Congrats on the win. I liked how everything was play by play. Arguebly till really pack 3 the reborn pack when I was reading and looking at the passing I was debating why isnt he in esper. But the knight and 2 bant blades really pulled it togather well for you and congrats.
I think your draft decisions were pretty bad, as you have noted yourself at the beginning. I feel like your deck could have been much better with the correct picks.
Passing the 3/2 flyer in pack 3 was just wrong, but you got really lucky racking up bant sureblades and knight.
Also, I feel that you should be playing 1 less land. as it is, you have 16 lands plus 1 borderpost but you curve out at 4 (the 2 cyclers obv count as 2 drops)
Congrats on your win, some days you just get lucky :-)
Nice article. Don't listen to these haters. The main problem is that it hasn't been tested and proven. Gush, I mean. Wild Mongrel is of course been tested and proved to be one of the better, all time creatures in any format. The jury is still out on Gush though, as we've yet to see anyone get the full potential out of the loss in tempo that occurs when you play it. I have the same feelings toward Daze as well. It seems that the only practical applications for them would be in Aggro-Control decks, which take less of a hit when low on mana, and which have evolved into much more stable machines that we ever expected as of late. I don't really think we'll get to see how gush and daze play out until Urza's comes online. With cards like Cloud of Faeries, Peregrin Drake, and Snap, the version of MUC that we see commonly used now could drastically change. It would also, of course, open up options for the revisiting of the Mongrel. Until then, I'm not sure that gush or daze really fit in... But that's just my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Oh, it was definitely on the weak side of ok, but it goes to show you have to stick with those drafts anyway and make the best of them. There's probably more to learn from a draft like this than an obviously killer draft anyway.
I play a lot of pauper but dont enter tourneys in pauper (i suck at sideboards). I would have to agree with most of your points you made. Especially that mongrel is a good creature. While I dont believe it is in the top 10 pauper creatures it is a very strong card. I think the real problem with your deck is a lack of threats. Yes you have 12 very good creatures, and you have lots of card draw. Those 12 creatures are all fairly easy to kill, though not so easy in combat. Gush, while a strong card, cannot be played early, and will set you back in tempo quite a bit if played before turn 5. I dont think the deck is weak, and there is definitely synergy. Its just missing something. Personally I would add manowar and take out the memory lapses, 1 gush and a deep anal.
The other thing you really need to do is show prrof that your deck can work. Play games in tourney practice room (or better yet enter a tourney and do a full report), play multiple games vs each major archetype and show what the deck can and cannot do.
I think this goes a long way to prove that 4322 really are quite easy hehe, your draft started out quite shaky, but you pulled it together with a bunch of 2 drops :) cant go wrong with that. Anyway, one of the best play by play limited articles I've read, your thought process, screen shots of opening draws, very, very nice.
This is something that I'd really have to work on before saying for sure, maybe I'll try it out in a future article. If I were to work on this, then here are the two decks I would use for inspiration:
I've never read one of you articles before, because I only play pauper at the moment (paper and online). I'll be reading your articles in the future regardless. I agreed with everything you said, especially about that ugly Ball Lightning, and I thought the writing was outstanding. Probably the best writing I've seen in a Magic article (no offense other article writers). Judging by the other feedback you've got I'm not alone in this.
and ilk also skip the draw step. I am certain there is some interaction we haven't seen yet that will make this card...filler. lol I can't imagine it being actually good for it's cost. But then again who knows? It might very well be a sleeper.
loved this article. loved this deck back in the days.
made me go out and get sands of time and equipoise from bots.
thoughts on making this truly mtgo t1 viable with no expenses spared?
Yeah we totally arranged it this time so that would not happen. Compared scores and everything. Wanted to make this contest as much of a sham as we could instead of rewarding what we thought were the best decks.
I know you have already produced an article where 1 is the best and 5 the worst, and you are talking about making it a ten-point scale and so on, but really, I think if you run with limited evaluation articles, you should do it R&D style.
Here is the internal R&D pointing scale:
5.0: I will always play this card. Period.
4.5: I will almost always play this card, regardless of what else I get.
4.0: I will strongly consider playing this as the only card of its color.
3.5: I feel a strong pull into this card's color.
3.0: This card makes me want to play this color. (Given that I'm playing that color, I will play this card 100% of the time.)
2.5: Several cards of this power level start to pull me into this color. If playing that color, I essentially always play these. (Given that I'm playing that color, I will play this card 90% of the time.)
2.0: If I'm playing this color, I usually play these. (70%)
1.5: This card will make the cut into the main deck about half the times I play this color. (50%)
1.0: I feel bad when this card is in my main deck. (30%)
0.5: There are situations where I might sideboard this into my deck, but I'll never start it. (10%)
0.0: I will never put this card into my deck (main deck or after sideboarding). (0%)
Here are links to a couple of articles where the author applies/discusses the system, then follows up after a "now you do it" exercise:
Congrats on the win. I liked how everything was play by play. Arguebly till really pack 3 the reborn pack when I was reading and looking at the passing I was debating why isnt he in esper. But the knight and 2 bant blades really pulled it togather well for you and congrats.
Wow MR T became a chick always thought something was funny with him.
I think your draft decisions were pretty bad, as you have noted yourself at the beginning. I feel like your deck could have been much better with the correct picks.
Passing the 3/2 flyer in pack 3 was just wrong, but you got really lucky racking up bant sureblades and knight.
