Hey, Shane, glad to see you trying out some headers and tables. If you are using tables, you could take advantage of the horizontal space by providing more information in the tables. Maybe you could put the actual number of times each deck shows up, and possibly the number of times the deck appeared last week or the previous percentage of the metagame? This would help demonstrate the ebb and flow throughout the season. Also, instead of cramming each deck that gets a certain percentage into one line, give each deck its own line? With a quick glance, players will be able to tell which formats are seeing more deck diversity than others. You could still only list decks with x% of the meta, but this way you are providing more information. Figured since it's only week 1, you still have time to adjust the what and how of the info.
Oh, and Kaladesh is misspelled in your top header. :/ Still though, nice job!
Man you guys really like my content? Awesome, you don't know how much the kind words mean to me!
a: I hate Searing Blaze in this format for the exact reasons you are saying and that is why I chose to play 3 so that I can see one early enough for me to be good and then hopefully not see any until late in the game when I am holding a mountain or I will not see one and have a better time. Sadly when Searing Blaze works, it is damn good, so I still think some number is right.
b: Fireblast is a blessing and a curse, I think you want 4 because you will be able to (well, should be able to) get 4 mountains and cast both of them. I think going less than 4 is not correct because at the end of the day, you want to see one of them at the very least, very quickly because it does help close out the game easily.
c: Thermo-Alchemist can be good and bad. It is the old Baneslayer Angel argument when she was in standard long ago. "But she just dies to doom blade", but the fact is, your opponent will not always have the removal spell and when they don't, you will find that you win the games way easier and way faster with the Alchemist. It can sometimes be a dead card because it dies so easily, this is true, but the trade off is very much worth it.
I've really enjoyed your articles and videos the last couple of weeks as I have a soft spot for burn (it was the first deck I ever played when I learned Magic). Over the last couple of weeks, I've come to about the same decklist, with some minor edits. A couple of questions: (a) Is Searing Blaze necessary as a 4-of? I find that if you don't play it on turns 2-4 (with a land drop) it winds up dead in hand (2 mana for 1 damage seems terrible in this deck, especially as the game progresses). (b) It felt like you ended up with 2 Fireblast a lot over the matches we saw. Would you drop the count? I like to hit one, but drawing the second often feels like a wasted draw. (c) What are your thoughts on Thermo-Alchemist? Much like Searing Blaze, I feel like he often winds up as 2 mana for 0 damage. When he works, it's great, but I haven't felt like he works often enough.
I agree. I've basically settled on 1 Forgotten Caves when I play burn. You really don't want to see it early, but being able to draw an extra card is often worth it.
I was more commenting on those people whose immediate reaction to a change is to assume MTGO is dying and to sell out, before doing the math to actually analyze the impact of the changes. I was not attempting to predict the market so much as commenting on impulsive actions.
Nice job here. I love read this article every Friday. It's my main MTGO information source!!
I notice that there's something not right with the maths in your last 2 tables.
Let's see...
5-0 finish:
For competitive old says $45, then it breaks in $33+120PP, what is right.
However for competitive new says $44.20, then breaks in $30.10+240PP, what it's not right..
$30.10+240PP should be ~30+24=$54, not $44.
The file I gave Josh to use for hover links accounts for everything (as far as I am aware), including puncuation. (Except for Uzra's block which I am fixing soon). You should be able to just use (card name), regardless of card or set (including Kaladesh, and even the masterpieces).
Interesting comment when you write that you are applying logic to impulsive behavior.
As I read it you are saying that the market will go up later so people should not sell out. So you are claiming that you can predict the market. But as I remember your speculation experiment your conclusion was that it could not be done.
Or whatever - I am assuming consistency in logic over time which may not apply ;) time to move on.
actually, it is because I pasted the links into the table before uploading, because so many of the cards would not work just using (card name). If that function works, including for cards with punctuation, I will go back to using parentheses.
I found several typos in both lists while working on my article. I even noticed a clearly mistakenly missing card (Scalding Tarn, normal version, which was added to the list once I pointed it out). So, I do not doubt in the least there are other errors.
As for the hover links, it has to do with the bolding of the card names while the "(" is not bolded. I've been working on an addition to handle that as well. I can try and push it out to Josh for next week, as well as fixing some other errors
Wow, I didn't even think about the possibility of typos in the data--I know the odds are slim, but has anyone opened one of those commanders or Helm of Possession yet? (Eidolon of the Great Revel isn't conclusive since it's a Modern rare)
Also, any particular reason the format price lists aren't hover-capable yet? I'm assuming that's something that will be fixed once the Kaladesh update rolls in (and hopefully the "The Good Stuff" list will get hovers at that point as well).
... can't believe I misspelled Kaladesh! :/ I like your suggestions, thanks!
Hey, Shane, glad to see you trying out some headers and tables. If you are using tables, you could take advantage of the horizontal space by providing more information in the tables. Maybe you could put the actual number of times each deck shows up, and possibly the number of times the deck appeared last week or the previous percentage of the metagame? This would help demonstrate the ebb and flow throughout the season. Also, instead of cramming each deck that gets a certain percentage into one line, give each deck its own line? With a quick glance, players will be able to tell which formats are seeing more deck diversity than others. You could still only list decks with x% of the meta, but this way you are providing more information. Figured since it's only week 1, you still have time to adjust the what and how of the info.
