In last SotP you said you get some insider info about cool FTV20 card. So, was it Tangle Wire you had in mind?
Ratchet Bomb will also be awarded to judges in MOJO 2013 for 4-1 or 5-0 so players won't play for it in MOCS, rather for PT invitation, sets and for Championship, like always.
About Flusterstorm, what if it finds home in new Commander decks? Don't you think it may be risky to encourage ppl to buy it from store?
Sorry to hear you had such a rough season, glad it started to look up towards the end. I couldn't agree with you more on the state of pauper. I tried a couple of brews and had reasonable success but I simply cannot stand playing against fissure post in general, even if I am winning.
Best of luck with your prelim, I got lucky enough to get 42 points.
-Zach
I should have been more specific given that there's three :). Relentless (ISD), it's the only one that fits the mana of the deck. With a 23 land deck you're very unlikely to hit 5 mana on curve, and you want to be able to land your planeswalker when the control opponent taps out for verdict.
By all means, you are correct. Voss can be a powerhouse if it can stick. I do believe his power level does decrease in block drafting. I have lost some games against the pesky Vampire, but my experience with him has been very poor. Thus yielding such a statement. Thanks for the feedback!
Something that you missed in the game you had the Putrefy - if you ultimated Garruk the tokens have trample so after blocks are declared kill the blocker and the token tramples over to win. Not that it mattered much with the next turn consume spirit though....
He ends games normally in 2 or three attacks - find a way of the thief (obviously when you are not in triple dgm) and make it stick and game is over...ok he's no hellkite, but close to it I'd say.
I forgot to finish my own headline! It was supposed to be: Out of the Blue - Winning Unfairly. I checked the article for mistakes really carefully, then totally forgot the most important part - the title. Go me...
I appreciate you writing this article and branching out to new formats. However, while certainly biased, I have a huge distaste for this deck. Regardless of my personal opinion (or because of it), I would encourage you and your readers to weigh in on the discussion proposing the banning of Temporal Fissure (For or Against and Why). An excellent article was recently written on the subject, by the cool-headed JSiri84 on MTGOStrat.COM, the up and coming website devoted to Competitive Pauper. Thank you and your readers for taking the time to check it out.
Yeah, I had almost the same reaction to Zombie Master and Cemetery Reaper. The latter is just generic fantasy/comic kitch as lots of newer cards are - I'll take even Sea Serpent* over that approach.
*Which, btw, as badly drawn as it is, does a sufficient job at creating a hostile open sea atmosphere, and that's much more important to me than technical precision.
Look at the last Wall of Fire picture, on the Wall of Ice one. Is the same guy? He is the one summoning all the walls or just someone who is really mad at them?
I strongly prefer the old card frames, even if it is for largely nostalgic reasons. Obviously a lot of old-time players agree with me, since WotC has been printing important Vintage cards in the old frame as judge promos, including Dark Confidant, Noble Hierarch, and Crucible of Worlds.
On the subject of the art, sure there are some stinkers, but there are plenty where the art has become much worse over the years. Compare the old Shivan Dragon art with the new art, and the new art looks like a pile of dung compared the Benson's iconic illustration.
Then there's the problem that 99% of new MTG art is too tightly controlled (and forced to be representational rather than abstract.) The descriptions WotC forces on the artists are way too narrow to allow much artistic expression, and basically substitutes the judgment of WotC's art director for the inspiration of every artist they ever contract with who might have a more interesting idea. Every couple sets they let Terese Nielsen do something truly interesting, but the rest of the set is filled with bland, focus-tested, forgettable imagery.
You can see the progression towards the bland in the article above by looking at the artwork for Zombie Master versus the art for Cemetary Reaper. I'm sure Zombie Master has some minor problems with the figure from a technical standpoint, but it looks like actual fantasy art (how I might have pictured the Zombie Master from Piers Anthony's Xanth books being illustrated back in those days). Cemetary Reaper is something from a bad contemporary comic book or a mediocre first-person-shooter on XBox360.
I have been reading this series with a good deal of nostalgia. The timing was just perfect. I started playing again after a break that, according to my card stash, lasted from Visions to M14. So I have been reading this series at the same time as I have been exploring the new cards that have replaced the old ones.
First few instalments where good. Maybe because the non-creature spells from Alpha has a fairly good split between "this is insanely overpowered" and "what was the point of this card?!".