Also, I feel that you should be playing 1 less land. as it is, you have 16 lands plus 1 borderpost but you curve out at 4 (the 2 cyclers obv count as 2 drops)
Congrats on your win, some days you just get lucky :-)
I'm amazed you're still going over this.
i lol'd at "deep a**l".
you really come across as arrogant and this format just seems silly.
Nice article. Don't listen to these haters. The main problem is that it hasn't been tested and proven. Gush, I mean. Wild Mongrel is of course been tested and proved to be one of the better, all time creatures in any format. The jury is still out on Gush though, as we've yet to see anyone get the full potential out of the loss in tempo that occurs when you play it. I have the same feelings toward Daze as well. It seems that the only practical applications for them would be in Aggro-Control decks, which take less of a hit when low on mana, and which have evolved into much more stable machines that we ever expected as of late. I don't really think we'll get to see how gush and daze play out until Urza's comes online. With cards like Cloud of Faeries, Peregrin Drake, and Snap, the version of MUC that we see commonly used now could drastically change. It would also, of course, open up options for the revisiting of the Mongrel. Until then, I'm not sure that gush or daze really fit in... But that's just my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Oh, it was definitely on the weak side of ok, but it goes to show you have to stick with those drafts anyway and make the best of them. There's probably more to learn from a draft like this than an obviously killer draft anyway.
solid article, solid arguments, but to be more convincing you need some games played and shown
I play a lot of pauper but dont enter tourneys in pauper (i suck at sideboards). I would have to agree with most of your points you made. Especially that mongrel is a good creature. While I dont believe it is in the top 10 pauper creatures it is a very strong card. I think the real problem with your deck is a lack of threats. Yes you have 12 very good creatures, and you have lots of card draw. Those 12 creatures are all fairly easy to kill, though not so easy in combat. Gush, while a strong card, cannot be played early, and will set you back in tempo quite a bit if played before turn 5. I dont think the deck is weak, and there is definitely synergy. Its just missing something. Personally I would add manowar and take out the memory lapses, 1 gush and a deep anal.
The other thing you really need to do is show prrof that your deck can work. Play games in tourney practice room (or better yet enter a tourney and do a full report), play multiple games vs each major archetype and show what the deck can and cannot do.
Very well written. Nice job on the win. I thought your deck was on the weak side of ok, but whatever works :)
this topics dead, your 15 min. of fame is up!
I think this goes a long way to prove that 4322 really are quite easy hehe, your draft started out quite shaky, but you pulled it together with a bunch of 2 drops :) cant go wrong with that. Anyway, one of the best play by play limited articles I've read, your thought process, screen shots of opening draws, very, very nice.
it's a shame that kaleidoscope format gets no love on mtgo.
Thanks for the feedback man, it's much appreciated!
This is something that I'd really have to work on before saying for sure, maybe I'll try it out in a future article. If I were to work on this, then here are the two decks I would use for inspiration:
Legacy White Stax
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=25010
Vintage Parfait
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20107
I think a modern day Classic Sandipoise deck would fall somewhere between or around those two...
I've never read one of you articles before, because I only play pauper at the moment (paper and online). I'll be reading your articles in the future regardless. I agreed with everything you said, especially about that ugly Ball Lightning, and I thought the writing was outstanding. Probably the best writing I've seen in a Magic article (no offense other article writers). Judging by the other feedback you've got I'm not alone in this.
and ilk also skip the draw step. I am certain there is some interaction we haven't seen yet that will make this card...filler. lol I can't imagine it being actually good for it's cost. But then again who knows? It might very well be a sleeper.
it's amazing to me how you can mention such a widely-known card and still get it wrong. "Sensei's Diving Top"?
Otherwise, very thorough article. Agree with T-Rex that Bituminous Blast isn't nearly given the credit it deserves.
I tried to win
but was defeated with spin
loved this article. loved this deck back in the days.
made me go out and get sands of time and equipoise from bots.
thoughts on making this truly mtgo t1 viable with no expenses spared?
Yeah we totally arranged it this time so that would not happen. Compared scores and everything. Wanted to make this contest as much of a sham as we could instead of rewarding what we thought were the best decks.
Yep, I'm glad that did not happen too.
end sarcasm.
That's..surprisingly helpful...thanks! I might just use this.
I know you have already produced an article where 1 is the best and 5 the worst, and you are talking about making it a ten-point scale and so on, but really, I think if you run with limited evaluation articles, you should do it R&D style.
Here is the internal R&D pointing scale:
5.0: I will always play this card. Period.
4.5: I will almost always play this card, regardless of what else I get.
4.0: I will strongly consider playing this as the only card of its color.
3.5: I feel a strong pull into this card's color.
3.0: This card makes me want to play this color. (Given that I'm playing that color, I will play this card 100% of the time.)
2.5: Several cards of this power level start to pull me into this color. If playing that color, I essentially always play these. (Given that I'm playing that color, I will play this card 90% of the time.)
2.0: If I'm playing this color, I usually play these. (70%)
1.5: This card will make the cut into the main deck about half the times I play this color. (50%)
1.0: I feel bad when this card is in my main deck. (30%)
0.5: There are situations where I might sideboard this into my deck, but I'll never start it. (10%)
0.0: I will never put this card into my deck (main deck or after sideboarding). (0%)
Here are links to a couple of articles where the author applies/discusses the system, then follows up after a "now you do it" exercise:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb5
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb6
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af93
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af97
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af179
http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af180
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/sw23
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/sw24
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/sw26
Anyway, if you are going to rate cards for limited, I would use the R&D scale. You can use decimals to narrow it down as much as you like.
Good Job Aj_impy. I voted for a different one but yours was definitely in consideration.