The difference is Split Second. Against Infect is 1 for 3 in Blighted Agent, Blazing Shoal, and the card pitched to Shoal, unless it is turn 1 Inkmoth Nexus. If your opponent does not have Shoal on turn 3 keep your mana open if you have Sudden Shock. Ok to take a few hits. If you do not have it don't try to bluff, just try to expand your mana and build your board.
Hey man,first of all i would like to tell you that this is the first time i am seeing any of your article ,i saw all the videos and liked it but i would like to appreciates one more ting that it is the only blog where the author has replied back to almost all the comments ,really difficult so hats off,waiting for reply to mine comments as well
This online gambling australia this is the most effective that generally there is for blackjack and also the site noises help you feel as if you are playing inside of a true kasi no.
Thank you for your suggestion, I do believe though, that it won't be much different than Lightning Burst. Every time I drew one I wished it could deal 1 more dam.
Anyway, I don't remember if I mentioned in the article but I think I'll try running Shattering Spree in the SB should I see much affinity in the TP room after the RGD drafts are out.
There was an article by someone on SCG that helped test sams match up. It may have been drew levin. They came to the conclusion that sam was in dire straights, they lost 10 straight postboard games when they were on the play, and only lost 6 games of 10 when they were on the draw. The match up was very grindy and having that 1 extra card was the difference they needed to get sam 2 wins at all in the top 8 against josh.
I also loved the antoni de rosa's deck. i would prolly play it in modern if i had the cards.
liked this article a lot guy, and i feel like you redeemed your self from the 4 paragraph counter top deck.
lucindo is blocked becasue he is a poor sport and a cry baby, i listeneted to him complain 1 too many times that i was a luck sack and bad player, when i played legacy more regularly.
Man what a grind these matches were too, ill agree to that. Not sure if its the deck i played, the match ups, or just cause im not familiar with the format.
Jake corrected this in at least the final game, but if you have 3+ bounce lands in RGD you should almost always play first so that you don't have to discard do to bounce lands. No point in giving up tempo to gain a card if you have to give it right back by discarding.
For at least the last year they only compensate you the cost of the draft less any winnings - which is super irritating, especially when things screw up in a the top of of an event.
The lands that didn't get used went down (particularly compare Underground Sea with Watery Grave). Cloudpost is one of the top decks, not a single top deck.
Regardless, I *would* be much happier playing Modern over Legacy if only the ban list of Modern wasn't so arbitrary. It is not based on power level at all. I'll see soon if they change that.
I don't think combo decks want to run Jace - even Splinter Twin, which is rather more controlling than the other UR combos is unlikely to want it. Even if they do, the Mind Sculptor has proven to be not overpowered in a format where games finish turn 3 often. Even Stoneforge should come off based on power level, even when it goes right it is just a turn 3 4/4 lifelink vigilance swinging on turn 4. Compare that to several - or indeed, arbitrarily large number - of tokens swinging on turn 3 or 4 (from Empty the Warrens on turn 2 or 3, or Splinter Twin on turn 4). But I don't mind too much if Stoneforge stays banned for a while longer to see if people stop judging Modern power levels based on either Standard or Legacy performances (the lack of FoW etc. changes a lot).
I think that there is no reason whatsoever to leave a lot of cards in the ban list, and I think that the format can have a healthy representation of all 3 major archetypes with just unbanning stuff and that is what I defend. Just as we had in Overextended, even with Stoneforge and Jace control wasn't dominating, there was plenty of Aggro and Combo doing well. If WotC decides to not unban any control cards I will know this format is not for me.
As a "proof" that Overextended was extremely relevant, people that knew Overextended were able to very reasonably predict the metagame before the PT. There are some slight variations but it was pretty much correct: 12-post, UR combo, anti-combo Zoo and little control.
I personally didn't expect Splinter Twin to show up as better than the red ritual based combos, but I also didn't fully expect that the format would be SO combo dominated with SO little control - and Twin as a more "control-combo" benefits against the other combos I guess. There was even a Blazing Shoal deck (not nearly as tuned as Sam's) in Overextended as well. I actually said that Zoo was going to go more anti-combo, but I imagined more Canonists, Teegs and other creature hate instead of outright permission or Rule of Law - but that is what seems to work better (and a strong sign that a true blue permission deck should be allowed to power-up with Jace and Vision as options at least).
Finally I'm not sure the pros generally liked the format that much as there are several comments that make me think the opposite - particularly articles (that include Zvi's on SCG) arguing for changes to the ban list.
"However, I do find some entertainment in correcting your mistakes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies"
okay then...
"Apparently, the perception is that because we are writing that we are pros with endless Magic income."
you responded
"Please use specific quotes. Nobody said anything of the sort."
I never even implied anything like this was said. "Apparently" and "perception" refer to inferences that I made based on your original post, which said this:
"Why is it the majority of writers on this site can't afford to build tier 1 decks?"
I made the only logical inference from this very judgmental post, in my opinion.
So there you go, I used specific quotes. Thanks for inviting me to this "tod did" consortium...
Ahoy-hoy. I have been playing with this deck quite a bit on MODO over the last week or so (I had most of the cards lying around from an old block deck), and feel like I can offer a couple of neat ideas which have tested well for me in the TP room (I don't have my decklist on me, but I might post it up later).
