That's basically the problem with trying to get rats banned right now, the effect isn't "off the charts" Tolarian Academy Style broken, so you're getting a plethora of arguments(whether or not you agree with) from the other side. Which leads me to believe the only time Rats will come under banning is probably:
1. Meta warps to gross MBC levels.
2. MBC consistently makes a 25%+ PE top8 portions for a while.
3. Other decks being to use(and/or break) Crypt Rats.
I think once one of those 3 are realized most people will come into agreement even if you were right all along.
I don't feel, even in say a 50% MBC warped meta, that Crypt Rats would invalidate any deck that doesn't play it in combination with all other MBC cards. I'm simply saying it would become target of banning at that point for the health of the metagame because it is the best way to bring down the powerlevel of an archtype without splashing to other decks. Other strategies may be(and are) perfectly valid at dealing with it, yet would still be a banning target.
blandestk - You can safely ignore anyone's commentary on why Crypt Rats should remain legal. Know why? Because they don't have to be right when they're on the winning side. You, however, are the one with the burden of proof, so let's look at your bulleted points:
1. "The power level of Crypt Rats is much higher than any other sweeper in the format."
First of all, please don't mention Rolling Thunder again. That's a straw man argument where you set yourself up to prove, once and for all, that Crypt Rats is better than Rolling Thunder. Who cares. Stick to your point, which seems to be that if there is only one "Tier 1" sweeper, it should be considered for banning. This implies that in order for a format to be healthy, there must be at least a small variety of cards that can perform any given task. That's a nice thought, but it's not a requirement for a good format. Block formats are known for having very limited options; but many have turned out quite well, with ample opportunity for creativity and growth. Your claim that uniqueness leads to poor format health simply has no basis in wotc policy or practical evidence.
2. "It goes in one deck, which is often a valid reason to examine a card."
Wrong. It is not a valid reason to examine a card, because it is a rather ordinary quality for a card to have. If you want to talk about it in pie chart terms, there are only 2 types of playable cards: those that require a specific context, and those that can fit into several (or all). Neither is inherently problematic.
3. "Rats puts the deck over the top."
Vague. Let's assume you are claiming that Crypt Rats makes the popular MBC list good enough to obsolete anything other than dedicated hate decks. In that case, I'd happily agree with you that Crypt Rats should be banned. But it's not sufficient to merely make the claim. The evidence has to be there, and I don't see it. Not even close. I'm aware the same deck won twice in a row. It might even win today. That doesn't mean you can't play another deck and win it all next time.
Obviously it takes an entire deck to "invalidate a strategy," because cards do not exist in a vacuum. Crypt Rats do not stand up by themselves and march over to your Elf deck then launch rolls of toilet paper over it. A card is banned when its role in certain (if not several) decks leads to the invalidation of any deck that doesn't play it. Specific cases can look like different criteria, but it all comes down to the same principle.
What I just said goes for banning a card, not restricting it. There is only one reason to restrict a card - if it fits the criteria for banning but can't be banned because we are talking about Vintage, aka "the last bastion of broken cards." If you don't understand why restricting cards is generally an ineffective maneuver, do some homework. Wotc can explain.
Obviously it takes an entire deck to "invalidate a strategy," because cards do not exist in a vacuum. Crypt Rats do not stand up by themselves and march over to your Elf deck then launch rolls of toilet paper over it. A card is banned when its role in certain (if not several) decks leads to the invalidation of any deck that doesn't play it. Specific cases can look like different criteria, but it all comes down to the same principle.
What I just said goes for banning a card, not restricting it. There is only one reason to restrict a card - if it fits the criteria for banning but can't be banned because we are talking about Vintage, aka "the last bastion of broken cards." If you don't understand why restricting cards is generally an ineffective maneuver, do some homework. Wotc can explain.
ghweiss, I didn't mean to imply that you had stated something like that. I was simply responding to your statement that you hadn't seen anything like the scenario I had described, where someone simplifies the argument to that level. Obviously, that has happened.
