Just a little comment about mongrel is : this card is a bomb. Why ? Simply because it is simultaneously a great threat alone AND could be a centerpiece of an entire deck. This is very rare in mtg. Often, either beaters remains beaters (Tarmo, tombstalker ...) or engines remains engines (skullclamp, necropotence ...). Here you have an incredible 2 in 1. A cheap CMC creature which is the both simultaneously is really powerful.
Yes it could win a match by itself : a potential 8/8 attack on turn 3 is a proof (and much much with any draw effect) without needing any mana or any life. And, cherry on the top, you could adjust its ability to the level you want ... but that is only the half of itself. The simple dog could replace Putrid Imp in Dredge builds (even if putrid is 1 mana less which is huge in eternal format, mongrel could be a much better plan B in case of), it could be a Madness thunder rod, it could be ran also in a reanimator deck and probably many other deck i dont have the time to mention here... Are there others creature that are potential finisher + core engine ? Ravager could be, but it is nothing outside affinity although Mongrel is pretty nice in each deck. Hermit Druid is a fantastic engine but a really weak finisher as cephalid illusionist is also. There are not a lot of examples. Once again this is this double role which is providing a special status to Mongrel to me. Plus, hehehe ... it is A COMMON CARD !!! just .... WOW !
"Also, I feel that you should be playing 1 less land."
I basically agree, but it was a matter of what to run. My only alternatives were: Cancel, Savage Hunger, Sacellum Archers (with no activation), or Spore Burst. All told, maybe the Savage Hunger over a land is correct, but I didn't have much to work with.
"I feel like your deck could have been much better with the correct picks."
Agreed 100%, although that's a bit of a truism. "Your deck would have been a lot better if it had been a lot better."
I obviously disagree with my own picks in many places, and I doubt many readers are going to be too much harder on me than I am on myself when I screw up a pick.
If you disagree with specific picks where I didn't openly disagree with myself already, call them out and explain your choice. I'd love to hear other perspectives on picks.
You make very valid points. I agree that sleeper cards do exist, but my main problem with motu's writings have been the following: Gush and Mongrel are good in other formats, so obviously they must be good in Pauper. He then provides evidence from these other formats as to what the cards are good together in Pauper.
The flat power level was a tangent argument I instigated because all his deck seems to do is to want to draw into Wild Mongrel.
Do I think Gush will eventually see play? Yes, because as more and more cards are added to the format more interactions will naturally occur. In fact, I predict it will see play once we gain access to Waterfront Bounce (ETA 2011 or so).
I generally play whatever is closest to firing, but my preference for getting the best pack return is actually Swiss. It all depends on why you are playing. If you want to pit yourself against the very best and take your game to the highest levels of competitive Magic, 8-4 is obviously the choice.
On the other hand, if you want to make the financial bleed as slow as possible while getting the best bang for your buck in terms of actual play, Swiss is clearly superior.
Until now, I've been drafting for my own ends only, which has meant a goal of solid pack return, slow bleed, and good bang-for-buck. Now, I'm also trying to please readers.
If readers really want to see me in 8-4s, I will make the effort to play in and document more of them to give the people what they want. (AS it happens, my third draft is 8-4, look for that writeup soon).
Wherever I end up playing, I maintain that the current secret to near-perpetual drafting for a ~1750-type player is, ironically, in Swiss: the format where you can never net a positive in packs.
I will defend this position in more detail in a future article.
In regards to this article, I think one thing needs to be kept in mind.
Sleeper cards DO exist. Tarmogoyf anyone (and no, it's not the only example; just the most famous one. There are quite a few other cards that went through the same thing)? Just because Gush hasn't been played to success yet doesn't mean it never will. While I don' think the current list is strong enough to make it happen, asserting that because a card hasn't been played since its initial (and fairly inaccessible for this format) release is pure fallacy. Just because it hasn't had its time in the sun yet doesn't mean it never will. Personally, I'd put it on my short list of cards to test in anything with a heavy blue commitment, because sooner or later someone will find a way to really break it.
That said, with the degree of determination motu has, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he was the one to eventually make Gush work with the mongrel.
