I really never got this series. For example, how can you say there is no power creep on Wall of Brambles which is a 2/3 regenerator for 3 that can't attack when you can have regenerators Horned Troll at common, and Wolfir Avenger, Troll Ascetic, or Isao for the same cost? Also River Boa and Mire Boa at cc2 are far better since they have the same power but can attack. If you allow comparisons to a 4-drop (your series often does look at other casting costs), you get Thrun. None of these are strict upgrades, but they're all clearly superior and recognizably consistent with what the wall does.
I guess the main problem is you never defined what is an upgrade, and this has bothered me all series as Wall of Brambles above is just one of many, many head-scratchers for me.
"Remember when each Magic artist had their own style?"
No, I actually remember when most Magic artists looked like averagely capable 13-year-olds who just began an art course. To some of them, my artist teacher friends would suggest to find a different outlet for their creative urges than drawing. (And a few of the other Magic artists looked like people who wouldn't even share a room with the former).
The elemental cycle of Alpha hurts my eyes. I still feel the need to slap Jeff Menges and Douglas Shuler in the face. I've been always a bit into the fine arts, and one thing I was ashamed about MTG when I started playing was how crappy it looked. I couldn't be seen with those horrible pictures in my hands. 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.
But take Giant Spider, for instance. Putting it next to Penumbra Spider is very representative of the change from amateur to pro. Like you said, Ms. Sandra Everingham, who I hope was actually 14 at the time, did something that absolutely translates into the concept of Giant Spider: a spider that's giant-sized. There's nothing else in that picture, the building is there only to convey the spider's size, its details are entirely muffled, without any definite style. The background is nondescript. There's a web because spiders do those, but there's nothing to hang it on, or any reason for the spider to be using it there. Some other buildings in the distance are just geometric shapes. It looks like something you might find in a boring technical handbook, where it's all about the superficial message, not the nuances.
Now look at Penumbra Spider. There's a metaphysical story going on there. The emphasis is on the spider's shadow, the "umbra". The spider is hiding, its shadow is showing, both menacing. It's the dark soul of the spider on display. The spider is lurking in a cave filled with its secretions, and it's framed as if it was a single frame in a tracking shot of a hi-def horror movie. Of course, that's Jeff Easley, who was a long-time veteran of fantasy illustration by then. But that's the point: now Magic had the budget to hire people like him, or to scout for talented young artists from around the world, the kind that probably cost more because they come from the art world, not just "I know a guy in Pasadena who airbrushes muscular guys on your van". I don't know, it's probably because the "It was better when it was worse" approach to judging things is so hateful to me.
Anyway, I think the "spirits in the walls" were just Richard Thomas' idea, and in his mind were supposed to be stuff happening in the scene. Possibly the wizard/planeswalker conjuring the wall in front of him or her.
Wall of Wood's eyes are maybe of something that wants to get through the wall. By the way, that's possibly the worst art Mark Tedin ever did. It looks like something he drew on the metro, after this conversation: "Mark, we need a last one." "Another? What's this about?" "It's for a card called Wall of Wood". "Wall of Wood? Sounds pretty boring, what else can you tell me about it?" "Well, it's a wall... made of wood." "Wow, you guys try not to get lost into your own wild fantasies, uh?"
And there's no visible pirates on Pirate Ship. It's just the ship! The planeswalker is supposed to man it alone, maybe.
that's great to hear :). And I assure people that I'm not only a block player, in fact I've probably played more standard over the past few months than block and all of the lists I present in these articles will be thoroughly tested. My main standard decks don't fit the budget criteria of this article, but I definitely have a bigger block than standard collection so I'm sort of in the same position and have always been keeping an eye out for decks which aren't heavily reliant on the big ISD block mythics.
I feel like there are various problems with the HOF voting system. Personally, I think it's wrong that people even within Wizards Selection Committee try and game the system by not voting for people who they believe will get in. Did anybody really think that Finkel or Kai didn't deserve to be in the HOF? Yet they still didn't appear on 100% of the ballots.
The fact is that in any system where voting is involved you are probably going to have to do some form of campaigning or have others campaign on your behalf. As much as I'm sure he deserves to be in the HOF it's quite clear that William Jensen was involved in a lot of campaigning to get into the Hall. I'd never heard of the guy before the HOF Ballot came out and then suddenly everyone was talking about him and seemingly crediting him with having taught them the game. Also on the coverage BDM and Rich Hagon both basically said they voted for Jensen because Finkel said they should - is that really a reason to give someone your vote? In that case all of Finkel's friends can get in presumably.
