It's still a slightly overcomplicated build that in the end doesn't really work (it managed to win just once), but sure it's great. We had 3 different builds with Elders, and Elder again the following week, so I'm very happy with this. Hope to see good Kirin decks now. They deserve the love more than any clunker from Legends (which, all in all, is one of the worst sets Wizards ever made).
You nailed what Pauper Tribal would be, especially with the current set of players (which, don't get me wrong, are truly great, but sure most of them aren't guys with the "Just for Fun" mindset. These days you don't find Just for Fun decks in the Just for Fun room too, so go figure).
I'm writing down the article with my proposals now, and sure for Fattie Week there will be a list of tribes, and specific banned cards to add to the current bannings (so, the Trifecta of Doom will still have to watch the event from the bench).
I'd prefer not to steal (err, borrow) anything from Chaos. Like you said, they also tend to be ideas more suitable for once-in-a-lifetime Very Special Events than for a recurring, established thing.
Buy ISD packs since it is dirt cheap right now due to cube draft prize payout. Once the new set is out, prize payout will change and ISD packs will be in demand later.
I am 100% certain that modern tribal would rule out legacy shoe horns which by itself is worth seeing.
Standard Tribal was never very exciting to me but it does have variety. There are some surprisingly strong decks you can build with tribes other than Myr, Elves and Goblins in the format. Unfortunately that doesn't make the format less boring. just saying its not as homogenous as you'd think.
Pauper seems like an invitation to sharks far and wide. Chum is in the waters! Feeding time!
100 card Singleton Tribal wars was something I suggested way back and was poopoohed for the reasons you state about standard (not enough variety, etc since you have to play with at least 34 creatures of the same tribe. 60 card singleton would be similar if only 2/3 as rough to find tribes for.) That said I am game. It seems like a reasonable stricture if you are hoping to make a fun event. Keeping mind that NO event worth prizes will be "Just For Fun."
If you want ideas for unique weeks you could check out the insanely long chaos edh thread in the forums. Every week (except the first which is pauper commander) is a new stricture. Usually only used once or as a holiday special and then discard. Plenty of fodder for creative minds.
I expect a lot of show and tell/sneak attack Emrakul style decks (even if Emrakul remains banned for it)) in the fatties event. Unless you make specific rules banning certain cheats (mana walls, elves, sneak attack, show and tell, vial, living death/end etc.) In which case it might be fun or it might not. Might be better to create a very specific list of tribes allowed.
the build for the elder deck is pretty awesome. i admire players with really awesome creativity. you should have given him a bit more kudos for that build since it was your challenge. perhaps a little more attention should be payed next time if your to keep issuing challenges. its a bit more entertaining to me, and i'm sure a few others than someone's take on dragonstorm/cephalid breakfast etc.
Ok I'll admit Slivers slipped past me on the t3 comment, but I don't think fae is as junk as you believe... it is slowed, but can easily hit into black with teachings and dreamspoilers
Ok, I kinda get that Endangered has become a little boring, like I was thinking.
I (and especially Blippy, I believe) am taking note of the suggestions, but I have to say that applying any of the usual formats (Modern, Standard, Pauper) to Tribal isn't going to be worth it. Modern would be barely different than regular weeks; Standard would make for a tournament where everyone plays the same 2-3 tribes, and this is like the definition of what you DON'T want for a meta to be, if you want it to be fun. The Pauper issues have been noted in the comments, and I don't know if going Pauper and banning all the strong tribes will be conceptually so different than Endangered.
I would like better a unique format restriction. I agree with Blippy that Duel Weeks should be Very Special Events only - they're also hard to build, and what we're talking about here is something that you should be able to easily explain to a new player who comes without reading the announcement. So nothing too arcane, like "you need two decks, one with Angels, one with Demons, and there's a bunch of banned cards".
Actually, the first, very simple, very popular thing that I could think about would be "No Elf no Goblin Week". Maybe with a cool name, and including Human too, to take out the usual suspects every other month.
There's also just singleton (either 100-card or regular) which might be fun.
And I think Fattie Week (which we will have later this year) might turn up as a fun event.
>> I think you are misconstruing or misreading what has been written. No one has stated that everyone reacts the same way to negative criticism. (Though there is a strong difference between critique and criticism here.) I think you are not getting the main message.