In terms of how flat the power level is in pauper, I definitely agree with motu. It isn't even close to being flat. If the power level were truly flat in a format, then it quite literally WOULD NOT MATTER what cards you brought to the table. It wouldn't. Seriously. Every card would have the same potency as the basic lands beneath them. The fact is that yes, muscle sliver and sinew sliver make slivers good in pauper. without either one the deck wouldn't really be there (Or at least I don't recall it being there). The fact is, some individual cards are better than others. and if one card is better than another, the power level is not really flat. Lightning Bolt is better than Shock... Wild Mongrel is better than Grizzly Bears... Counterspell is better than Cancel... Counterspell beats Lightning Bolt and Wild Mongrel... If you ignore the cards that aren't remotely competitive, perhaps the format appears relatively flat, but even then, it's hard to argue that Corrupt isn't faster and stronger than Resounding Thunder, at least on a one on one basis.
Now if we were speaking in terms of decks, then the power level can be argued as fairly flat. That's fair, most decks in Pauper are roughly equal in terms of power.
Another thing: if you can't be bothered to create a user id and at least show your face, you have no business kicking people in the face. I'm looking at you, pitiful anonymous poster #1. Telling someone they "failed" may be a cute thing to do on the internet, but until you've actually tried writing an article, you really don't have any business either insulting the author or calling him a failure. Thank you smack8001 for your insightful punch to the author's groins.
Thanks for the feedback. Fair warning that I submitted a second article before this one even went up that has more digest-version game recaps. Since the feedback on detailed game walkthroughs has been positive, I will go back to that style in the future, but my second article won't be like that.
i was wondering because i played bill stark's ranger zoo list for most of extended season and i definitely don't remember casting wild mongrels. So i thought you just took his decklist and added 4 mongrels to it, but the list still added up to 60, so i was confused. Only when i got Alex's comment did it finally make sense to me, wow can't believe you replaced wild nacatls in stark's list with mongrels, nacatls are soooo key in that deck. Not only is it a 1st turn 3/3 guy, its also the main ranger target in the "ranger zoo" deck.
The rest of this article is like reading a bunch of petty forum posts with quotes and rebuttals. I wish the editors of this website has higher standards for article submissions because articles like this hurts the overall quality of this great website.
First, I should totally disregard this article since you misquote Bill Stark. The list in question actually runs 4 Wild Nacatl, not Mongrel, as 4 Mongrel would be a great way for Stark to get a big DQ for Extended.
As for your Nate Heiss quote, thanks for providing context. By providing context, I mean taking a quote to support your point without fully disclosing everything, like the fact that the article was written in 2004 (as in, right after Champions of Kamigawa was released). I am sure that in the subsequent 16 sets, some cards would move onto his list and push others off (notably Ninja of the Deep Hours, Skred, Ponder. Also, not having Exclude on his list is a criminal act. Also, why no mention of Gush on his list?). Not only that, this article was not even dealing with competitive Pauper (which did not exist at that point in time, but rather just as a Player Run Event in its infancy- in other words, he was talking about budget cards for other formats, not for Pauper. As for his assertion that Mongrel can end games by himself- I don't disagree with that statement but this does not happen in Pauper as it does in other formats, especially in a deck, as you presented, that HAS NO WAY TO AFFECT THE BOARD.
Now, you constantly attribute quotes to me without mentioning that they are me and refer to me as "that guy." Thanks, I appreciate it. My argument was based on the fact that you extolled Gush + Mongrel as "worth it." I still disagree as in the fact of the upcoming meta, which is likely to feature a heavy doses of Affinity, Blue Skies, and Slivers, your deck gets rolled. Good game, sign the match slip. Drawing cards is good, yes, but I was positing a thought that may pan out that discard might be better- the jury is still out on my testing.
Listen, Mongrel is a great creature, one of the top 20 of all time in Pauper, but in Pauper he is little but a damage engine. When you want to deal damage, that's great, because he can deal a ton. That's why in the Macey Rock list you posted, he fits so well. He can be a source of damage and card advantage (chucking a CotH for an extra point of damage or an extra 3/3, wearing SoFI). Just out of curiosity, what tournament and placing was that list from?