But the creatures instalments are just bashing the old creatures for being too weak.
One very important aspect of the power level of the creatures is the amount of options to deal with them.
Dealing with a Shivan Dragon in the old times was pretty tough. There was not a lot of X-damage spells, nor a lot of straight removal. Each color had 1-3 removal spells and it was tough to win playing too many of them.
Alpha was really powertripping on mana ramping, but unless you stacked the moxen, the game win-conditions sat in those huge monsters with either trample or flying.
Something happened around the time where they created the Type 2 format. It was quite likely a move to preserve the income from new card sales, and a rather effective one at that. However, people would not accept Type 2 easily if the new sets constantly had cards worse than the older ones. WotC had obviously learned their lesson regarding mana ramps, so they decided that a "free" upgrade path was to continuously print stronger and stronger monsters. Players can always find ways to counter a nasty critter. Especially those in the higher CMC range - since by the time they play, the opponent have had a good deal of time to set up a defence.
They also countered the power growth in creatures by providing more options to deal with them. Something that made the game more playable.
Coming back to the game I see some pretty crazy powerful cards in the later sets. And the creatures are wicked good. On the other hand, I see them win games about as frequent as the weaker creatures, simply because they are easier to deal with.
Another thing that I feel is downplayed a little in the series is the power of regeneration. Especially because a lot of the creatures with it had it for a single mana. So unless you where tapped out, the monster could not die (except to a few effects that did not allow regeneration). Whenever something put your creature with regenerate in the graveyard you could keep it in play by paying the cost. Coupled with the before mentioned lack of removal spells, creatures that were hard to kill were very powerful. A bold comparison could be to put regenerators back in the days on the same level that hexproof is today.
In many cases the Alpha creatures all played as if they had hexproof. Because the amount of removal was much lower. You had to beat down the big baddies with your own big baddies or a horde of smaller critters. Something that was pretty tough to do with a 5/5 flyer.
The fact that the Shivan Dragon is playable today shows how ridiculously good it was in the old environment. Not to forget it's buddy Nightmare (which btw got left out - zero-to-severe power creep by your standards though, since they just reprinted it and there are other power equal to lands critters that are nicer now). Nightmare was pretty sick back then, since most people played max two colors, so getting a lot of swamps in play was rather easy. However, now with nonbasic lands en masse and many decks spanning 3 colors, committing to black deep enough to play Nightmare is rare, and probably not wise either.
It sometimes surprise people that Shivan Dragon and Nightmare was worth more than P9 way back. Because a single Shivan could potentially win a game, where-as a single P9 card only got you a short step ahead, but unless the rest of your deck rocked it would not win for you.
At the end of the day, a Mox Pearl is nothing more than an artifact for 0 that plays like a plains. So two lands in turn X.
I have to completely disagree with you on this Kuma. I'll take any old version of a card over this new "say nothing" cards.
Ok so you took Giant Spider, Wall of Woods and Pirate Ships as examples of what a 13 yea old artist could draw. How about Lord of the Pit, Living Wall or Orcish Artillery just to name some in this article because if I have to name some other cards, you will have to search intensively for some newer cards to match them.
And I would also mention the old frame vs new frame just for the tie breaker in case there is any kind of doubt.
Btw good job Cotton with this series it has been an interesting and nostalgic flashback.
"That's why I generally hate the old cards and the old, asinine frame, whereas other people look at them through the rose-colored glasses of their happy memories of being young and loving whatever imagery with swords and dragons in them."
Did any of those people actually told you that? (And if they did, what was the sample-size that allowed you to generalize like that?) It's perfectly conceivable to me that lots of people prefer the old artwork for non-nostalgic reasons.
In last SotP you said you get some insider info about cool FTV20 card. So, was it Tangle Wire you had in mind?
Ratchet Bomb will also be awarded to judges in MOJO 2013 for 4-1 or 5-0 so players won't play for it in MOCS, rather for PT invitation, sets and for Championship, like always.
About Flusterstorm, what if it finds home in new Commander decks? Don't you think it may be risky to encourage ppl to buy it from store?
Sorry to hear you had such a rough season, glad it started to look up towards the end. I couldn't agree with you more on the state of pauper. I tried a couple of brews and had reasonable success but I simply cannot stand playing against fissure post in general, even if I am winning.