Thanks, Aluminum, despite the disagreement in opinion. I think too often people get caught up in really strict definitions of banning/restricting, when it's a much more complicated issue than most rules can set. I've said it before, but I think the power of the Rats is much more subtle than something like Cranial Plating, but it's nonetheless very powerful, which makes the task of deciding it status very hard.
1) People act like it's the only card that achieves this goal. That is not true. Therefore, I do not think it is a valid reason to cite.
2) Yes, it is vulnerable as a creature. But because of its instant-speed activation, that really is moot. The player simply needs to deploy it at the right time. Even instant-speed damage prevention or removal cannot keep it from going off.
3) The effect is symmetrical in terms of life totals, but it is rarely symmetrical in terms of actual damage dealt to creatures. A mono-black player could (not does or should, just noting the possibility) play four Rats and all spells and still win, only using it as a sweeper.
4) It meets plenty of standards for being banned. We disagree on its power level and its warping nature, so this point will have to be a disagreement.
4a) I disagree about its warping nature. There are different definitions for warping than simply play it or don't play it. Another standoff.
4b) You view the "restrictions" as a means to creativity. I view it as a necessity toward maindeck hate, which is a symptom of warping. But when I say this, for some reason, I am told I simply do not pay attention to the existence of Rats. Never really got that one.
4c) Nothing could hinder Pauper's attendance at the moment. It's brand new. Cranial Plating would not even hinder its attendance. Plus, there is historical evidence for people showing up to tourneys even during the most debilitating formats of stagnancy.
5) You are right. But that is not a requisite for banning/restricting.
6) You are right. But that is not a requisite for banning/restricting.
7) I've played since Revised. I've seen it all. I know the most degenerate, broken cards and have lived through them all. It's not Skullclamp, no, but this is Pauper, not Standard/Extended/Classic/Vintage/Legacy, where uncommons and commons are designed to be much more powerful. We have to scale down what is "broken." To me, its power level is high enough to warrant the B/R.
1. The power level of Crypt Rats is much higher than any other sweeper in the format. Two seem to approach it: Rolling Thunder and Martyr of Ashes. Martyr can't hit players or flying creatures and is dependent on Red cards in hand. Obviously it is strictly inferior. Rolling Thunder can hit all creatures without shroud or protection and players, so let's examine them side-by-side.
One is a sorcery; the other can be activated whenever. One has a maximum number of damage to dole out (the amount of mana you have available); the other can scale to infinity in the abstract, since it deals to each creature = activation AND players. One's value can only be chosen once and used once; the other can be activated multiple times in response to any sort of answer (as long as you have enough mana).
2. It goes in one deck, which is often a valid reason to examine a card. Sometimes it's the cards that go in all decks that get banned/restricted. Sometimes it's the ones that go into only one deck. Rats only sees play in MBC. And this deck just happens to win the first two PEs? Not a huge coincidence.
What happened the last time a card was that powerful and worked with basically only one strategy? Cranial Plating was banned.
3. Rats puts the deck over the top. Test it against Slivers with sac-removal. You don't need Rats to keep aggro in check. But with Rats, it's an uneven playing field.
These points could be expanded in multiples, but that's the boiled-down version. As I've said before, it ultimately just comes down to an opinion on the power level, since my arguments won't be enough to sway anyone and the other side hasn't swayed me.
Hopefully the tourney over the weekend will show that Rats can be put down. I'd rather that happen than need a ban/restriction, but I just don't see it happening. I really hope someone shows me I'm wrong.