If you Gush early, it is an insurmountable tempo loss. If you Gush late, you probably could have cast it for 4U for no loss. Somewhere in the between, well congratulations, you found a narrow example of casting Gush for value in Pauper. My friends Vithian Stinger, Winged Coatl, and Twiddle Storm would like to have a word with you. Just because something can be good in situations does not mean it is inherently good.
But none of this matters, because you are dead set on proving that Gush and Mongrel are worth it in the deck you are proposing. So, like everyone else, I'd love to see testing results that back this statement up. In the meanwhile, I'm going to look at the 3 Pauper PE Top 8s where both cards were legal and failed to make the top 8 in the same deck. Mongrel made it as part of a damage engine, Gush never cracked the top 32.
" is this too much detail for the game walkthroughs, or is this level of breakdown interesting and useful?"
No such thing as too much detail (I liked Zvi's 19 part 2 million word 'My Fires' write-ups back in the day)
Your level of breakdown is fantastic. Better than other (very good) writers on this site and most other sites. Please continue! (also, you seem to be quite good - why not 8-4s?)
You're like Aristotle, not Galileo. Aristotle argued and argued that curved-line motion is impossible, things only travel in straight lines, that a vacuum cannot exist, that men have four more teeth than women, etc. Argue all you want, but if you don't provide evidence (e.g. games), you get laughed out of our scientific age. Galileo actually did experiments. That's why he's the king and Aristotle blows.
First article: good attempt, but fail
Second article: awesome. Nice exploration of a new card. The deck wasn't that great, but it gives us new ideas to build on, and shows us where it needs to improve. That's what I come to the site for.
Third article: fail. Play some games with your gush/dog crap. Join a tournament. Heck, play 5 games against Alex.
But you may need to contact customer support at http://wizards.custhelp.com and explain the situation. They're usually pretty good at helping people get set up.
in my experience, what you told about stillmoon in kscope is absolutly correct, it is a huge fear for many opponents. The best solution i found in my builds running B or W is to oblige opponent to sacrifice a creature with Hit/Run and focus all my other removal to non-protected creatures. But in this case, you cannot target him so it is also a bit risky...
After I submitted the article, I made a few changes in my A Team deck. The sideboard now doesn't have Thought Hemorrhage but has Fulminator Mage. That was the best solution I could have come up with against manlands. It can chump block a creature too so it has two uses.
About Ajani Vengeant over Goldmane... The more I think about it the more it makes sense. There is no harm in at least trying it, which I will definately do as soon as possible.
And about Stillmoon Cavalier... Actually the format in which he shines the most is Kaleidoscope. I can even go further and even declare him the second best creature of the format. Actually apart from Gruul decks, there is no deck that can kill him(exception: decks with Snakeform tricks). In Standard he is also very useful but he is vulnerable to Cloudthresher which I had to face a lot in my test games.
First, the look of your article pretty nice, good job !
About decks, i dont really like planeswalkers, so i cannot say that i would play them. That being said, it seems pretty powerful. About A Team deck, i think Ajani Vengeant could find a place : if your aim is to clean the board, ajani v is a leathal weapons to lands... which is gg most of time. Before its final ability, i think helix + icy effect are crazy good in a control view. But i am not aware of Std meta enough to be sure, just a thought.
About protection of everything deck, well ... where is Progenitus ? This best card "protection from" ever printed ! It seems to me pretty unplayable, but in the concept, the big hydra could be a nice finisher...
Btw, Stillmoon is really a good card which i am enjoying more and more nowadays. i expect it to be a bomb in the std format, isnt it ? Even in classic (where it is very slow however), its double protection prevent him from being targeted by usual W/B removal which is very handy vs any deck splashing W or B for removal (as several control decks are doing)
The content is pretty interesting as usual in your article, with a nice & precise analyzis of pauper meta.
Only a constructive comment about the look of your article : please put some pictures to give a breath to the read. I am not natural english speaker, so it is long and sometime hard to read article even if i really enjoy its contents. Again, your explanations are pretty nice, it is just a way to make them more enjoyable than they already are. take care.
I wasn't a fan of the first article, or the defense of it... but it wasn't TOTALLY moronic (too short), and it got people fired up. While at some point I'll probably rip into something you write, keep it up. It keeps things interesting. Also, for part 12 of this deck's series (call it My Mongrel), you COULD present some actual... testing.