Best of luck with your prelim, I got lucky enough to get 42 points.
-Zach
These cards are really good. I want to know more about this . - YOR Health
This is a very interesting deck. I never thought Vraska had a chance in Modern.
I should have been more specific given that there's three :). Relentless (ISD), it's the only one that fits the mana of the deck. With a 23 land deck you're very unlikely to hit 5 mana on curve, and you want to be able to land your planeswalker when the control opponent taps out for verdict.
If you're talking about game 3, then my tokens had summoning sickness, so trample wouldn't have helped them.
Eleny,
By all means, you are correct. Voss can be a powerhouse if it can stick. I do believe his power level does decrease in block drafting. I have lost some games against the pesky Vampire, but my experience with him has been very poor. Thus yielding such a statement. Thanks for the feedback!
Something that you missed in the game you had the Putrefy - if you ultimated Garruk the tokens have trample so after blocks are declared kill the blocker and the token tramples over to win. Not that it mattered much with the next turn consume spirit though....
Oh I see what you mean. The new Wall of Fire and the old Wall of Ice. Hmmm pretty similar year.
You are right when you compare water and fire, but i said fire and ice. I think that maybe, the new wall of fire was a easter egg.
How is Mirko Voss not insane?
He ends games normally in 2 or three attacks - find a way of the thief (obviously when you are not in triple dgm) and make it stick and game is over...ok he's no hellkite, but close to it I'd say.
I forgot to finish my own headline! It was supposed to be: Out of the Blue - Winning Unfairly. I checked the article for mistakes really carefully, then totally forgot the most important part - the title. Go me...
Which of the standard legal Garruks would you use instead of Ajani?
The water one has a pointy hood, and the fire one has a haircut. More tellingly, the fire one doesn't have the water's odd tail thingy.
I think you are right it is the same guy.
I appreciate you writing this article and branching out to new formats. However, while certainly biased, I have a huge distaste for this deck. Regardless of my personal opinion (or because of it), I would encourage you and your readers to weigh in on the discussion proposing the banning of Temporal Fissure (For or Against and Why). An excellent article was recently written on the subject, by the cool-headed JSiri84 on MTGOStrat.COM, the up and coming website devoted to Competitive Pauper. Thank you and your readers for taking the time to check it out.
The link is here:
http://mtgostrat.com/2013/07/at-a-crossroads-paupers-six-month-experiment/
or
http://tinyurl.com/pj2o72p
(Twitter sharing is encouraged if you care about the subject.)
My #1 complaint about new art is when there's blatant CG involved.
3 dollars for a shock land...I should be lucky, as a paper player. :)
Yeah, I had almost the same reaction to Zombie Master and Cemetery Reaper. The latter is just generic fantasy/comic kitch as lots of newer cards are - I'll take even Sea Serpent* over that approach.
*Which, btw, as badly drawn as it is, does a sufficient job at creating a hostile open sea atmosphere, and that's much more important to me than technical precision.
Look at the last Wall of Fire picture, on the Wall of Ice one. Is the same guy? He is the one summoning all the walls or just someone who is really mad at them?
I strongly prefer the old card frames, even if it is for largely nostalgic reasons. Obviously a lot of old-time players agree with me, since WotC has been printing important Vintage cards in the old frame as judge promos, including Dark Confidant, Noble Hierarch, and Crucible of Worlds.
On the subject of the art, sure there are some stinkers, but there are plenty where the art has become much worse over the years. Compare the old Shivan Dragon art with the new art, and the new art looks like a pile of dung compared the Benson's iconic illustration.
Then there's the problem that 99% of new MTG art is too tightly controlled (and forced to be representational rather than abstract.) The descriptions WotC forces on the artists are way too narrow to allow much artistic expression, and basically substitutes the judgment of WotC's art director for the inspiration of every artist they ever contract with who might have a more interesting idea. Every couple sets they let Terese Nielsen do something truly interesting, but the rest of the set is filled with bland, focus-tested, forgettable imagery.
You can see the progression towards the bland in the article above by looking at the artwork for Zombie Master versus the art for Cemetary Reaper. I'm sure Zombie Master has some minor problems with the figure from a technical standpoint, but it looks like actual fantasy art (how I might have pictured the Zombie Master from Piers Anthony's Xanth books being illustrated back in those days). Cemetary Reaper is something from a bad contemporary comic book or a mediocre first-person-shooter on XBox360.