In my first reply I was adressing char49d comment about human nature. He said: "Nobody is going to read that and take it to heart..." which I think is just false. IMO, Karazorel's response here doesn't even qualify as an average reaction people will have to such criticism, let alone universal one.
In my second reply, I was replying to Karazorel's statement about how "no amount of constructive criticism will be listened to if it follows an unwarranted assault upon someone's character" which, again, is false.
In those statements, there seems to be a clear message that everyone would be very offended by such criticism and wouldn't take anything out of it. But maybe I haven't interpreted those statements charitably enough. Maybe they mean something along the lines of "average person is more likely to be offended and consequentially ignore the content if you form your criticism the way that GP did as opposed if you present your content in more polite way" in which case I obviously agree.
I think I get the main message of people who criticize the critic here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it consists of a descriptive part which can be summarized roughly as a following statement: "Your criticism is not optimal if you want to increase the likelihood of author's positive reception to the criticism," with which I agree, and a normative part: "You *should* be forming your criticism in a way that will increase the likelihood of author's positive reception to the criticism" with which I don't agree. I don't think critic should necessarily be a pedagog. Being insulting to an author, if that's what you feel about him or his work, is a legitimate way of making a critique, even at the expense of increasing the chances of alienating said author.
>> GP went for an attack approach in his criticism because he (said he) was offended by what he perceived as a cash grab by someone he doesn't respect. This triggered a flame war that imho was unnecessary and somewhat invalidates his points in the author's eyes, because 'fragile' or no very few people will stand for being openly insulted.
I think more than "very few people" would react reasonably to GP's criticism. At least I hope so.
>> Someone virtually smashing your face in the mud and telling you "bad dog!!!" isn't conducive to learning. Tell me if you have an experience like that and actually learn something besides contempt/fear/anger for the doer. I will be interested in hearing about your experiences and gut reactions.
Well, scenario in your analogy (however bad it is) is actually pretty conductive to learning. Conditioning through inducing fear/punishing is quite effective way of teaching (though probably not optimal).
But this is not RL and tactics like this don't have the same effect here (for better or for worse). So making an analogy like this adds nothing to the argument. It's irrelevant how I would respond to such treatment, when I already told how I would respond to the actual criticism that was made ITT.
>> Was I condescending to him? Did I put him down or insult him when I censured his methods? No. Your perception of that is beyond me. As far as preventing rudeness, this is the internet. That seems to fairly impossible as many posters hide behind a pseudonym and apparent anonymity. I wouldn't even begin to suggest that we could accomplish that. (Though I guess one could hope?)
I didn't said *you* was condescending to *him*. I addresed general sentiment about how such criticism is bad because poor author is unable to look past insults to see the content and can't help but to be offended. This is very condescending to *Karazorel* (not to GP). I would much prefer to be condescended through a direct critique, than through a bunch of White Knights effectively telling a critic that he should stop being so rude because I can't rationally process the contents of his post if there are insults in the mix.
>>I do suggest that there are better ways to get a message across especially when someone like GP (long time reader/poster) has such a fountain of ideas waiting to be expressed. Kara, imho SHOULD read his critique and just ignore the insults and focus on his very good points. They could learn a lot. However, it is understandable if they don't.
Agree with all points here, even about the fact that it's understandable if they don't learn a lot from such criticism. It's a fact of life that quite a few people are prone to react this way.
>>As far as Kara's maturity is concerned that is neither here nor there. Calling someone childish is generally considered to be an insult so I guess that was your aim, but even if it is a perfectly true statement (and I am inclined to think not entirely), that is way beyond the scope of a simple comments section of an article. Saying that just means you don't respect their feelings. *shrugs*?
It wasn't meant to be so much of an insult (though it definitely had a small element of a "diss" - I was quite annoyed by her reaction to the criticism). Mainly, it was a sincere opinion on her response.
I don't understand how calling someone "childish" is way beyond the scope of a comments section of an article.
"Calling a person childish means you don't respect her feelings" is a non sequitur. You can respect person's feelings and still call her actions "childish", "arrogant", "bad" etc. I have nothing against Karazorel - this is the first time that I saw something from her that "bothered me". I was negatively surprised by the way in which she handled criticism.