@ Lenney: I don´t believe the jury is still out on gush. If after a few months it still didn´t get adopted it´s because it´s not good enough. No one can convince me that no competitive player even considered it until today.
I didn´t even care to read the whole thing. It´s pointless. The list is weak.
Yes weak, because a few removals or blockers that slip though your scarce counters means you´ll be drawing and drawing the whole time... there are too few business spells in it and you´d realize that with a handfull of games under your belt with it. And you try to convince people to play your weak list without taking the time to play it yourself!
You can´t really hope to keep defending your weak list without results or more consistent insights than "I believe it´s good so you should trust my word".
Anonymous posters cannot be taken seriously.
Which format are you calling silly, pauper or cube? Please clarify for accurate rebuttal.
As for arrogant, I thought Alex was being unusually humble here, admitting a slump, and in general his articles have become much less dogmatic of late.
The article is very well written and it looks crazy good. It is not a surprise but i dont agree with many of your pick. however, you won so congrats !
Next time, try to run Jund, you seem to be luckier with this shard (you could have drafted a very nice Jund deck with these packs imo) ;)
I think my first reaction to seeing the rule changes, was the same as most - good, good, fine, what? wait! No combat tricks! What are they doing! But given time to cool down, I came to the same conclusion - it's just a change that we will have to learn to adapt and may even improve the game - we'll see.
It was another fantastic article, but one thing in particular sprung out -
"I have hit a little bit of a funk competitively. This is nothing new, as every few months I hit a wall. For some reason, I cannot buy a win with any deck, regardless of quality or edge on the field. I get frustrated and angry, unable to fathom how I am unable to win. "
This happens a lot to me as well, normally following a good spell, then I play frustrated and angry, which affects my game, causing more losses. I am only just learning to accept these bad spells, which in turn lessons the frustration allowing normal play to resume quicker. But it's good to hear it happens to others as well.
Just a little comment about mongrel is : this card is a bomb. Why ? Simply because it is simultaneously a great threat alone AND could be a centerpiece of an entire deck. This is very rare in mtg. Often, either beaters remains beaters (Tarmo, tombstalker ...) or engines remains engines (skullclamp, necropotence ...). Here you have an incredible 2 in 1. A cheap CMC creature which is the both simultaneously is really powerful.
Yes it could win a match by itself : a potential 8/8 attack on turn 3 is a proof (and much much with any draw effect) without needing any mana or any life. And, cherry on the top, you could adjust its ability to the level you want ... but that is only the half of itself. The simple dog could replace Putrid Imp in Dredge builds (even if putrid is 1 mana less which is huge in eternal format, mongrel could be a much better plan B in case of), it could be a Madness thunder rod, it could be ran also in a reanimator deck and probably many other deck i dont have the time to mention here... Are there others creature that are potential finisher + core engine ? Ravager could be, but it is nothing outside affinity although Mongrel is pretty nice in each deck. Hermit Druid is a fantastic engine but a really weak finisher as cephalid illusionist is also. There are not a lot of examples. Once again this is this double role which is providing a special status to Mongrel to me. Plus, hehehe ... it is A COMMON CARD !!! just .... WOW !
"Also, I feel that you should be playing 1 less land."
I basically agree, but it was a matter of what to run. My only alternatives were: Cancel, Savage Hunger, Sacellum Archers (with no activation), or Spore Burst. All told, maybe the Savage Hunger over a land is correct, but I didn't have much to work with.
"I feel like your deck could have been much better with the correct picks."
Agreed 100%, although that's a bit of a truism. "Your deck would have been a lot better if it had been a lot better."
I obviously disagree with my own picks in many places, and I doubt many readers are going to be too much harder on me than I am on myself when I screw up a pick.
If you disagree with specific picks where I didn't openly disagree with myself already, call them out and explain your choice. I'd love to hear other perspectives on picks.
You make very valid points. I agree that sleeper cards do exist, but my main problem with motu's writings have been the following: Gush and Mongrel are good in other formats, so obviously they must be good in Pauper. He then provides evidence from these other formats as to what the cards are good together in Pauper.
The flat power level was a tangent argument I instigated because all his deck seems to do is to want to draw into Wild Mongrel.