It seems like the only sure way to seal your place is to have an undeniably awesome Pro Tour record. I guess that's as fair as it's ever going to be.
@xger - Thanks for the suggestion. You're absolutely right, that column would look better as a %. The comparison chart was the last part of the article I had to finish and I really was getting tired of working on this so I rushed it a bit. I want to fix it up for future articles. Please feel free to mention anything else that could use some work.
@vaultboyhunter - Glad you liked the article! Eminent Domain was a terror back in Chk-Rav standard. I played Ghost Husk back and if I didn't already have out a Promise of Bunrei or a sided Shining Shoals to reflect Wildfire damage then there was little hope of winnings. So many tense, yet fun, games! U/R is one of the reasons I haven't given up entirely on Wildfire. Just think what Ral Zarek alone adds to an updated version! Thanks for the link and for the comments!
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/boab/186
I love Wildfire decks, Adrian Sullivan made my favorite one back when Std was Kamigawa and Ravnica block. The link goes to an updated version. That can probably be updated more. Mostly due to the person writing it including Ponder as a Modern legal card.
Great article!
A suggestion for the tables - put the % change in % form instead of decimal form. It just seems odd to keep it that way even if they are the same thing.
1. I agree that the format is fast - if you don't play anything until turn four you're dead (at least if your opponent isn't screwed or something like that). This is because there is so much removal, detain, bounce whatever that just keeps you from stabilising.
2. Cluestones do suck, I shy away from them and even though the cost is the same, some keyrunes are much better (Rakdos and Dimir especially).
3. The most common play is not t1 guildgate... most common t1 play is a normal land.
4. I'd say fixing is ok, not awesome, it's good especially in green. Verdant haven, axebane guardian, gatecreeper vine are all good. Other colours hope for promenade, prism, lantern or gates...but mana ist still a problem.
5. Archetypes are an illusion I'd say. In like 100 RGD drafts I got milled once and extorted to death maybe thrice, but just beaten down by a good curve and boros/naya creatures like twenty times - so that is the only feasible archetype. And btw. Gatekeepers are no archetype...really not...
6. That is common knowledge, a good curve is the basis for a successful deck. As is watching out for signals...guess we all know that.
And last but not least: I love Runner's Bane, even play it on a crocanura sometimes...It takes 5 evolves to get rid of that! :)
I'm not sure that opening the HoF vote to the "guys who crack packs and play on Saturday nights in dingy basements" is going to eliminate the need to "rub the right bottles and schmooze the right folks to get a vote". In fact, that might make it worse. The only solution is to take the vote out of the players hands altogether, and leave it for the Selection Committee. Too much ego stroking and feelings are involved when you have players voting for other players.
I watched the garfield phd deck in action in just for fun and it didn't like the white weenies. But I could see the potential there. Sounds like it hit its stride in the tourney.
I will say this about m14: People have been denegrating it and saying its going to be another stinker but imho you can't go wrong by having 4x Mutavault, 4x Ooze. The rest is a matter of timing I think. Still haven't bothered with Garruks or Archangels yet.
Btw Pikula was robbed. He should have been in years ago based on merit. But the way things work these days you have to rub the right bottles and schmooze the right folks to get a vote. I think secretly many voters resented his white hat approach and denied him based on this resentment.
I long for the day when the PT HoF voting isn't merely arbitrarily given to a select few but open to the fan base as a whole. Lets see what the players think. Not just the pros but the guys who crack packs and play on Saturday nights in dingy basements.
In other news really exited by this CC. :) Bring it home Keya! I am counting on you and Matt.
Watched a lot of the coverage for Worlds week, like Keya though I concentrated on the World Championship that the WMC. Didn't seem like there was a lot of coverage of the English team but seems like they did alright for themselves. The Irish team did great and I was sad to see them not make it into the final stages.
Really enjoyed the Sunday coverage as France vs. Hungary in the team finals was so tight, awesome finish to the event. Also, congratulations to Shahar Shenhar who played amazingly to beat Reid's Hexproof deck. I have to say as someone who follows Modern the Hexproof deck isn't really new, however, it was an excellent metagame call against the field. Hexproof is a deck that is quite easy to hate out if you're prepared for it but otherwise it's very powerful. Duke expecting most people would be playing UWR Control and Jund made a great call on his deck choice.
In terms of the Hall of Fame I was happy for everyone who got in. Ben Stark was the guy I was rooting for in the World Championship. I think Chris Pikula will make it in next year in a similar fashion to William Jensen who lost out by 1 vote in last year's ballot.
Good show guys and good luck to Keya for the Community Cup!
