replace him with four other cards (Youthful Knight? a cheap first strike flier?)
To be honest, Aven was more useful towards the end to make my guys fliers and vary rarely did he work defensively. But he did work from time to time, (But not nearly as much as just playing bant's, defts countering, building to the sergeant),
@ Exodus: Just because someone is over 1800 doesn't make them all-knowing perfect magic players. I had my MTGO rating over 1900 at one point, but that doesn't make me immune to criticism. The point of articles like these is to provoke discussion and help make everyone a better Magic player, including the author.
For me as a reader, the content of an article (be it Magic or politics or whatever) is always important. Of course I don't read something that doesn't interests me such as "how to play oboe better in 10 easy steps". I can't play oboe in the first place!!
But for me personally, the most important thing is not the content but the way the writer is talking about it. The way he/she approaches the subject. The little surprises hidden inside the article. The amount of humour. How he/she starts the article and how he/she ends it. For me, those things make an article a good one or a bad one.
A poor writer can come up with the most interesting idea but just because he can't write at all, the result would be a crap. Or a very good writer can take a subject which is known by everyone in great detail but he/she can write about it in a way which will make you feel like you're hearing the matter for the first time in your life.
Having said all those things, I must say that draconias is slowly becoming one of my favorite writers who writes for puremtgo. I'm a lucky person who can afford expensive cards. Therefore budget decks normally are not that much interesting for me. But he talks about them in a way that "force" me to read the whole article.
So keep up the good work mate. Of course the decks you talk about are important. The content is always important. I too think that you could have come with a better deck built around Aven Mimeomancer. Your deck doesn't seem to be able to abuse the bird's ability. I can even say that I didn't even understand why you have it in deck. However these things don't change the fact that I loved reading the article and that I enjoyed it.
Loved the deck and article. I thought it clearly was geared toward a more casual audience, though it may have been easier for me to discern that because I am a more casual player.
The first comment here was clearly poorly written and much of what you stated you wanted to do with the article went over the commenter's head. Your response to it was very even handed, but in the future please don't waste too much time responding to word vomit and instead write more articles =).
No worries! I was just bringing discussion points to the table. I'm not offended in the least (my writing here is more for leisure and promoting new players that might be intimidated by the cost to play magic), I brought up the point about putting the author on the defensive not because I was on the defensive, but more a note about productive conversations.
I think one reason the high number of pump cards ended up working was because the creatures I chose were pretty hard to remove and tended to stick around if I had a pump spell coming..
Nice, Congrats for get over 1800. 4 Terminates with 3 cascade is too much. Thats the key of your victory, i think. And a Bitouminous Blast! You can win again all the matches with 1/1 goblins if you want...
This is my last comment to this article be it from a compliment or a complaint. Let me give you some nice handy tip for promoting discussion:
Show respect. "Nice article, but it's full of wrong things" lacks respect. You don't need to compliment them. You need to understand that saying things like, "waste of money" "broken tool" etc. is basically finding no value in the article that a person took a lot time to write. Think of it this way, you go someone's house. They decorate with hot pink walls, sparkle carpets, and Hannah Montana statues that they hand crafted. Saying the house is "Full of wrong things" "waste of money" or this is "broken" is going to upset the home owner. Show respect. If you respect the article and person but completely disagree you don't need to even give them a compliment.
Lastly you clearly do not like my style, others happen to like it. It's all opinion. You are clearly passionate so go write about it!
Someone made a comment to me earlier about why are you commenting when you could be writing more articles? That's a great idea, I wish I would have done that in the first place. Oh well, we all have those days.
"I just get sick of people posting times where they won a 4322 with so many mispicks."
I genuinely appreciate the alternative perspectives and picks you presented (a second kiss over the roar just can't be correct for this deck, though), but I'm not sure what makes you sick, exactly.
If someone presenting a flawed 4322 victory as though it were drafting brilliance triggers some nausea, that's understandable, but it’s certainly not something I could be accused of here. Also, I write up my drafts win or lose. Had I been bounced in the first round, I would have put it up just the same.
I'm sorry that reading about overcoming errors to win drafts makes you feel unwell. I eagerly await your draft walkthrough series in which you take down 84 after 84 with perfect picks and perfect play, though. In the meantime, I can't be LSV, I can only be me, and my game contains many mispicks and play mistakes. Somehow I still manage to hover around 1800 with my limited rating, though, which I think ought to be encouraging for people. You don't *have* to be LSV to be reasonably successful.
My hope and belief is that an honest, "warts and all" approach to presenting my drafts actually affords more opportunities for thoughtful critique, debate, and improvement than cherry-picking awesome drafts does.
It has been said many times that you learn more from failures than successes, and I will be presenting ample quantities of both. Perhaps pros (and maybe you?) aren't going to get much from my column, but there seem to be many readers who can learn a lot from my mistakes, which is very encouraging.