I disagree, the only basis for banning a card isn't whether or not it invalidates all other strategies. I do agree it is a very good reason, but there are other reasons. I don't advocate a Crypt Rats banning, but saying this is the only template for banning is narrow. An easy example was the previous artifact land restriction, the lands themselves didn't invalidate other strategies, the general nature of the affinity synergism with those lands did, so restricting them brought the archtype down a notch. The same idea is then applied to MBC with Crypt Rats. If the powerlevel is realized to the point where everyone is playing this deck and it warps the field, removing the rats brings this deck down to par, even if the Rats themselves weren't invalidating entire tactics.
blandestk - This isn't going to go anywhere if you c/p Alex and respond as if it were me that said it. Personally I don't think it matters that Crypt Rats "keeps aggro in check" or any other supposedly positive service to the health of the format. That's why I didn't say so. What matters to me (and wotc) is whether or not a card invalidates all (or nearly all) other strategies. If you think Crypt Rats is guilty of that, I think you simply aren't trying that hard.
1) It keeps aggro in check.
2) It is a vulnerable card type. Creature removal is the most prevalent form in Pauper. When any card type springs up ,people will run cards to counter them (see Stone Rain vs. Karoos, Kami of Ancient Law vs. Pillory of the Sleepless, Flaring Pain vs. Prismatic Strands).
3) The effect is symmetrical. Unlike cards that are banned in other formats which usually just have an effect that are asymmetrical, Crypt Rats hurts the caster just as much as the opponent. Note that this is talking about Crypt Rats alone, and not the deck it fits into.
4) It meets none of the minimum thresholds for banning a card. Look at cards banned in formats recently (excluding Vintage which is its own monster).
4a)It does not warp the format. Does it influence deck design? Yes, but it does not warp the format around it. This is not a "Crypt Rats or no" situation.
4b) It does not limit creativity. As MaRo always says, restrictions breed creativity. The fact that Rats exists forces new decks to arise. RG would not be constructed as it is now (with maindeck Shroud) if not for cards like Tendrils. Crypt Rats is a limiting factor in the format, not one that defines it (alone).
4c) It has not driven down attendance. This is the one most likely to change, but seeing as how Pauper queues are still firing and both PEs have been the size of healthy PTQs. If the attendance dips and continues to drop, then this one could change. As of now, however, Rats has not driven enough people away to make a noticeable dent.
5) It is not part of a degenerative combo. Numerous cards have been banned or restricted because they are part of degenerative combos.
6) It is not a tutor. See above.
7) Finally, it is powerful, but not broken. Banning should be reserved for those cards that truly break the format. As some one who has played through Skullclamp, Urza's Saga, and numerous other powerful moments in Magic History (Nightmare-Survival with Great Whale before the original errata), this card does not even begin to approach the power level necessary to consider banning, even in a format only of commons.
This are just the reasons I could think of now. There are more.
Please again, so I understand more clearly, state your reasoning for banning (or restricting) Rats.
-Alex
PS: The reason no one takes the talk of restriction seriously is because it is relegated strictly to Vintage style Magic. This is because those formats want to reward people for playing for a long time and amassing collections, and unless a card really breaks something or breaks a rule (ante, manual dexterity), it will not be banned, just restricted (in most cases). No format, aside from Vintage/Online Classic, has a restricted list.
You can personally link the cards when you make the article each week, instead of just putting the card names in ( )s. All you usually have to do is change the set code to whatever the promo code on the site is.
My three cents: I enjoyed the Ham Jones with vertical bars, I get a much clearer sense about the ebb and flow of the market that way.
"As I understand it, here is the argument against Crypt Rats:
It's a good card in a good deck, and the only card that can do what it does. If we take it away, the deck will still be good. All decks in Pauper must prepare to face Crypt Rats."
Is that really taking the points I make into consideration? If it is, I guess I don't have a solid understanding of simplification.
You hit a couple of the points, but it has more than one Tier 1 effect, in my opinion. The main point I was trying to make is that people who call for no ban/restriction (note that everyone always jumps to banned, even though I almost always cite both possibilities) don't make any points at all other than the vague: "it keeps aggro in check." I just want to see the points for maintaining the status quo in a detailed manner.
Not complaining or even criticizing (although I can see how it read as such). I was trying to make the point that it was unlikely anyone would think one article was paraphrased/stolen from the other, least of all yourself. Thanks for clearing it up though.