I have been reading this series with a good deal of nostalgia. The timing was just perfect. I started playing again after a break that, according to my card stash, lasted from Visions to M14. So I have been reading this series at the same time as I have been exploring the new cards that have replaced the old ones.
First few instalments where good. Maybe because the non-creature spells from Alpha has a fairly good split between "this is insanely overpowered" and "what was the point of this card?!".
But the creatures instalments are just bashing the old creatures for being too weak.
One very important aspect of the power level of the creatures is the amount of options to deal with them.
Dealing with a Shivan Dragon in the old times was pretty tough. There was not a lot of X-damage spells, nor a lot of straight removal. Each color had 1-3 removal spells and it was tough to win playing too many of them.
Alpha was really powertripping on mana ramping, but unless you stacked the moxen, the game win-conditions sat in those huge monsters with either trample or flying.
Something happened around the time where they created the Type 2 format. It was quite likely a move to preserve the income from new card sales, and a rather effective one at that. However, people would not accept Type 2 easily if the new sets constantly had cards worse than the older ones. WotC had obviously learned their lesson regarding mana ramps, so they decided that a "free" upgrade path was to continuously print stronger and stronger monsters. Players can always find ways to counter a nasty critter. Especially those in the higher CMC range - since by the time they play, the opponent have had a good deal of time to set up a defence.
They also countered the power growth in creatures by providing more options to deal with them. Something that made the game more playable.
Coming back to the game I see some pretty crazy powerful cards in the later sets. And the creatures are wicked good. On the other hand, I see them win games about as frequent as the weaker creatures, simply because they are easier to deal with.
Another thing that I feel is downplayed a little in the series is the power of regeneration. Especially because a lot of the creatures with it had it for a single mana. So unless you where tapped out, the monster could not die (except to a few effects that did not allow regeneration). Whenever something put your creature with regenerate in the graveyard you could keep it in play by paying the cost. Coupled with the before mentioned lack of removal spells, creatures that were hard to kill were very powerful. A bold comparison could be to put regenerators back in the days on the same level that hexproof is today.
In many cases the Alpha creatures all played as if they had hexproof. Because the amount of removal was much lower. You had to beat down the big baddies with your own big baddies or a horde of smaller critters. Something that was pretty tough to do with a 5/5 flyer.
The fact that the Shivan Dragon is playable today shows how ridiculously good it was in the old environment. Not to forget it's buddy Nightmare (which btw got left out - zero-to-severe power creep by your standards though, since they just reprinted it and there are other power equal to lands critters that are nicer now). Nightmare was pretty sick back then, since most people played max two colors, so getting a lot of swamps in play was rather easy. However, now with nonbasic lands en masse and many decks spanning 3 colors, committing to black deep enough to play Nightmare is rare, and probably not wise either.
It sometimes surprise people that Shivan Dragon and Nightmare was worth more than P9 way back. Because a single Shivan could potentially win a game, where-as a single P9 card only got you a short step ahead, but unless the rest of your deck rocked it would not win for you.
At the end of the day, a Mox Pearl is nothing more than an artifact for 0 that plays like a plains. So two lands in turn X.
Those are all fair points. Sometimes my brain made the leap from Living Wall to Darksteel Myr and sometimes it didn't.
I have to completely disagree with you on this Kuma. I'll take any old version of a card over this new "say nothing" cards.
Ok so you took Giant Spider, Wall of Woods and Pirate Ships as examples of what a 13 yea old artist could draw. How about Lord of the Pit, Living Wall or Orcish Artillery just to name some in this article because if I have to name some other cards, you will have to search intensively for some newer cards to match them.
And I would also mention the old frame vs new frame just for the tie breaker in case there is any kind of doubt.
Btw good job Cotton with this series it has been an interesting and nostalgic flashback.
"That's why I generally hate the old cards and the old, asinine frame, whereas other people look at them through the rose-colored glasses of their happy memories of being young and loving whatever imagery with swords and dragons in them."
Did any of those people actually told you that? (And if they did, what was the sample-size that allowed you to generalize like that?) It's perfectly conceivable to me that lots of people prefer the old artwork for non-nostalgic reasons.