>> As a writer, on a personal level I do embrace the comments of others, both negative and positive. And I have been fortunate enough to garner great comments of both schools from the posters on puremtgo. I think it is a difficult thing for any artist/writer/whathaveyou to separate their ego from their art. I agree with you that it is desirable to do so. When it is achieved we learn a lot from our audience. Before that? Perhaps not so much.
I am also more interested in in-depth commentary rather than the simpler "Great Article" or "This sucks!" stuff. It seems much harder to draw anything positive from short pithy statements. Though of course a sincere compliment does usually feed the ego. But that said, again everyone reacts differently as you point out. And no reaction is invalid here except bringing flames.
Agreed.
>> In re: "The Golden Rule" aka "if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all." I am sure many people do adopt that because they don't really care. I think at the very least GP shows he cares (if a bit awkwardly) by fixing his initial commentary to be more in-depth. But on the same foot he could have left out the deliberate attacks and had twice as powerful a statement.
This comes down to "how should a critic formulate his criticism" and I think there are many legitimate approaches. I can imagine a very good critique that is for example both very respectful and sharp, and a very good critique that is very insulting and personally invested. I don't think critic should necessarily have to form his critique in a way to decrease the likelihood of pissing off an author. But if that was his intention (it wasn't), then he obviously failed.
MUC/Delver Blue/Faeries is the top deck in the format for sure. The difference is that it doesn't play anywhere close to 20 faeries. The for sure played ones are Cloud of Faeries and Spellstutter Sprite with the very rarely played Pesetermite, and Weatherseed Faeries sometimes in the sideboard. To make it a tribal deck will have to have some junk filler faeries. Goblins, Elves, Slivers would not even have to alter the list.
Yeah, I think it would work a whole lot better if left out the top three. At that point the closest people could do to a tournament deck is either making mono black rats or mono blue faeries. With having to put in 20 tribal members (tournament rats plays 14 generally and mono blue plays 8 faeries usually) it should weaken these decks enough that can not just have tournament decks put into tribal. Both mono black rats and mono blue aggro also have a lot of their tournament success on beating up combo decks, so I wouldn't be to worried about them running over tribal.
Thanks a lot for the comment. Yeah, Swiss is starting to sound better and better. I've just had so much bad luck lately in the 8-4's. I actually ended up losing second round in that draft we were in today. Just got mana screwed 2 of 3 games and couldn't get the win.
I did manage to get into one Cube draft and am working on getting it posted right now. It's a great format but I haven't played with a lot of the cards. So it's very difficult for me to decide on picks. But it's still really cool playing with some of the most powerful cards ever printed.
I hope we get to draft together again soon, but next time lets meet in the finals.
Standard could be nice, although would be a whole lot of people playing each of the ISD tribes. Silverblack could be good too. There are a lot of fun uncommon lords in different tribes now.
As someone who plays to much Pauper, I really don't think it would work out into a fun Tribal Event. Goblins are top of the line Pauper deck deck, with Elves and Slivers clearly being the next two most powerful tribes. Some of the other tribes that can be made into a somewhat decent deck are Rats, Faeries, Rogues, Humans, or Rebels. Any of these will get run over by someone just grabbing a tribal list from one of the top few tribes from the event results. It would only multiply the situation of people being sick of Elves and Goblins.
Standard Tribal Wars would be easy enough; there's a filter.
Pauper, and SilverBlack should be reasonably easy, as well.
Dunno about BYOS, seems like a lot of work for me, validating decklists. I'm a lazy cus.
I'd kind of like to keep "duel" events (like Elves vs Goblins) as "specialty events", Event #75 is coming up...
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one 350-050 642-741 650-393 HP2-E45 642-637 156-215.71
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one HP0-D13 642-165 650-378 70-433 OG0-093 1z0-051
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one 1Y0-A15 HP2-E47 000-107 1z0-058 HIT-001 70-648
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one 642-374 646-364 70-515 1z0-052 642-447 000-969
I can put you in the US Event, it's up to _Kumagoro_ to get you into the Euro Event. I'll put your name on there for him to add.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhLez4zEwHkIdHFTdnlsY25LVmh...
I would like to pre-register to both US and Euro event (if it is possible to pre-register to the latter through comments).
what a unique yet unsurprising response. i love boys that float away strung to their own opinions :) good luck with your next challenge
Pauper tribal would be great, limiting some tribes as goblins.