1. This is just poor thinking. It is a fast format, faster than most of the formats we have played in the past 3 years, with the exclusion of GTC. Cluestones are bad in this format. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
2. DGM... Cluestones are bad, Gatekeepers are bad, Maze Elementals are bad. I challenge you to pay attention to the decks that are doing well, and see what percentage of the cards in those decks come from GTC or RTR.
3. This is the same complaint as number one. I'll refer you back to that.
4. The fixing in DGM is not amazing. It is barely playable, and you only play it as a necessity. Only the Guildgates are any good at all, though they are still slow, but there is actually a major shortage of fixing across the format, as compared with other multicolor sets in the past.
5. I didn't say that archetypes don't exist. I said that they are too diluted for you to get them consistently. Besides that, gatekeepers as an archetype is actually pretty bad, since the format is fast. But you disagreed with me on that, and you have all the proof of you said so, against over 1000 games saying you're incorrect.
6. Is that not what I said? I said take cheap, powerful, flexible cards. Typically, that means that you are paying attention to the signals. You have added nothing to the conversation.
I have news for you, my win rate in DGR is higher than yours is. I've won 5 of my last 10 DGR drafts, and made it to the finals in three more. Congratulations. You proved my point.
As for your addendum, is it really so bad to trade a Runner's Bane for tempo and a Giant Growth?
I realize that you disagree. But there really is a lot of research and thought behind these articles. It might be wise to not reject everything that doesn't fit for preconceived notions.
I'm right with you on the DGR productivity thing. M14 has hardly any money cards, and it just really isn't all that fun to draft, so I think that DGR is a better place to sink your time.
But I also get that people prefer to draft the newer thing more often.
Thanks for the info I haven't played DGR for a while now but i guess it is more productive than M14. I'll be sure to try your theories later. Always a fan of your stats..
I really never got this series. For example, how can you say there is no power creep on Wall of Brambles which is a 2/3 regenerator for 3 that can't attack when you can have regenerators Horned Troll at common, and Wolfir Avenger, Troll Ascetic, or Isao for the same cost? Also River Boa and Mire Boa at cc2 are far better since they have the same power but can attack. If you allow comparisons to a 4-drop (your series often does look at other casting costs), you get Thrun. None of these are strict upgrades, but they're all clearly superior and recognizably consistent with what the wall does.
I guess the main problem is you never defined what is an upgrade, and this has bothered me all series as Wall of Brambles above is just one of many, many head-scratchers for me.
"Remember when each Magic artist had their own style?"
No, I actually remember when most Magic artists looked like averagely capable 13-year-olds who just began an art course. To some of them, my artist teacher friends would suggest to find a different outlet for their creative urges than drawing. (And a few of the other Magic artists looked like people who wouldn't even share a room with the former).
The elemental cycle of Alpha hurts my eyes. I still feel the need to slap Jeff Menges and Douglas Shuler in the face. I've been always a bit into the fine arts, and one thing I was ashamed about MTG when I started playing was how crappy it looked. I couldn't be seen with those horrible pictures in my hands. 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.
But take Giant Spider, for instance. Putting it next to Penumbra Spider is very representative of the change from amateur to pro. Like you said, Ms. Sandra Everingham, who I hope was actually 14 at the time, did something that absolutely translates into the concept of Giant Spider: a spider that's giant-sized. There's nothing else in that picture, the building is there only to convey the spider's size, its details are entirely muffled, without any definite style. The background is nondescript. There's a web because spiders do those, but there's nothing to hang it on, or any reason for the spider to be using it there. Some other buildings in the distance are just geometric shapes. It looks like something you might find in a boring technical handbook, where it's all about the superficial message, not the nuances.
Now look at Penumbra Spider. There's a metaphysical story going on there. The emphasis is on the spider's shadow, the "umbra". The spider is hiding, its shadow is showing, both menacing. It's the dark soul of the spider on display. The spider is lurking in a cave filled with its secretions, and it's framed as if it was a single frame in a tracking shot of a hi-def horror movie. Of course, that's Jeff Easley, who was a long-time veteran of fantasy illustration by then. But that's the point: now Magic had the budget to hire people like him, or to scout for talented young artists from around the world, the kind that probably cost more because they come from the art world, not just "I know a guy in Pasadena who airbrushes muscular guys on your van". I don't know, it's probably because the "It was better when it was worse" approach to judging things is so hateful to me.
Anyway, I think the "spirits in the walls" were just Richard Thomas' idea, and in his mind were supposed to be stuff happening in the scene. Possibly the wizard/planeswalker conjuring the wall in front of him or her.