I actually like having the chart with a number value in them, please keep that up. It makes it easier to see what you can expect to spend to get what you want.
This is actually Brian David-Marshall. Congrats on an excellent interview. That first poster was not me. I would never make a comment like that in tone or content.
I would have liked to see more analysis of the deck choice and what they keys to running it were during the tournament win. But on the whole - you could have had a softer tone but no where near as bad as Chris's analysis.
Thank you all for the kind remarks and being interested in reading what I have to say as well as being kind and thankful of Stephan Steiner for allowing me to publish this. Chris your comment doesn't fair very well as I was asking specific questions and he was answering them to the best of his ability, If GW was so prepared for during the tournament you wouldn't of seen 3x GW Token decks make Top 8 in the near future. As such occured during this event that would mean that this wasn't very well sought after nor prepared for as decks tend to not just show up out of the blue. Although I appreciate criticism to the slightest, I feel that your comment was unjustified.
Thanks
Keep on commenting and don't forget to comment on your liking of articles etc? What do viewers wanna see?
I'm a huge fan of the new graphs as well.
I think they would be much better if the background was solid white instead of the gradient from gray to white - much easier to read. The gray to white distracts from the data.
For the Ham-Jones, I would recommend a stacked area plot. For the others, I would recommend switching to a single color to help with the contrast issue Umii is talking about. I'm also partial to circles instead of diamonds, but that is a personal preference. The switch to primary colors is a good one though.
Why do you try to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are by writing like that? He didn't stun the magic community, and this deck isn't even new. I suggest when you write your articles to not make yourself sound like a Harvard graduate because it is a sad fail.
Four thumbs down.
That's basically the problem with trying to get rats banned right now, the effect isn't "off the charts" Tolarian Academy Style broken, so you're getting a plethora of arguments(whether or not you agree with) from the other side. Which leads me to believe the only time Rats will come under banning is probably:
1. Meta warps to gross MBC levels.
2. MBC consistently makes a 25%+ PE top8 portions for a while.
3. Other decks being to use(and/or break) Crypt Rats.
I think once one of those 3 are realized most people will come into agreement even if you were right all along.
I don't feel, even in say a 50% MBC warped meta, that Crypt Rats would invalidate any deck that doesn't play it in combination with all other MBC cards. I'm simply saying it would become target of banning at that point for the health of the metagame because it is the best way to bring down the powerlevel of an archtype without splashing to other decks. Other strategies may be(and are) perfectly valid at dealing with it, yet would still be a banning target.
blandestk - You can safely ignore anyone's commentary on why Crypt Rats should remain legal. Know why? Because they don't have to be right when they're on the winning side. You, however, are the one with the burden of proof, so let's look at your bulleted points:
1. "The power level of Crypt Rats is much higher than any other sweeper in the format."
First of all, please don't mention Rolling Thunder again. That's a straw man argument where you set yourself up to prove, once and for all, that Crypt Rats is better than Rolling Thunder. Who cares. Stick to your point, which seems to be that if there is only one "Tier 1" sweeper, it should be considered for banning. This implies that in order for a format to be healthy, there must be at least a small variety of cards that can perform any given task. That's a nice thought, but it's not a requirement for a good format. Block formats are known for having very limited options; but many have turned out quite well, with ample opportunity for creativity and growth. Your claim that uniqueness leads to poor format health simply has no basis in wotc policy or practical evidence.
2. "It goes in one deck, which is often a valid reason to examine a card."
Wrong. It is not a valid reason to examine a card, because it is a rather ordinary quality for a card to have. If you want to talk about it in pie chart terms, there are only 2 types of playable cards: those that require a specific context, and those that can fit into several (or all). Neither is inherently problematic.
3. "Rats puts the deck over the top."