Do I think Gush will eventually see play? Yes, because as more and more cards are added to the format more interactions will naturally occur. In fact, I predict it will see play once we gain access to Waterfront Bounce (ETA 2011 or so).
-Alex
post removed
"you seem to be quite good - why not 8-4s?"
I generally play whatever is closest to firing, but my preference for getting the best pack return is actually Swiss. It all depends on why you are playing. If you want to pit yourself against the very best and take your game to the highest levels of competitive Magic, 8-4 is obviously the choice.
On the other hand, if you want to make the financial bleed as slow as possible while getting the best bang for your buck in terms of actual play, Swiss is clearly superior.
Until now, I've been drafting for my own ends only, which has meant a goal of solid pack return, slow bleed, and good bang-for-buck. Now, I'm also trying to please readers.
If readers really want to see me in 8-4s, I will make the effort to play in and document more of them to give the people what they want. (AS it happens, my third draft is 8-4, look for that writeup soon).
Wherever I end up playing, I maintain that the current secret to near-perpetual drafting for a ~1750-type player is, ironically, in Swiss: the format where you can never net a positive in packs.
I will defend this position in more detail in a future article.
In regards to this article, I think one thing needs to be kept in mind.
Sleeper cards DO exist. Tarmogoyf anyone (and no, it's not the only example; just the most famous one. There are quite a few other cards that went through the same thing)? Just because Gush hasn't been played to success yet doesn't mean it never will. While I don' think the current list is strong enough to make it happen, asserting that because a card hasn't been played since its initial (and fairly inaccessible for this format) release is pure fallacy. Just because it hasn't had its time in the sun yet doesn't mean it never will. Personally, I'd put it on my short list of cards to test in anything with a heavy blue commitment, because sooner or later someone will find a way to really break it.
That said, with the degree of determination motu has, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he was the one to eventually make Gush work with the mongrel.
In terms of how flat the power level is in pauper, I definitely agree with motu. It isn't even close to being flat. If the power level were truly flat in a format, then it quite literally WOULD NOT MATTER what cards you brought to the table. It wouldn't. Seriously. Every card would have the same potency as the basic lands beneath them. The fact is that yes, muscle sliver and sinew sliver make slivers good in pauper. without either one the deck wouldn't really be there (Or at least I don't recall it being there). The fact is, some individual cards are better than others. and if one card is better than another, the power level is not really flat. Lightning Bolt is better than Shock... Wild Mongrel is better than Grizzly Bears... Counterspell is better than Cancel... Counterspell beats Lightning Bolt and Wild Mongrel... If you ignore the cards that aren't remotely competitive, perhaps the format appears relatively flat, but even then, it's hard to argue that Corrupt isn't faster and stronger than Resounding Thunder, at least on a one on one basis.
Now if we were speaking in terms of decks, then the power level can be argued as fairly flat. That's fair, most decks in Pauper are roughly equal in terms of power.
Another thing: if you can't be bothered to create a user id and at least show your face, you have no business kicking people in the face. I'm looking at you, pitiful anonymous poster #1. Telling someone they "failed" may be a cute thing to do on the internet, but until you've actually tried writing an article, you really don't have any business either insulting the author or calling him a failure. Thank you smack8001 for your insightful punch to the author's groins.
Thanks for the feedback. Fair warning that I submitted a second article before this one even went up that has more digest-version game recaps. Since the feedback on detailed game walkthroughs has been positive, I will go back to that style in the future, but my second article won't be like that.
i was wondering because i played bill stark's ranger zoo list for most of extended season and i definitely don't remember casting wild mongrels. So i thought you just took his decklist and added 4 mongrels to it, but the list still added up to 60, so i was confused. Only when i got Alex's comment did it finally make sense to me, wow can't believe you replaced wild nacatls in stark's list with mongrels, nacatls are soooo key in that deck. Not only is it a 1st turn 3/3 guy, its also the main ranger target in the "ranger zoo" deck.
The rest of this article is like reading a bunch of petty forum posts with quotes and rebuttals. I wish the editors of this website has higher standards for article submissions because articles like this hurts the overall quality of this great website.
Great article. The level of detail really helps a 'not so great' player like myself get the most out of reading. Keep up the good work.