Wall of Wood's eyes are maybe of something that wants to get through the wall. By the way, that's possibly the worst art Mark Tedin ever did. It looks like something he drew on the metro, after this conversation: "Mark, we need a last one." "Another? What's this about?" "It's for a card called Wall of Wood". "Wall of Wood? Sounds pretty boring, what else can you tell me about it?" "Well, it's a wall... made of wood." "Wow, you guys try not to get lost into your own wild fantasies, uh?"
And there's no visible pirates on Pirate Ship. It's just the ship! The planeswalker is supposed to man it alone, maybe.
Fantastic series, Cotton! As an old-school player, I thoroughly enjoyed every article.
that's great to hear :). And I assure people that I'm not only a block player, in fact I've probably played more standard over the past few months than block and all of the lists I present in these articles will be thoroughly tested. My main standard decks don't fit the budget criteria of this article, but I definitely have a bigger block than standard collection so I'm sort of in the same position and have always been keeping an eye out for decks which aren't heavily reliant on the big ISD block mythics.
I feel like there are various problems with the HOF voting system. Personally, I think it's wrong that people even within Wizards Selection Committee try and game the system by not voting for people who they believe will get in. Did anybody really think that Finkel or Kai didn't deserve to be in the HOF? Yet they still didn't appear on 100% of the ballots.
The fact is that in any system where voting is involved you are probably going to have to do some form of campaigning or have others campaign on your behalf. As much as I'm sure he deserves to be in the HOF it's quite clear that William Jensen was involved in a lot of campaigning to get into the Hall. I'd never heard of the guy before the HOF Ballot came out and then suddenly everyone was talking about him and seemingly crediting him with having taught them the game. Also on the coverage BDM and Rich Hagon both basically said they voted for Jensen because Finkel said they should - is that really a reason to give someone your vote? In that case all of Finkel's friends can get in presumably.
It seems like the only sure way to seal your place is to have an undeniably awesome Pro Tour record. I guess that's as fair as it's ever going to be.
I was looking for something exactly like that.
Really helps me to get my transition from block to standard done - thx!
Yeah, that would be the way to do it. Exception: Mike Long would have made it in by now had that been the case.
@xger - Thanks for the suggestion. You're absolutely right, that column would look better as a %. The comparison chart was the last part of the article I had to finish and I really was getting tired of working on this so I rushed it a bit. I want to fix it up for future articles. Please feel free to mention anything else that could use some work.
@vaultboyhunter - Glad you liked the article! Eminent Domain was a terror back in Chk-Rav standard. I played Ghost Husk back and if I didn't already have out a Promise of Bunrei or a sided Shining Shoals to reflect Wildfire damage then there was little hope of winnings. So many tense, yet fun, games! U/R is one of the reasons I haven't given up entirely on Wildfire. Just think what Ral Zarek alone adds to an updated version! Thanks for the link and for the comments!
I will do everything in my power to do so :)
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/boab/186
I love Wildfire decks, Adrian Sullivan made my favorite one back when Std was Kamigawa and Ravnica block. The link goes to an updated version. That can probably be updated more. Mostly due to the person writing it including Ponder as a Modern legal card.
Great article!
These cards are really worth it. This is a good idea by the way. - YORHealth
These cards are really good. I like it. Good job on this. - Integrity Spas
You may very well be right there. :/ Unfortunately popular votes are popular.
A suggestion for the tables - put the % change in % form instead of decimal form. It just seems odd to keep it that way even if they are the same thing.
1. I agree that the format is fast - if you don't play anything until turn four you're dead (at least if your opponent isn't screwed or something like that). This is because there is so much removal, detain, bounce whatever that just keeps you from stabilising.
2. Cluestones do suck, I shy away from them and even though the cost is the same, some keyrunes are much better (Rakdos and Dimir especially).
3. The most common play is not t1 guildgate... most common t1 play is a normal land.
4. I'd say fixing is ok, not awesome, it's good especially in green. Verdant haven, axebane guardian, gatecreeper vine are all good. Other colours hope for promenade, prism, lantern or gates...but mana ist still a problem.
5. Archetypes are an illusion I'd say. In like 100 RGD drafts I got milled once and extorted to death maybe thrice, but just beaten down by a good curve and boros/naya creatures like twenty times - so that is the only feasible archetype. And btw. Gatekeepers are no archetype...really not...
6. That is common knowledge, a good curve is the basis for a successful deck. As is watching out for signals...guess we all know that.