Hey, I paid 1 tix to the guy! :)
It's still a slightly overcomplicated build that in the end doesn't really work (it managed to win just once), but sure it's great. We had 3 different builds with Elders, and Elder again the following week, so I'm very happy with this. Hope to see good Kirin decks now. They deserve the love more than any clunker from Legends (which, all in all, is one of the worst sets Wizards ever made).
You nailed what Pauper Tribal would be, especially with the current set of players (which, don't get me wrong, are truly great, but sure most of them aren't guys with the "Just for Fun" mindset. These days you don't find Just for Fun decks in the Just for Fun room too, so go figure).
I'm writing down the article with my proposals now, and sure for Fattie Week there will be a list of tribes, and specific banned cards to add to the current bannings (so, the Trifecta of Doom will still have to watch the event from the bench).
I'd prefer not to steal (err, borrow) anything from Chaos. Like you said, they also tend to be ideas more suitable for once-in-a-lifetime Very Special Events than for a recurring, established thing.
Buy ISD packs since it is dirt cheap right now due to cube draft prize payout. Once the new set is out, prize payout will change and ISD packs will be in demand later.
I am 100% certain that modern tribal would rule out legacy shoe horns which by itself is worth seeing.
Standard Tribal was never very exciting to me but it does have variety. There are some surprisingly strong decks you can build with tribes other than Myr, Elves and Goblins in the format. Unfortunately that doesn't make the format less boring. just saying its not as homogenous as you'd think.
Pauper seems like an invitation to sharks far and wide. Chum is in the waters! Feeding time!
100 card Singleton Tribal wars was something I suggested way back and was poopoohed for the reasons you state about standard (not enough variety, etc since you have to play with at least 34 creatures of the same tribe. 60 card singleton would be similar if only 2/3 as rough to find tribes for.) That said I am game. It seems like a reasonable stricture if you are hoping to make a fun event. Keeping mind that NO event worth prizes will be "Just For Fun."
If you want ideas for unique weeks you could check out the insanely long chaos edh thread in the forums. Every week (except the first which is pauper commander) is a new stricture. Usually only used once or as a holiday special and then discard. Plenty of fodder for creative minds.
I expect a lot of show and tell/sneak attack Emrakul style decks (even if Emrakul remains banned for it)) in the fatties event. Unless you make specific rules banning certain cheats (mana walls, elves, sneak attack, show and tell, vial, living death/end etc.) In which case it might be fun or it might not. Might be better to create a very specific list of tribes allowed.
the build for the elder deck is pretty awesome. i admire players with really awesome creativity. you should have given him a bit more kudos for that build since it was your challenge. perhaps a little more attention should be payed next time if your to keep issuing challenges. its a bit more entertaining to me, and i'm sure a few others than someone's take on dragonstorm/cephalid breakfast etc.
I think singleton is a cool idea
Ok I'll admit Slivers slipped past me on the t3 comment, but I don't think fae is as junk as you believe... it is slowed, but can easily hit into black with teachings and dreamspoilers
Ok, I kinda get that Endangered has become a little boring, like I was thinking.
I (and especially Blippy, I believe) am taking note of the suggestions, but I have to say that applying any of the usual formats (Modern, Standard, Pauper) to Tribal isn't going to be worth it. Modern would be barely different than regular weeks; Standard would make for a tournament where everyone plays the same 2-3 tribes, and this is like the definition of what you DON'T want for a meta to be, if you want it to be fun. The Pauper issues have been noted in the comments, and I don't know if going Pauper and banning all the strong tribes will be conceptually so different than Endangered.
I would like better a unique format restriction. I agree with Blippy that Duel Weeks should be Very Special Events only - they're also hard to build, and what we're talking about here is something that you should be able to easily explain to a new player who comes without reading the announcement. So nothing too arcane, like "you need two decks, one with Angels, one with Demons, and there's a bunch of banned cards".
Actually, the first, very simple, very popular thing that I could think about would be "No Elf no Goblin Week". Maybe with a cool name, and including Human too, to take out the usual suspects every other month.
There's also just singleton (either 100-card or regular) which might be fun.
And I think Fattie Week (which we will have later this year) might turn up as a fun event.