Vague. Let's assume you are claiming that Crypt Rats makes the popular MBC list good enough to obsolete anything other than dedicated hate decks. In that case, I'd happily agree with you that Crypt Rats should be banned. But it's not sufficient to merely make the claim. The evidence has to be there, and I don't see it. Not even close. I'm aware the same deck won twice in a row. It might even win today. That doesn't mean you can't play another deck and win it all next time.
Obviously it takes an entire deck to "invalidate a strategy," because cards do not exist in a vacuum. Crypt Rats do not stand up by themselves and march over to your Elf deck then launch rolls of toilet paper over it. A card is banned when its role in certain (if not several) decks leads to the invalidation of any deck that doesn't play it. Specific cases can look like different criteria, but it all comes down to the same principle.
What I just said goes for banning a card, not restricting it. There is only one reason to restrict a card - if it fits the criteria for banning but can't be banned because we are talking about Vintage, aka "the last bastion of broken cards." If you don't understand why restricting cards is generally an ineffective maneuver, do some homework. Wotc can explain.
Obviously it takes an entire deck to "invalidate a strategy," because cards do not exist in a vacuum. Crypt Rats do not stand up by themselves and march over to your Elf deck then launch rolls of toilet paper over it. A card is banned when its role in certain (if not several) decks leads to the invalidation of any deck that doesn't play it. Specific cases can look like different criteria, but it all comes down to the same principle.
What I just said goes for banning a card, not restricting it. There is only one reason to restrict a card - if it fits the criteria for banning but can't be banned because we are talking about Vintage, aka "the last bastion of broken cards." If you don't understand why restricting cards is generally an ineffective maneuver, do some homework. Wotc can explain.
I quite like #1.
ghweiss, I didn't mean to imply that you had stated something like that. I was simply responding to your statement that you hadn't seen anything like the scenario I had described, where someone simplifies the argument to that level. Obviously, that has happened.
Thanks, Aluminum, despite the disagreement in opinion. I think too often people get caught up in really strict definitions of banning/restricting, when it's a much more complicated issue than most rules can set. I've said it before, but I think the power of the Rats is much more subtle than something like Cranial Plating, but it's nonetheless very powerful, which makes the task of deciding it status very hard.
1) People act like it's the only card that achieves this goal. That is not true. Therefore, I do not think it is a valid reason to cite.
2) Yes, it is vulnerable as a creature. But because of its instant-speed activation, that really is moot. The player simply needs to deploy it at the right time. Even instant-speed damage prevention or removal cannot keep it from going off.
3) The effect is symmetrical in terms of life totals, but it is rarely symmetrical in terms of actual damage dealt to creatures. A mono-black player could (not does or should, just noting the possibility) play four Rats and all spells and still win, only using it as a sweeper.
4) It meets plenty of standards for being banned. We disagree on its power level and its warping nature, so this point will have to be a disagreement.
4a) I disagree about its warping nature. There are different definitions for warping than simply play it or don't play it. Another standoff.
4b) You view the "restrictions" as a means to creativity. I view it as a necessity toward maindeck hate, which is a symptom of warping. But when I say this, for some reason, I am told I simply do not pay attention to the existence of Rats. Never really got that one.
4c) Nothing could hinder Pauper's attendance at the moment. It's brand new. Cranial Plating would not even hinder its attendance. Plus, there is historical evidence for people showing up to tourneys even during the most debilitating formats of stagnancy.
5) You are right. But that is not a requisite for banning/restricting.
6) You are right. But that is not a requisite for banning/restricting.
7) I've played since Revised. I've seen it all. I know the most degenerate, broken cards and have lived through them all. It's not Skullclamp, no, but this is Pauper, not Standard/Extended/Classic/Vintage/Legacy, where uncommons and commons are designed to be much more powerful. We have to scale down what is "broken." To me, its power level is high enough to warrant the B/R.