And last but not least: I love Runner's Bane, even play it on a crocanura sometimes...It takes 5 evolves to get rid of that! :)
I'm not sure that opening the HoF vote to the "guys who crack packs and play on Saturday nights in dingy basements" is going to eliminate the need to "rub the right bottles and schmooze the right folks to get a vote". In fact, that might make it worse. The only solution is to take the vote out of the players hands altogether, and leave it for the Selection Committee. Too much ego stroking and feelings are involved when you have players voting for other players.
From what I saw on Twitter, he may have gotten an invite to PT Theros though.
I am damned excited that finally they listened to me (again :p) and sent Keya the invite. http://puremtgo.com/articles/legendary-personalities-interview-gamemaster32 for those who didn't read it.
I watched the garfield phd deck in action in just for fun and it didn't like the white weenies. But I could see the potential there. Sounds like it hit its stride in the tourney.
I will say this about m14: People have been denegrating it and saying its going to be another stinker but imho you can't go wrong by having 4x Mutavault, 4x Ooze. The rest is a matter of timing I think. Still haven't bothered with Garruks or Archangels yet.
Btw Pikula was robbed. He should have been in years ago based on merit. But the way things work these days you have to rub the right bottles and schmooze the right folks to get a vote. I think secretly many voters resented his white hat approach and denied him based on this resentment.
I long for the day when the PT HoF voting isn't merely arbitrarily given to a select few but open to the fan base as a whole. Lets see what the players think. Not just the pros but the guys who crack packs and play on Saturday nights in dingy basements.
In other news really exited by this CC. :) Bring it home Keya! I am counting on you and Matt.
Grats on getting a spot on the CCC, now bring Hammy's cup back to us!
Ah didn't know that. Bad times for him particularly as he was so close.
This was Pikula's last shot unless he gets some more points on the board: the HoF threshold is going up above his lifetime total.
Watched a lot of the coverage for Worlds week, like Keya though I concentrated on the World Championship that the WMC. Didn't seem like there was a lot of coverage of the English team but seems like they did alright for themselves. The Irish team did great and I was sad to see them not make it into the final stages.
Really enjoyed the Sunday coverage as France vs. Hungary in the team finals was so tight, awesome finish to the event. Also, congratulations to Shahar Shenhar who played amazingly to beat Reid's Hexproof deck. I have to say as someone who follows Modern the Hexproof deck isn't really new, however, it was an excellent metagame call against the field. Hexproof is a deck that is quite easy to hate out if you're prepared for it but otherwise it's very powerful. Duke expecting most people would be playing UWR Control and Jund made a great call on his deck choice.
In terms of the Hall of Fame I was happy for everyone who got in. Ben Stark was the guy I was rooting for in the World Championship. I think Chris Pikula will make it in next year in a similar fashion to William Jensen who lost out by 1 vote in last year's ballot.
Good show guys and good luck to Keya for the Community Cup!
1. This is just poor thinking. It is a fast format, faster than most of the formats we have played in the past 3 years, with the exclusion of GTC. Cluestones are bad in this format. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
2. DGM... Cluestones are bad, Gatekeepers are bad, Maze Elementals are bad. I challenge you to pay attention to the decks that are doing well, and see what percentage of the cards in those decks come from GTC or RTR.
3. This is the same complaint as number one. I'll refer you back to that.
4. The fixing in DGM is not amazing. It is barely playable, and you only play it as a necessity. Only the Guildgates are any good at all, though they are still slow, but there is actually a major shortage of fixing across the format, as compared with other multicolor sets in the past.
5. I didn't say that archetypes don't exist. I said that they are too diluted for you to get them consistently. Besides that, gatekeepers as an archetype is actually pretty bad, since the format is fast. But you disagreed with me on that, and you have all the proof of you said so, against over 1000 games saying you're incorrect.
6. Is that not what I said? I said take cheap, powerful, flexible cards. Typically, that means that you are paying attention to the signals. You have added nothing to the conversation.
I have news for you, my win rate in DGR is higher than yours is. I've won 5 of my last 10 DGR drafts, and made it to the finals in three more. Congratulations. You proved my point.
As for your addendum, is it really so bad to trade a Runner's Bane for tempo and a Giant Growth?
I realize that you disagree. But there really is a lot of research and thought behind these articles. It might be wise to not reject everything that doesn't fit for preconceived notions.
Thanks!
I'm right with you on the DGR productivity thing. M14 has hardly any money cards, and it just really isn't all that fun to draft, so I think that DGR is a better place to sink your time.
But I also get that people prefer to draft the newer thing more often.
Thanks for the info I haven't played DGR for a while now but i guess it is more productive than M14. I'll be sure to try your theories later. Always a fan of your stats..