>> I think you are misconstruing or misreading what has been written. No one has stated that everyone reacts the same way to negative criticism. (Though there is a strong difference between critique and criticism here.) I think you are not getting the main message.
In my first reply I was adressing char49d comment about human nature. He said: "Nobody is going to read that and take it to heart..." which I think is just false. IMO, Karazorel's response here doesn't even qualify as an average reaction people will have to such criticism, let alone universal one.
In my second reply, I was replying to Karazorel's statement about how "no amount of constructive criticism will be listened to if it follows an unwarranted assault upon someone's character" which, again, is false.
In those statements, there seems to be a clear message that everyone would be very offended by such criticism and wouldn't take anything out of it. But maybe I haven't interpreted those statements charitably enough. Maybe they mean something along the lines of "average person is more likely to be offended and consequentially ignore the content if you form your criticism the way that GP did as opposed if you present your content in more polite way" in which case I obviously agree.
I think I get the main message of people who criticize the critic here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it consists of a descriptive part which can be summarized roughly as a following statement: "Your criticism is not optimal if you want to increase the likelihood of author's positive reception to the criticism," with which I agree, and a normative part: "You *should* be forming your criticism in a way that will increase the likelihood of author's positive reception to the criticism" with which I don't agree. I don't think critic should necessarily be a pedagog. Being insulting to an author, if that's what you feel about him or his work, is a legitimate way of making a critique, even at the expense of increasing the chances of alienating said author.
>> GP went for an attack approach in his criticism because he (said he) was offended by what he perceived as a cash grab by someone he doesn't respect. This triggered a flame war that imho was unnecessary and somewhat invalidates his points in the author's eyes, because 'fragile' or no very few people will stand for being openly insulted.
I think more than "very few people" would react reasonably to GP's criticism. At least I hope so.
>> Someone virtually smashing your face in the mud and telling you "bad dog!!!" isn't conducive to learning. Tell me if you have an experience like that and actually learn something besides contempt/fear/anger for the doer. I will be interested in hearing about your experiences and gut reactions.
Well, scenario in your analogy (however bad it is) is actually pretty conductive to learning. Conditioning through inducing fear/punishing is quite effective way of teaching (though probably not optimal).
But this is not RL and tactics like this don't have the same effect here (for better or for worse). So making an analogy like this adds nothing to the argument. It's irrelevant how I would respond to such treatment, when I already told how I would respond to the actual criticism that was made ITT.
>> Was I condescending to him? Did I put him down or insult him when I censured his methods? No. Your perception of that is beyond me. As far as preventing rudeness, this is the internet. That seems to fairly impossible as many posters hide behind a pseudonym and apparent anonymity. I wouldn't even begin to suggest that we could accomplish that. (Though I guess one could hope?)
I didn't said *you* was condescending to *him*. I addresed general sentiment about how such criticism is bad because poor author is unable to look past insults to see the content and can't help but to be offended. This is very condescending to *Karazorel* (not to GP). I would much prefer to be condescended through a direct critique, than through a bunch of White Knights effectively telling a critic that he should stop being so rude because I can't rationally process the contents of his post if there are insults in the mix.
>>I do suggest that there are better ways to get a message across especially when someone like GP (long time reader/poster) has such a fountain of ideas waiting to be expressed. Kara, imho SHOULD read his critique and just ignore the insults and focus on his very good points. They could learn a lot. However, it is understandable if they don't.
Agree with all points here, even about the fact that it's understandable if they don't learn a lot from such criticism. It's a fact of life that quite a few people are prone to react this way.
>>As far as Kara's maturity is concerned that is neither here nor there. Calling someone childish is generally considered to be an insult so I guess that was your aim, but even if it is a perfectly true statement (and I am inclined to think not entirely), that is way beyond the scope of a simple comments section of an article. Saying that just means you don't respect their feelings. *shrugs*?
It wasn't meant to be so much of an insult (though it definitely had a small element of a "diss" - I was quite annoyed by her reaction to the criticism). Mainly, it was a sincere opinion on her response.
I don't understand how calling someone "childish" is way beyond the scope of a comments section of an article.
"Calling a person childish means you don't respect her feelings" is a non sequitur. You can respect person's feelings and still call her actions "childish", "arrogant", "bad" etc. I have nothing against Karazorel - this is the first time that I saw something from her that "bothered me". I was negatively surprised by the way in which she handled criticism.
