Fun stuff. Maybe I've been playing Gisela wrong, but I've found that she's a lightning rod and most of the time she (or I) become target number one when she hits play. Of course there are times where people can't do anything about her and you win too.
This color combo is notoriously slow. As you pointed out, Zedruu is pretty darn mana hungry. On top of that some of your main threats are pretty high in casting cost. Do you have enough mana rocks? Or are you non-aggressive enough in the early game where people give you time to set up?
You did give a general idea about how your games go through seperate statements, but a game summary or two would have been nice.
I want to suggest Maraxus of Keld but that's just mean. How about Hakim Loreweaver? I haven't gotten around to ever making a deck with him.
Wait until Friday's article, please.
Of course is strictly 1v1. I'm working with 100CS specialists (and Rex, who already knew all that!) to work out a banned list.
Since you can't set the table to Commander Legacy Tribal Wars, the Commander structure has priority, and the tribal aspect must be accommodated otherwise. The commander will not count for tribal purposes and will not necessarily be a tribal member (there will be a table showing the "allied commanders", such as any Goblin legend will be able to command an Ogre or Orc deck; Human legends will be able to command a lot of tribes, and so on; yet Human, Elf and Goblin decks will be banned).
Given the quantity of Changelings in existence, you can add up to 16 to a deck (49%) and still have it legal for your tribe, if the colors of your commander allow that; so the actual conceivable minimum is 17 tribal members (+16 Changeling + 1 nontribal commander).
I realize now that we might want to do Commander in another week rather than in your guest week for the 100th event. We're still in time to postpone it and have the #100 hosted by you be something else, even just a pure, unadulterated Tribal Wars event. Your call at this point, it's part of the celebration for your Era after all.
Thanks for the comment and the positive review Paul!
I agree that the deck draws a lot of comparisons to Infect and those comparisons are very fair.
The deck can win on Turn 2 which is pretty impressive though I'd hesitate to say it can do it consistently.
In terms of how the progress of the deck has gone, it had some early success but that seems to have waned considerably. I haven't seen much of it in the Daily results recently and I think, as I mentioned in the article, people are preferring the Infect deck over the Elemental Combo lists.
Regardless, it is still an interesting and fast deck and pretty fun to play provided your don't have to make too many mulligans.
Both very good points and ones I also raised with Blippy. Imho the brew time on this might be too short considering we don't know what is going to be required/allowed.
This basically looks and operates like Som Standard infect with some interesting additions. That it can go off turn 2 is pretty insane as there aren't many decks that can do that consistently. (Eggs?)
I was aware of the list from several friends playing it but haven't really been paying attention to its progress. Thanks for sharing.
You know its not the size alone that bothers me but the propensity for the good cards to be in the mythic rarity and the rest to be somewhat mediocre rares and uncommons. Not saying that is the case in RTR but it felt that way with Zen and Roe. Particularly ROE. WWK as a small set felt much better designed to me and had some interesting stuff in the rares portion.
I don't really mind money grabs as long as they also work somewhat for the players too. I hated the drafting of Zen Block so that probably contributed to my overall negative impression of the set as did some of the art.
Not to say that the art was bad technically but that it had a very nasty unattractive quality. There were some exceptions. (Again mostly in WWK) The irony here is they did something evolutionary (or it could have been) with the land art (the hedrons and full art on basics) but that wasn't done again. And that was imho the most successful of the art directions goals.
As for buying boxes Im glad I stopped doing that. That is such a money sink with a fairly poor expected outcome imho. Better to play Roulette with your money. On the other hand I have put some into singles online which is something I never used to do at all.
Are you saying that 1v1 isn't the only possibility? 1v1 seemed like the only logistically feasible way. I think you might have a frustrating nightmare on your hands trying to do multiplayer tables. 1v1 is also way different in deckbuilding than multiplayer, heck you wouldn't even consider certain using aggro commanders in multiplayer that would be viable in 1v1. I'm probably only playing if it's 1v1, so I guess I'll just brew 1v1 and cross my fingers.
Since you're in charge, we also need to know, if it IS 1v1, whether the standard ban list is going to be used or a modified 1v1 ban list like the French. I was of the opinion discussing it with Kuma that the standard WotC ban list is the simplest choice and the easiest to enforce, although it has its problems in the 1v1 environment.