Man, you think this one had some errors, wait until you see ACR#3. Yikes. (<--foreshadowing)
So I'm assuming PureMTGO demanded that Andrew submit an article, any article... and all he had to turn in was this turd. As a semi-regular reader of QP Bandwagon, I have respect for both his limited game and his writing, but this one is an embarassment.
Hate to poke through that thin skin of yours again, Exodus, but you don't have to be LSV to see that the picks and analysis here are really bad. Two top-5 pick Anathemancers? Calling Illusory Demon a "solid flier?" Even debating Bloodbraid Elf and Veinfire Borderpost?? I don't think I need to go on. These might have been forgivable for a first-timer to a new format a month ago, but not taking the time to look back over the picks for at least some decent analysis long after the fact, says to me that he didn't care about the quality of this article (in addition to it being about a dead format). That's always disappointing to a reader, and deserving of criticism by posters.
Andrew, please take this article down and replace it with an ACR draft that's more representative of your talents.
Thanks for the comment, I tried to clarify this point by saying a Bear for 3. I have heard a lot of mention of Grizzly Bear and figured everyone would know that term. I played Unlimited and Revised my self, so am clear that is more a Grey Ogre than a Bear, but was making sure, everyone understood what I was getting at. I will try and spice up my measuring sticks for the future.
Thanks for the comment, and history lesson for those who didn't play back that far.
I appreciate the discussion, and was looking for comments as this was my first ARB ARB ARB draft online, and will be my last, unless they run a special draft later on. I think what Exodus is trying to say (although I don't want to put words in his mount), is the more constructive a comment is the better. Bashing doesn't help with a discussion, but offering up what you would have done differently helps everyone learn your viewpoint. Thanks again for all of the comments.
Sigiled Behemoth, isn't at best 23rd filler. However, I was also wrong about it being another bomb. I would say it belongs somewhere in the middle, and in a GW bant oriented deck is a fine addition to top out the curve.
Thank you for catching by rounds mistake, I missed the 1st loss.
Yes, Especially in triple Reborn, Knight of New Alara is a huge bomb. I could have either gone with that or the Terminate.
I still stand by Illusory Demon. Although, it's probably not as good as I think it is, I don't mind playing a 2 drop and then a flying 5 turn clock. Even in late game, it's a fine top deck as it is a threat in the air. Still, the drawback, is a major drawback. And I understand your point.
As for the posting time, this was created as a part of the Bandwagon Series and have been published in order. There is a certain amount of lag time between when the event takes place and when the article gets published. Hopefully, there can still be something to learn from it.
Thanks for the comments.
"illusory demon is just plain horrible in limited. otherwise your deck is decent."
good, I'd actually been wondering about this card and had been tempted to run it now and again (seriously). Thanks for the input.
@ MConstant
I am listing the picks as I would have made them, by P1P4 I would have been in UW aggro splash g. Kiss was actually wrong for this type of deck and roar or welkin guide were the correct picks in both cases, I just really like kiss :)
so, you don't keep anything in consideration unless the comment begins with compliments? Ok, next time i'll tell you "nice article, but it's full of wrong things"... Will this be better? accepting cricitism is a way to improve...
Comments here are made for critique too, not just for flattering, or insulting, like some idiot above.
If you read what I've written you clearly can understand that I'm against the "budget" experience if it is equal to waste money. For example last week there was here an article about equipoise, a very well written and nice article, that at the end had a bidget equipoise deck. Well, you don't know how many times i've seen those decks in these days, and every time they crumbled horribly to everything. Now, what do you think are the feelings of the guys that spent 5/6 $ on that budget deck, finding themselves with a broken tool? That's the reason why you (intended as the people writing the articles) should be objective about the cards you "review", and that was what I contested about the article. Some things must be clear to the readers, so they can improve their magic experience too.
yeah that's correct Alex, my post was confusing
The aim of this post was not to say "yeah mongrel is one the best pauper creature". I really dont know enough the pauper format to argue that.
I only wanted to highlight the reasons why this card generates a natural enthusiasm among players (as i do). As well, experimented players (like you are) know that perfectly and probably more. But maybe it will provide a bit more information on that card for people who didnt know it very well, whatever the format...
Consider my comment as some words spontaneously coming from my heart, not for an additional argument to the debate about the deck on any side :)
@Mastaflash
I am not sure how useful this type of post is. It is certainly easy to go back after the fact and say "you should have gone UWg from the beginning, see?".
Just because the deck would have been more focused had he gone that route doesn't mean that he should have made those picks as they were presented to him right?
I think Kiss is OK at best, and pretty awful in any type of aggro build. You are advocating that he should have been aggro the whole time but including two 6 drops that do literally zero damage in an aggro deck seems counter intuitive to me..