Oh, and Kaladesh is misspelled in your top header. :/ Still though, nice job!
Man you guys really like my content? Awesome, you don't know how much the kind words mean to me!
a: I hate Searing Blaze in this format for the exact reasons you are saying and that is why I chose to play 3 so that I can see one early enough for me to be good and then hopefully not see any until late in the game when I am holding a mountain or I will not see one and have a better time. Sadly when Searing Blaze works, it is damn good, so I still think some number is right.
b: Fireblast is a blessing and a curse, I think you want 4 because you will be able to (well, should be able to) get 4 mountains and cast both of them. I think going less than 4 is not correct because at the end of the day, you want to see one of them at the very least, very quickly because it does help close out the game easily.
c: Thermo-Alchemist can be good and bad. It is the old Baneslayer Angel argument when she was in standard long ago. "But she just dies to doom blade", but the fact is, your opponent will not always have the removal spell and when they don't, you will find that you win the games way easier and way faster with the Alchemist. It can sometimes be a dead card because it dies so easily, this is true, but the trade off is very much worth it.
Again thank you all for the kind words!
Excellent read. It was a pleasure playing with you, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with the next time you choose to play the format. :)
I've really enjoyed your articles and videos the last couple of weeks as I have a soft spot for burn (it was the first deck I ever played when I learned Magic). Over the last couple of weeks, I've come to about the same decklist, with some minor edits. A couple of questions: (a) Is Searing Blaze necessary as a 4-of? I find that if you don't play it on turns 2-4 (with a land drop) it winds up dead in hand (2 mana for 1 damage seems terrible in this deck, especially as the game progresses). (b) It felt like you ended up with 2 Fireblast a lot over the matches we saw. Would you drop the count? I like to hit one, but drawing the second often feels like a wasted draw. (c) What are your thoughts on Thermo-Alchemist? Much like Searing Blaze, I feel like he often winds up as 2 mana for 0 damage. When he works, it's great, but I haven't felt like he works often enough.
Again, loved the content! Well done.
I agree. I've basically settled on 1 Forgotten Caves when I play burn. You really don't want to see it early, but being able to draw an extra card is often worth it.
Great articles as always. Burn is my go-to archetype, and I have found running 1 copy of Forgotten Caves is about right in most cases.
To the person that made a comment through facebook. I apologies I don't use facebook for comments.
But yes the lands coming into play tapped can sometimes screw you over, or the caves not being mountains for Fireblast can be a pain in the butt.
Nice to have you back! The full width banners are a minor addition, but easier on the eyes, which I dig. Props to whoever came up with them.
I was more commenting on those people whose immediate reaction to a change is to assume MTGO is dying and to sell out, before doing the math to actually analyze the impact of the changes. I was not attempting to predict the market so much as commenting on impulsive actions.
Shortly after the new writers guide went up if I recall correctly .
you are right, I think the issue I am having is trying to figure out where to win from there
Harmless Offering and Midnight Oil (once spent) seems not so bad. :D
Oh, using just (cardname) instead of (cardname:set) works with hovers now? When was that added?
Hi Pete, first of all, welcome back!!
Nice job here. I love read this article every Friday. It's my main MTGO information source!!
I notice that there's something not right with the maths in your last 2 tables.
Let's see...
5-0 finish:
For competitive old says $45, then it breaks in $33+120PP, what is right.
However for competitive new says $44.20, then breaks in $30.10+240PP, what it's not right..
$30.10+240PP should be ~30+24=$54, not $44.
Isn't it?? Or I'm messing it up?
I think it has to do more with history repeating itself, rather than prediction of the market.
Batterskull is now 16ish (it dropped 7 tix in the last week). Do you think it will stay that low?
Oh it is cool, I try to make a fog deck every standard.
The file I gave Josh to use for hover links accounts for everything (as far as I am aware), including puncuation. (Except for Uzra's block which I am fixing soon). You should be able to just use (card name), regardless of card or set (including Kaladesh, and even the masterpieces).
Are you sure that 10a is not cool? Winning by casting all the fogs seems like a cool challenge.
Interesting comment when you write that you are applying logic to impulsive behavior.
As I read it you are saying that the market will go up later so people should not sell out. So you are claiming that you can predict the market. But as I remember your speculation experiment your conclusion was that it could not be done.
Or whatever - I am assuming consistency in logic over time which may not apply ;) time to move on.
Welcome back, Pete. Hope you are at full steam again. :D
actually, it is because I pasted the links into the table before uploading, because so many of the cards would not work just using (card name). If that function works, including for cards with punctuation, I will go back to using parentheses.
I appreciate all your work. Thanks.
I found several typos in both lists while working on my article. I even noticed a clearly mistakenly missing card (Scalding Tarn, normal version, which was added to the list once I pointed it out). So, I do not doubt in the least there are other errors.
As for the hover links, it has to do with the bolding of the card names while the "(" is not bolded. I've been working on an addition to handle that as well. I can try and push it out to Josh for next week, as well as fixing some other errors
Wow, I didn't even think about the possibility of typos in the data--I know the odds are slim, but has anyone opened one of those commanders or Helm of Possession yet? (Eidolon of the Great Revel isn't conclusive since it's a Modern rare)
Also, any particular reason the format price lists aren't hover-capable yet? I'm assuming that's something that will be fixed once the Kaladesh update rolls in (and hopefully the "The Good Stuff" list will get hovers at that point as well).