I hate any block with more than one big set in it, and it's now 3 out of 4 years that they've done 2 big sets in a block. Just an unabashed money grab. I think I was "spoiled" as a teenager, because there were few enough sets in 94-96 that you could reasonably keep up for awhile. There were awful sets in that space, and I'm sure the game would have died if they'd kept on being that bad, but about 2 small Alliances-caliber sets per year would have been great. Once the whole block model began, it was impossible to keep up with Type 2 and at least a bit more difficult to keep my Type 1 deck current. They could add enough interesting cards with only two small sets per year to keep the game fresh, and never print another big fall set, if nobody cared about being able to draft.
Right now, to have a decent shot at being able to build or trade for whatever I want in the first month or two of a set's release, I have to buy an additional box of any large set over what I buy of the small ones. There will be FOUR LARGE SETS in a row from AVR to M13 to RTR to GTC, that's ludicrous and if I had any paper legacy scene around me I would be out of standard in a heartbeat over this.
The next Legacy GP appears to be in Denver on 5th-6th January.
To find out what's going online you can go on main website, click on Digital Games in the header and then 'What's Happening?' under the Magic Online tab. From there you can access the MTGO calendar.
I witnessed AJ's feat of double achievements in one game on back to back turns. And then I got to keep him from doing it in our first game. I missed an opportunity to shut him out in game two via Wasteland vs his Supprazen Skerry. I believe he would have had to wait another two turns to go off (at least) by which time I think I had the game. However our games were his only defeat of the day as he went 2-1 thus winning some of the prize pool + the achievements.
QotW: Honestly I'd rather each set be smaller and better designed than have 2 big ones vs one small. But big sets are important I guess to distribute those ever popular and pricy Mythics which drive pack sales. Less mythics to collect mean less packs opened.
I have to say I hated the Zen-Roe block so RGD (or DGR) can't possibly be worse.
Ya I'm of the same view, all this does is advantage playtest groups and hardcore grinders over the more casual or individual player, who is already disadvantaged enough. Easily accessible information is critical to fair competition.
Publishing the results allows everyone an even playing field with regards to the knowledge of what has gone before. Testing groups still have a sizable advantage in that they develop new tech at a faster pace, as well as knowledge of the intricacies of their own deck of choice. Even given decklists, a new player would be competitive, but still would be disadvantaged (and rightly so) by lack of knowledge of sideboarding options vs other decks.
Not publishing all the pertinent results skews perception of the format, gives more advantages to the testing groups and acts as a barrier to entry for the newer player of a format, who without proper knowledge, would be more loathe to enter (and invest) into an unknown.
Seriously, I'm starting to believe you're not understanding any of this on purpose. Testing groups will always have an advantage and that is well deserved. Publishing decklists limits that advantage but facilitates the participation of new and occasional players, which is good for both the game and the players. It's not new, it's not a revolutionary concept, and you might do well to study Magic's history and its evolution pre- and post-decklists publishing if you're still amazed.
"The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us."
You want decklists published in order for testing groups not to have a competitive advantage?
"I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. "
Yes I do. I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. However, when decklists are not available, as things were in the mid-nineties, you seriously limit the ability of new players or those who practice competitive play on an irregular basis to even have a chance to compete. And it's not as if this was just my personal thoughts on the matter: we've seen exactly what the game looked like without a metagame, and no, it was not interesting for a majority of us.
I don't agree with what you are saying for a second, but for the sake of argument lets just assume you are correct. Would you agree that if decklists are readily available to everyone, people belonging to testing groups still have an advantage over people not belonging to testing groups?
"Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting."
I stand by what I said. The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us.
It would make things interesting as long as you belong or do not face people who belong to quality testing groups. Players like you (and I) who only play a few events every year would get properly trounced by anyone who has the means of preparing properly. I'm not sure it would be much fun for very long.
I'd go a step further and say we naturally expected the results to remain available according to comments made by Maro in the past. It does not mean that WotC cannot change their mind, but it does mean that they should properly address why they are doing that when they have stated so clearly in the past that access to information promotes a healthy metagame.
I always wondered what that squirrel was doing with eye balls...
Fun stuff. Maybe I've been playing Gisela wrong, but I've found that she's a lightning rod and most of the time she (or I) become target number one when she hits play. Of course there are times where people can't do anything about her and you win too.
This color combo is notoriously slow. As you pointed out, Zedruu is pretty darn mana hungry. On top of that some of your main threats are pretty high in casting cost. Do you have enough mana rocks? Or are you non-aggressive enough in the early game where people give you time to set up?