I am not sure how useful this type of post is. It is certainly easy to go back after the fact and say "you should have gone UWg from the beginning, see?".
Just because the deck would have been more focused had he gone that route doesn't mean that he should have made those picks as they were presented to him right?
I think Kiss is OK at best, and pretty awful in any type of aggro build. You are advocating that he should have been aggro the whole time but including two 6 drops that do literally zero damage in an aggro deck seems counter intuitive to me..
Many of these picks were off. You should've just focused on a UWg aggro deck from the start. And I think you under estimate Kiss. I would've picked up both of them, it is card advantage and life gain. Very important in limited. Of course it doesn't really fit in with an aggro deck but neither does captured sunlight and I would much rather run Kiss than sunlight or Ethersworn Canonist.
P1P2 Screecher
P1P3 KotSE
P1P5 Kiss
P1P6 Kiss
P2P3 Fracture
P2P4 Outlander (Don't really like any of the choices here, we are trying to be UW with a small splash of G in which case a G land cycler doesn't really help and we don't have enough artifacts to make Mechanist or court the clear pick, so I'd take the outlander but wouldn't be super happy about it as it's in our "splash" colors)
P2P5 Outlander (they have gotten a lot better)
P2P7 Outlander
P2P9 Lapse but controlled instincts would also be okay.
P3P1 Stormblade
P3P8 Recluse
P3P9 Plowbeast
This deck would've been much more focused with a stronger UW base which would've made the mana much easier. With recluse, Naya Panorama and the borderpost you can proabably get away with just running three or four forests as you only have 6 or 7 spells which require a forest. Anyways thats my all IMHO, look forward to more articles. I just get sick of people posting times where they won a 4322 with so many mispicks.
Thank you! I am flattered to be honored by even being considered as a favorite.
Aside from that a comment like this that disagrees with the content of the article is more productive for me, as a writer, and for the readers as well. It promotes discussion rather then reactions. It gets to the heart of the issue Why is Aven Mimeomancer in this deck?
The two answers, in order to make Aven Mimeomancer more useful (see the first comment) rethink the cards.
Another maybe just replace him with four other cards (Youthful Knight? a cheap first strike flier?)
To be honest, Aven was more useful towards the end to make my guys fliers and vary rarely did he work defensively. But he did work from time to time, (But not nearly as much as just playing bant's, defts countering, building to the sergeant),
So there is some pennies for cents two of.
if this guy writes another article about gush or mongrel....
=(
yeah his articles are fun.
@ Exodus: Just because someone is over 1800 doesn't make them all-knowing perfect magic players. I had my MTGO rating over 1900 at one point, but that doesn't make me immune to criticism. The point of articles like these is to provoke discussion and help make everyone a better Magic player, including the author.
For me as a reader, the content of an article (be it Magic or politics or whatever) is always important. Of course I don't read something that doesn't interests me such as "how to play oboe better in 10 easy steps". I can't play oboe in the first place!!
But for me personally, the most important thing is not the content but the way the writer is talking about it. The way he/she approaches the subject. The little surprises hidden inside the article. The amount of humour. How he/she starts the article and how he/she ends it. For me, those things make an article a good one or a bad one.
A poor writer can come up with the most interesting idea but just because he can't write at all, the result would be a crap. Or a very good writer can take a subject which is known by everyone in great detail but he/she can write about it in a way which will make you feel like you're hearing the matter for the first time in your life.
Having said all those things, I must say that draconias is slowly becoming one of my favorite writers who writes for puremtgo. I'm a lucky person who can afford expensive cards. Therefore budget decks normally are not that much interesting for me. But he talks about them in a way that "force" me to read the whole article.
So keep up the good work mate. Of course the decks you talk about are important. The content is always important. I too think that you could have come with a better deck built around Aven Mimeomancer. Your deck doesn't seem to be able to abuse the bird's ability. I can even say that I didn't even understand why you have it in deck. However these things don't change the fact that I loved reading the article and that I enjoyed it.
LE
Loved the deck and article. I thought it clearly was geared toward a more casual audience, though it may have been easier for me to discern that because I am a more casual player.
The first comment here was clearly poorly written and much of what you stated you wanted to do with the article went over the commenter's head. Your response to it was very even handed, but in the future please don't waste too much time responding to word vomit and instead write more articles =).
No worries! I was just bringing discussion points to the table. I'm not offended in the least (my writing here is more for leisure and promoting new players that might be intimidated by the cost to play magic), I brought up the point about putting the author on the defensive not because I was on the defensive, but more a note about productive conversations.
I think one reason the high number of pump cards ended up working was because the creatures I chose were pretty hard to remove and tended to stick around if I had a pump spell coming..
You should put Sygg in together with the above deck, they kinda work well together :-)