1. The power level of Crypt Rats is much higher than any other sweeper in the format. Two seem to approach it: Rolling Thunder and Martyr of Ashes. Martyr can't hit players or flying creatures and is dependent on Red cards in hand. Obviously it is strictly inferior. Rolling Thunder can hit all creatures without shroud or protection and players, so let's examine them side-by-side.
One is a sorcery; the other can be activated whenever. One has a maximum number of damage to dole out (the amount of mana you have available); the other can scale to infinity in the abstract, since it deals to each creature = activation AND players. One's value can only be chosen once and used once; the other can be activated multiple times in response to any sort of answer (as long as you have enough mana).
2. It goes in one deck, which is often a valid reason to examine a card. Sometimes it's the cards that go in all decks that get banned/restricted. Sometimes it's the ones that go into only one deck. Rats only sees play in MBC. And this deck just happens to win the first two PEs? Not a huge coincidence.
What happened the last time a card was that powerful and worked with basically only one strategy? Cranial Plating was banned.
3. Rats puts the deck over the top. Test it against Slivers with sac-removal. You don't need Rats to keep aggro in check. But with Rats, it's an uneven playing field.
These points could be expanded in multiples, but that's the boiled-down version. As I've said before, it ultimately just comes down to an opinion on the power level, since my arguments won't be enough to sway anyone and the other side hasn't swayed me.
Hopefully the tourney over the weekend will show that Rats can be put down. I'd rather that happen than need a ban/restriction, but I just don't see it happening. I really hope someone shows me I'm wrong.
Opinions on these:
http://www.bubbaland.net/magic/HamJonesSample1.gif
http://www.bubbaland.net/magic/HamJonesSample2.gif
http://www.bubbaland.net/magic/HamJonesSample3.gif
I disagree, the only basis for banning a card isn't whether or not it invalidates all other strategies. I do agree it is a very good reason, but there are other reasons. I don't advocate a Crypt Rats banning, but saying this is the only template for banning is narrow. An easy example was the previous artifact land restriction, the lands themselves didn't invalidate other strategies, the general nature of the affinity synergism with those lands did, so restricting them brought the archtype down a notch. The same idea is then applied to MBC with Crypt Rats. If the powerlevel is realized to the point where everyone is playing this deck and it warps the field, removing the rats brings this deck down to par, even if the Rats themselves weren't invalidating entire tactics.
blandestk - This isn't going to go anywhere if you c/p Alex and respond as if it were me that said it. Personally I don't think it matters that Crypt Rats "keeps aggro in check" or any other supposedly positive service to the health of the format. That's why I didn't say so. What matters to me (and wotc) is whether or not a card invalidates all (or nearly all) other strategies. If you think Crypt Rats is guilty of that, I think you simply aren't trying that hard.
The first FNM after Darksteel came out.... I still have nightmares...
1) It keeps aggro in check.
2) It is a vulnerable card type. Creature removal is the most prevalent form in Pauper. When any card type springs up ,people will run cards to counter them (see Stone Rain vs. Karoos, Kami of Ancient Law vs. Pillory of the Sleepless, Flaring Pain vs. Prismatic Strands).
3) The effect is symmetrical. Unlike cards that are banned in other formats which usually just have an effect that are asymmetrical, Crypt Rats hurts the caster just as much as the opponent. Note that this is talking about Crypt Rats alone, and not the deck it fits into.
4) It meets none of the minimum thresholds for banning a card. Look at cards banned in formats recently (excluding Vintage which is its own monster).
4a)It does not warp the format. Does it influence deck design? Yes, but it does not warp the format around it. This is not a "Crypt Rats or no" situation.
4b) It does not limit creativity. As MaRo always says, restrictions breed creativity. The fact that Rats exists forces new decks to arise. RG would not be constructed as it is now (with maindeck Shroud) if not for cards like Tendrils. Crypt Rats is a limiting factor in the format, not one that defines it (alone).
4c) It has not driven down attendance. This is the one most likely to change, but seeing as how Pauper queues are still firing and both PEs have been the size of healthy PTQs. If the attendance dips and continues to drop, then this one could change. As of now, however, Rats has not driven enough people away to make a noticeable dent.