First, I should totally disregard this article since you misquote Bill Stark. The list in question actually runs 4 Wild Nacatl, not Mongrel, as 4 Mongrel would be a great way for Stark to get a big DQ for Extended.
http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/?p=502
As for your Nate Heiss quote, thanks for providing context. By providing context, I mean taking a quote to support your point without fully disclosing everything, like the fact that the article was written in 2004 (as in, right after Champions of Kamigawa was released). I am sure that in the subsequent 16 sets, some cards would move onto his list and push others off (notably Ninja of the Deep Hours, Skred, Ponder. Also, not having Exclude on his list is a criminal act. Also, why no mention of Gush on his list?). Not only that, this article was not even dealing with competitive Pauper (which did not exist at that point in time, but rather just as a Player Run Event in its infancy- in other words, he was talking about budget cards for other formats, not for Pauper. As for his assertion that Mongrel can end games by himself- I don't disagree with that statement but this does not happen in Pauper as it does in other formats, especially in a deck, as you presented, that HAS NO WAY TO AFFECT THE BOARD.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/nh38
Now, you constantly attribute quotes to me without mentioning that they are me and refer to me as "that guy." Thanks, I appreciate it. My argument was based on the fact that you extolled Gush + Mongrel as "worth it." I still disagree as in the fact of the upcoming meta, which is likely to feature a heavy doses of Affinity, Blue Skies, and Slivers, your deck gets rolled. Good game, sign the match slip. Drawing cards is good, yes, but I was positing a thought that may pan out that discard might be better- the jury is still out on my testing.
Listen, Mongrel is a great creature, one of the top 20 of all time in Pauper, but in Pauper he is little but a damage engine. When you want to deal damage, that's great, because he can deal a ton. That's why in the Macey Rock list you posted, he fits so well. He can be a source of damage and card advantage (chucking a CotH for an extra point of damage or an extra 3/3, wearing SoFI). Just out of curiosity, what tournament and placing was that list from?
If you Gush early, it is an insurmountable tempo loss. If you Gush late, you probably could have cast it for 4U for no loss. Somewhere in the between, well congratulations, you found a narrow example of casting Gush for value in Pauper. My friends Vithian Stinger, Winged Coatl, and Twiddle Storm would like to have a word with you. Just because something can be good in situations does not mean it is inherently good.
But none of this matters, because you are dead set on proving that Gush and Mongrel are worth it in the deck you are proposing. So, like everyone else, I'd love to see testing results that back this statement up. In the meanwhile, I'm going to look at the 3 Pauper PE Top 8s where both cards were legal and failed to make the top 8 in the same deck. Mongrel made it as part of a damage engine, Gush never cracked the top 32.
-Alex
" is this too much detail for the game walkthroughs, or is this level of breakdown interesting and useful?"
No such thing as too much detail (I liked Zvi's 19 part 2 million word 'My Fires' write-ups back in the day)
Your level of breakdown is fantastic. Better than other (very good) writers on this site and most other sites. Please continue! (also, you seem to be quite good - why not 8-4s?)
Seriously,
You're like Aristotle, not Galileo. Aristotle argued and argued that curved-line motion is impossible, things only travel in straight lines, that a vacuum cannot exist, that men have four more teeth than women, etc. Argue all you want, but if you don't provide evidence (e.g. games), you get laughed out of our scientific age. Galileo actually did experiments. That's why he's the king and Aristotle blows.
First article: good attempt, but fail
Second article: awesome. Nice exploration of a new card. The deck wasn't that great, but it gives us new ideas to build on, and shows us where it needs to improve. That's what I come to the site for.
Third article: fail. Play some games with your gush/dog crap. Join a tournament. Heck, play 5 games against Alex.
Liked the article a lot man.
Also - you have one of the best usernames that I have seen.
But you may need to contact customer support at http://wizards.custhelp.com and explain the situation. They're usually pretty good at helping people get set up.
in my experience, what you told about stillmoon in kscope is absolutly correct, it is a huge fear for many opponents. The best solution i found in my builds running B or W is to oblige opponent to sacrifice a creature with Hit/Run and focus all my other removal to non-protected creatures. But in this case, you cannot target him so it is also a bit risky...
Thank you for the comments.