You did give a general idea about how your games go through seperate statements, but a game summary or two would have been nice.
I want to suggest Maraxus of Keld but that's just mean. How about Hakim Loreweaver? I haven't gotten around to ever making a deck with him.
Wait until Friday's article, please.
Of course is strictly 1v1. I'm working with 100CS specialists (and Rex, who already knew all that!) to work out a banned list.
Since you can't set the table to Commander Legacy Tribal Wars, the Commander structure has priority, and the tribal aspect must be accommodated otherwise. The commander will not count for tribal purposes and will not necessarily be a tribal member (there will be a table showing the "allied commanders", such as any Goblin legend will be able to command an Ogre or Orc deck; Human legends will be able to command a lot of tribes, and so on; yet Human, Elf and Goblin decks will be banned).
Given the quantity of Changelings in existence, you can add up to 16 to a deck (49%) and still have it legal for your tribe, if the colors of your commander allow that; so the actual conceivable minimum is 17 tribal members (+16 Changeling + 1 nontribal commander).
I realize now that we might want to do Commander in another week rather than in your guest week for the 100th event. We're still in time to postpone it and have the #100 hosted by you be something else, even just a pure, unadulterated Tribal Wars event. Your call at this point, it's part of the celebration for your Era after all.
Thanks for the comment and the positive review Paul!
I agree that the deck draws a lot of comparisons to Infect and those comparisons are very fair.
The deck can win on Turn 2 which is pretty impressive though I'd hesitate to say it can do it consistently.
In terms of how the progress of the deck has gone, it had some early success but that seems to have waned considerably. I haven't seen much of it in the Daily results recently and I think, as I mentioned in the article, people are preferring the Infect deck over the Elemental Combo lists.
Regardless, it is still an interesting and fast deck and pretty fun to play provided your don't have to make too many mulligans.
Both very good points and ones I also raised with Blippy. Imho the brew time on this might be too short considering we don't know what is going to be required/allowed.
This basically looks and operates like Som Standard infect with some interesting additions. That it can go off turn 2 is pretty insane as there aren't many decks that can do that consistently. (Eggs?)
I was aware of the list from several friends playing it but haven't really been paying attention to its progress. Thanks for sharing.
Great to see you writing again Tarasco! Nice review. I look forward to the next one.
You know its not the size alone that bothers me but the propensity for the good cards to be in the mythic rarity and the rest to be somewhat mediocre rares and uncommons. Not saying that is the case in RTR but it felt that way with Zen and Roe. Particularly ROE. WWK as a small set felt much better designed to me and had some interesting stuff in the rares portion.
I don't really mind money grabs as long as they also work somewhat for the players too. I hated the drafting of Zen Block so that probably contributed to my overall negative impression of the set as did some of the art.
Not to say that the art was bad technically but that it had a very nasty unattractive quality. There were some exceptions. (Again mostly in WWK) The irony here is they did something evolutionary (or it could have been) with the land art (the hedrons and full art on basics) but that wasn't done again. And that was imho the most successful of the art directions goals.
As for buying boxes Im glad I stopped doing that. That is such a money sink with a fairly poor expected outcome imho. Better to play Roulette with your money. On the other hand I have put some into singles online which is something I never used to do at all.
Are you saying that 1v1 isn't the only possibility? 1v1 seemed like the only logistically feasible way. I think you might have a frustrating nightmare on your hands trying to do multiplayer tables. 1v1 is also way different in deckbuilding than multiplayer, heck you wouldn't even consider certain using aggro commanders in multiplayer that would be viable in 1v1. I'm probably only playing if it's 1v1, so I guess I'll just brew 1v1 and cross my fingers.
Since you're in charge, we also need to know, if it IS 1v1, whether the standard ban list is going to be used or a modified 1v1 ban list like the French. I was of the opinion discussing it with Kuma that the standard WotC ban list is the simplest choice and the easiest to enforce, although it has its problems in the 1v1 environment.
I hate any block with more than one big set in it, and it's now 3 out of 4 years that they've done 2 big sets in a block. Just an unabashed money grab. I think I was "spoiled" as a teenager, because there were few enough sets in 94-96 that you could reasonably keep up for awhile. There were awful sets in that space, and I'm sure the game would have died if they'd kept on being that bad, but about 2 small Alliances-caliber sets per year would have been great. Once the whole block model began, it was impossible to keep up with Type 2 and at least a bit more difficult to keep my Type 1 deck current. They could add enough interesting cards with only two small sets per year to keep the game fresh, and never print another big fall set, if nobody cared about being able to draft.