5) It is not part of a degenerative combo. Numerous cards have been banned or restricted because they are part of degenerative combos.
6) It is not a tutor. See above.
7) Finally, it is powerful, but not broken. Banning should be reserved for those cards that truly break the format. As some one who has played through Skullclamp, Urza's Saga, and numerous other powerful moments in Magic History (Nightmare-Survival with Great Whale before the original errata), this card does not even begin to approach the power level necessary to consider banning, even in a format only of commons.
This are just the reasons I could think of now. There are more.
Please again, so I understand more clearly, state your reasoning for banning (or restricting) Rats.
-Alex
PS: The reason no one takes the talk of restriction seriously is because it is relegated strictly to Vintage style Magic. This is because those formats want to reward people for playing for a long time and amassing collections, and unless a card really breaks something or breaks a rule (ante, manual dexterity), it will not be banned, just restricted (in most cases). No format, aside from Vintage/Online Classic, has a restricted list.
You can personally link the cards when you make the article each week, instead of just putting the card names in ( )s. All you usually have to do is change the set code to whatever the promo code on the site is.
My three cents: I enjoyed the Ham Jones with vertical bars, I get a much clearer sense about the ebb and flow of the market that way.
"As I understand it, here is the argument against Crypt Rats:
It's a good card in a good deck, and the only card that can do what it does. If we take it away, the deck will still be good. All decks in Pauper must prepare to face Crypt Rats."
Is that really taking the points I make into consideration? If it is, I guess I don't have a solid understanding of simplification.
You hit a couple of the points, but it has more than one Tier 1 effect, in my opinion. The main point I was trying to make is that people who call for no ban/restriction (note that everyone always jumps to banned, even though I almost always cite both possibilities) don't make any points at all other than the vague: "it keeps aggro in check." I just want to see the points for maintaining the status quo in a detailed manner.
Not complaining or even criticizing (although I can see how it read as such). I was trying to make the point that it was unlikely anyone would think one article was paraphrased/stolen from the other, least of all yourself. Thanks for clearing it up though.
I actually like having the chart with a number value in them, please keep that up. It makes it easier to see what you can expect to spend to get what you want.
Hey Jeffrey,
This is actually Brian David-Marshall. Congrats on an excellent interview. That first poster was not me. I would never make a comment like that in tone or content.
@Rasparthe I did not include the decklist because there was a link to all eight lists contained in the article:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcover...
Since the article went live last night we have also added video replay of all three games to the column.
Austin Powers?
I would have liked to see more analysis of the deck choice and what they keys to running it were during the tournament win. But on the whole - you could have had a softer tone but no where near as bad as Chris's analysis.
Thank you all for the kind remarks and being interested in reading what I have to say as well as being kind and thankful of Stephan Steiner for allowing me to publish this. Chris your comment doesn't fair very well as I was asking specific questions and he was answering them to the best of his ability, If GW was so prepared for during the tournament you wouldn't of seen 3x GW Token decks make Top 8 in the near future. As such occured during this event that would mean that this wasn't very well sought after nor prepared for as decks tend to not just show up out of the blue. Although I appreciate criticism to the slightest, I feel that your comment was unjustified.
Thanks
Keep on commenting and don't forget to comment on your liking of articles etc? What do viewers wanna see?
For the Ham-Jones, I would recommend a stacked area plot. For the others, I would recommend switching to a single color to help with the contrast issue Umii is talking about. I'm also partial to circles instead of diamonds, but that is a personal preference. The switch to primary colors is a good one though.
Why do you try to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are by writing like that? He didn't stun the magic community, and this deck isn't even new. I suggest when you write your articles to not make yourself sound like a Harvard graduate because it is a sad fail.
Four thumbs down.
Just out of curiosity, hamtastic, is the "Basil" comment a reference to "The Great Mouse Detective"? Please say yes.