After I submitted the article, I made a few changes in my A Team deck. The sideboard now doesn't have Thought Hemorrhage but has Fulminator Mage. That was the best solution I could have come up with against manlands. It can chump block a creature too so it has two uses.
About Ajani Vengeant over Goldmane... The more I think about it the more it makes sense. There is no harm in at least trying it, which I will definately do as soon as possible.
And about Stillmoon Cavalier... Actually the format in which he shines the most is Kaleidoscope. I can even go further and even declare him the second best creature of the format. Actually apart from Gruul decks, there is no deck that can kill him(exception: decks with Snakeform tricks). In Standard he is also very useful but he is vulnerable to Cloudthresher which I had to face a lot in my test games.
Thanks for the comments once again.
LE
Hi, I really enjoyed the detailed talk about game situations and what/why you did what you did.
Please keep that up!
First, the look of your article pretty nice, good job !
About decks, i dont really like planeswalkers, so i cannot say that i would play them. That being said, it seems pretty powerful. About A Team deck, i think Ajani Vengeant could find a place : if your aim is to clean the board, ajani v is a leathal weapons to lands... which is gg most of time. Before its final ability, i think helix + icy effect are crazy good in a control view. But i am not aware of Std meta enough to be sure, just a thought.
About protection of everything deck, well ... where is Progenitus ? This best card "protection from" ever printed ! It seems to me pretty unplayable, but in the concept, the big hydra could be a nice finisher...
Btw, Stillmoon is really a good card which i am enjoying more and more nowadays. i expect it to be a bomb in the std format, isnt it ? Even in classic (where it is very slow however), its double protection prevent him from being targeted by usual W/B removal which is very handy vs any deck splashing W or B for removal (as several control decks are doing)
nice article!
The content is pretty interesting as usual in your article, with a nice & precise analyzis of pauper meta.
Only a constructive comment about the look of your article : please put some pictures to give a breath to the read. I am not natural english speaker, so it is long and sometime hard to read article even if i really enjoy its contents. Again, your explanations are pretty nice, it is just a way to make them more enjoyable than they already are. take care.
I wasn't a fan of the first article, or the defense of it... but it wasn't TOTALLY moronic (too short), and it got people fired up. While at some point I'll probably rip into something you write, keep it up. It keeps things interesting. Also, for part 12 of this deck's series (call it My Mongrel), you COULD present some actual... testing.
@ Lenney: I don´t believe the jury is still out on gush. If after a few months it still didn´t get adopted it´s because it´s not good enough. No one can convince me that no competitive player even considered it until today.
I didn´t even care to read the whole thing. It´s pointless. The list is weak.
Yes weak, because a few removals or blockers that slip though your scarce counters means you´ll be drawing and drawing the whole time... there are too few business spells in it and you´d realize that with a handfull of games under your belt with it. And you try to convince people to play your weak list without taking the time to play it yourself!
You can´t really hope to keep defending your weak list without results or more consistent insights than "I believe it´s good so you should trust my word".
Anonymous posters cannot be taken seriously.
Which format are you calling silly, pauper or cube? Please clarify for accurate rebuttal.
As for arrogant, I thought Alex was being unusually humble here, admitting a slump, and in general his articles have become much less dogmatic of late.
The article is very well written and it looks crazy good. It is not a surprise but i dont agree with many of your pick. however, you won so congrats !
Next time, try to run Jund, you seem to be luckier with this shard (you could have drafted a very nice Jund deck with these packs imo) ;)
I think my first reaction to seeing the rule changes, was the same as most - good, good, fine, what? wait! No combat tricks! What are they doing! But given time to cool down, I came to the same conclusion - it's just a change that we will have to learn to adapt and may even improve the game - we'll see.
It was another fantastic article, but one thing in particular sprung out -
"I have hit a little bit of a funk competitively. This is nothing new, as every few months I hit a wall. For some reason, I cannot buy a win with any deck, regardless of quality or edge on the field. I get frustrated and angry, unable to fathom how I am unable to win. "
This happens a lot to me as well, normally following a good spell, then I play frustrated and angry, which affects my game, causing more losses. I am only just learning to accept these bad spells, which in turn lessons the frustration allowing normal play to resume quicker. But it's good to hear it happens to others as well.