Right now, to have a decent shot at being able to build or trade for whatever I want in the first month or two of a set's release, I have to buy an additional box of any large set over what I buy of the small ones. There will be FOUR LARGE SETS in a row from AVR to M13 to RTR to GTC, that's ludicrous and if I had any paper legacy scene around me I would be out of standard in a heartbeat over this.
thanks
You can find the Grand Prix schedule here:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=grandprix/welcome
The next Legacy GP appears to be in Denver on 5th-6th January.
To find out what's going online you can go on main website, click on Digital Games in the header and then 'What's Happening?' under the Magic Online tab. From there you can access the MTGO calendar.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/digital/magiconline.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magi...
It has been brought to my attention that, as guest host of Event #100 (Tribal Commander), I get to make the calls.
The question has been raised: Does your Commander have to be a member of your tribe?
Your Commander must be a member of your tribe.
Since your Commander deck must also be Legacy Tribal Wars legal in "unsideboarded form", a 100 card deck must have a minimum of 34 tribal members.
Table structure is as yet undetermined. The options are "group tables" and "1v1 tables". Answer on this by end of Event #99.
More details as they come.
I witnessed AJ's feat of double achievements in one game on back to back turns. And then I got to keep him from doing it in our first game. I missed an opportunity to shut him out in game two via Wasteland vs his Supprazen Skerry. I believe he would have had to wait another two turns to go off (at least) by which time I think I had the game. However our games were his only defeat of the day as he went 2-1 thus winning some of the prize pool + the achievements.
QotW: Honestly I'd rather each set be smaller and better designed than have 2 big ones vs one small. But big sets are important I guess to distribute those ever popular and pricy Mythics which drive pack sales. Less mythics to collect mean less packs opened.
I have to say I hated the Zen-Roe block so RGD (or DGR) can't possibly be worse.
Hi, when is Legacy GP?
..and where do you check upcoming big events, either online or paper tournaments?
Ya I'm of the same view, all this does is advantage playtest groups and hardcore grinders over the more casual or individual player, who is already disadvantaged enough. Easily accessible information is critical to fair competition.
I agree with Alphi here.
Publishing the results allows everyone an even playing field with regards to the knowledge of what has gone before. Testing groups still have a sizable advantage in that they develop new tech at a faster pace, as well as knowledge of the intricacies of their own deck of choice. Even given decklists, a new player would be competitive, but still would be disadvantaged (and rightly so) by lack of knowledge of sideboarding options vs other decks.
Not publishing all the pertinent results skews perception of the format, gives more advantages to the testing groups and acts as a barrier to entry for the newer player of a format, who without proper knowledge, would be more loathe to enter (and invest) into an unknown.
Seriously, I'm starting to believe you're not understanding any of this on purpose. Testing groups will always have an advantage and that is well deserved. Publishing decklists limits that advantage but facilitates the participation of new and occasional players, which is good for both the game and the players. It's not new, it's not a revolutionary concept, and you might do well to study Magic's history and its evolution pre- and post-decklists publishing if you're still amazed.
"The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us."
You want decklists published in order for testing groups not to have a competitive advantage?
"I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. "
Testing groups deserve a competitive advantage?
Yes I do. I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. However, when decklists are not available, as things were in the mid-nineties, you seriously limit the ability of new players or those who practice competitive play on an irregular basis to even have a chance to compete. And it's not as if this was just my personal thoughts on the matter: we've seen exactly what the game looked like without a metagame, and no, it was not interesting for a majority of us.
I don't agree with what you are saying for a second, but for the sake of argument lets just assume you are correct. Would you agree that if decklists are readily available to everyone, people belonging to testing groups still have an advantage over people not belonging to testing groups?
"Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting."
I stand by what I said. The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us.
That's a hefty assumption. You should probably reread what I wrote.
It would make things interesting as long as you belong or do not face people who belong to quality testing groups. Players like you (and I) who only play a few events every year would get properly trounced by anyone who has the means of preparing properly. I'm not sure it would be much fun for very long.
I'd go a step further and say we naturally expected the results to remain available according to comments made by Maro in the past. It does not mean that WotC cannot change their mind, but it does mean that they should properly address why they are doing that when they have stated so clearly in the past that access to information promotes a healthy metagame.