>> As a writer, on a personal level I do embrace the comments of others, both negative and positive. And I have been fortunate enough to garner great comments of both schools from the posters on puremtgo. I think it is a difficult thing for any artist/writer/whathaveyou to separate their ego from their art. I agree with you that it is desirable to do so. When it is achieved we learn a lot from our audience. Before that? Perhaps not so much.
I am also more interested in in-depth commentary rather than the simpler "Great Article" or "This sucks!" stuff. It seems much harder to draw anything positive from short pithy statements. Though of course a sincere compliment does usually feed the ego. But that said, again everyone reacts differently as you point out. And no reaction is invalid here except bringing flames.
Agreed.
>> In re: "The Golden Rule" aka "if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all." I am sure many people do adopt that because they don't really care. I think at the very least GP shows he cares (if a bit awkwardly) by fixing his initial commentary to be more in-depth. But on the same foot he could have left out the deliberate attacks and had twice as powerful a statement.
This comes down to "how should a critic formulate his criticism" and I think there are many legitimate approaches. I can imagine a very good critique that is for example both very respectful and sharp, and a very good critique that is very insulting and personally invested. I don't think critic should necessarily have to form his critique in a way to decrease the likelihood of pissing off an author. But if that was his intention (it wasn't), then he obviously failed.
MUC/Delver Blue/Faeries is the top deck in the format for sure. The difference is that it doesn't play anywhere close to 20 faeries. The for sure played ones are Cloud of Faeries and Spellstutter Sprite with the very rarely played Pesetermite, and Weatherseed Faeries sometimes in the sideboard. To make it a tribal deck will have to have some junk filler faeries. Goblins, Elves, Slivers would not even have to alter the list.
faeries isn't in the top three?...
Nice to see tribes still going, makes me sad i sold off my collection
oh well keep up the good work might have to make a new account to play
Yeah, I think it would work a whole lot better if left out the top three. At that point the closest people could do to a tournament deck is either making mono black rats or mono blue faeries. With having to put in 20 tribal members (tournament rats plays 14 generally and mono blue plays 8 faeries usually) it should weaken these decks enough that can not just have tournament decks put into tribal. Both mono black rats and mono blue aggro also have a lot of their tournament success on beating up combo decks, so I wouldn't be to worried about them running over tribal.
Thanks a lot for the comment. Yeah, Swiss is starting to sound better and better. I've just had so much bad luck lately in the 8-4's. I actually ended up losing second round in that draft we were in today. Just got mana screwed 2 of 3 games and couldn't get the win.
I did manage to get into one Cube draft and am working on getting it posted right now. It's a great format but I haven't played with a lot of the cards. So it's very difficult for me to decide on picks. But it's still really cool playing with some of the most powerful cards ever printed.
I hope we get to draft together again soon, but next time lets meet in the finals.
How about Pauper deliberately excluding the three main offenders? Would that be viable?
Standard could be nice, although would be a whole lot of people playing each of the ISD tribes. Silverblack could be good too. There are a lot of fun uncommon lords in different tribes now.
As someone who plays to much Pauper, I really don't think it would work out into a fun Tribal Event. Goblins are top of the line Pauper deck deck, with Elves and Slivers clearly being the next two most powerful tribes. Some of the other tribes that can be made into a somewhat decent deck are Rats, Faeries, Rogues, Humans, or Rebels. Any of these will get run over by someone just grabbing a tribal list from one of the top few tribes from the event results. It would only multiply the situation of people being sick of Elves and Goblins.
Standard Tribal Wars would be easy enough; there's a filter.
Pauper, and SilverBlack should be reasonably easy, as well.
Dunno about BYOS, seems like a lot of work for me, validating decklists. I'm a lazy cus.
I'd kind of like to keep "duel" events (like Elves vs Goblins) as "specialty events", Event #75 is coming up...
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one
350-050
642-741
650-393
HP2-E45
642-637
156-215.71
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one
HP0-D13
642-165
650-378
70-433
OG0-093
1z0-051
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one
1Y0-A15
HP2-E47
000-107
1z0-058
HIT-001
70-648
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one
642-374
646-364
70-515
1z0-052
642-447
000-969