Firstly; I've also cut the fauna shamans, and as a result, I like a singleton spitebellows in the maindeck. It's not a good card, but allowing flamekin harbinger to tutor up a removal spell has been really useful for me, and I feel like this is better than adding black for shriekmaw.
Secondly; I have 3 vithian renegades and one ingot chewer in the sideboard. The renegades obviously have better synergy with the deck as a whole, but again, harbinger's tutoring feels like something we can take more advantage of than just mindlessly getting rage-forger every time.
Thirdly; for the same reasons, I'm going to try 1 fulminator mage and 3 goblin ruinblasters.
Fourthly; I'm convinced that burning-tree shaman is pretty nuts. It's awesome against splinter twin, surprisingly good against affinity, and a big body for it's cost. Notably, it's the only shaman naturally bigger than a wild nacatl.
Fifthly; seal of fire out of the sideboard is very good against the infect shoal decks, 'though I still don't feel like we're winning many against that deck. Dismember might be worth testing, as it's good against twin and shoal-infect.
Sixthly; I have you to thank for the idea of running skinshifter in this deck. I am beginning to think that it is actually the best card in the deck, and I've won plenty of games through it. I've beaten shoal-infect a couple of times through pilots failing to notice my shifter could turn into a bird!
Seventhly; I was very dubious of your running Elvish visionary, but once you play this deck for a while, you realise that the win condition is more of a rage-forger combo-kill than anything, and the visionary is actually perfect for that.
I thought nobody played Legacy any more. Aren't they all much happier playing real dual land prices for faux dual lands and then losing to cloudpost.dec anyway these days?
So . . . what's the deal with the Lucindo block? LOL
Actually, although I haven't played Legacy in ages, I still got a kick out of these videos. They seem so darned grindy, though.
It should be noted, that if you subscribe to Whiffy's Youtube channel, you can see the videos ahead of time. =D Hence my comment is faster than the video length.
That happened to me last week in one of my last Urzas drafts. I got compensated, but not much because I won 3 packs in the draft. I thought they used to compensate the full price no matter how much you won. Maybe I've forgotten or they are getting stingy.
"As I understood it, one of the main reasons you built this deck was because you couldn't afford any of the big money cards in the format"
As I said in my other comment, I can afford them but don't want to because Magic is a game; we agree that is a great one, but still a game so I don't feel like spending more for it than I do to eat. I have a budget reserved for Magic and try to do the best with it.
And since you are at it, I used the word "afford" once in the entire article and then always said I'm not WILLING to spend that much, so if you want to quote me at least do it right, thanks.
"Where did I, or anyone else for that matter, ask anything about what you WANT to build?"
Your question implied that I couldn't afford tier 1 cards so I corrected you.
"You even boasted about your fair share of wins. I think it is safe to assume you are "into playing constructed"
Wrong twice again; first of all I did not boast, I just stated it because it's just true (and I remember even implying that I myself was surprised about it).
Second, enjoying constructed play and getting excited about constructed at some points does not mean I'm into it. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one, which is: sometimes I enjoy playing constructed.
"B) Does your family have to be rich to own/play with a tier 1 deck?
C) A lot of competitive players don't have expenses too?
D) You may need to pay for something else...don't we all?"
Although retorical, I will answer anyway.
No, yes, yes.
The difference is that other people devote to Magic a budget bigger than I do. If I would and then something happened in my real life so that I had to spend a consistent sum of money I would be forced to ask my parents for help (even if temporary) and I don't want to. Hence the comment about them.
"Excuse me if I'm just tired of writers here going through the winning Daily Events decks, picking out the cheapest deck, and tossing together a half ass deck, and then writing about it. It isn't everyone, but it has been done here to death. I think I am afforded the right to have the opinion that I would prefer a writer who maybe has saved their limited money for months, and built something that actually competes with a field."
First of all, I write about Magic because I like Magic and if puremtgo (who "pays" me for it) would deem my articles not worth publishing because I'm too inexperienced, they have all the rights not to (they did in the past and was totally fine with it), so if they publish me they think it's worthy of their credit.
Second, there is a weapon against what you describe, it's called constructive criticism.
Posts like your first one, just qualifies the writer as troll.
Well thank you. My next article is more in-depth on how to figure out how to speculate on your own. It basically lays out how to track prices, movement, and stuff like that. It also shows you how to find cards to look for, and things like that.
I also love cheap decks, and my next article talks about the rebirth of white weenie, which is like $2 at the lowest. And that may be high. But it's still playable for a low price, and get it right, it may by tournament playable.
Nice and gets me thinking. I'm a new player (played real life back in revised days, sold up and just got back in now 15+ years later) so this type of article is perfect. I also mostly play Standard, but dabble in Classic because I got some fun 1-off mythics, but usually get my rear-end handed to me. My attitude to MTGO is casual, I love drafting and I start to form decks based on fun cards, so I have lots of different decks with none of them being killer or tournament ready but I have fun playing.
So I'm definitely your target audience in regards to the cost-level your talking about. When I'm trading or buying, I'm rarely looking for anything over a 0.5 ticket cost.
Whats your thoughts on FTV: Legends in terms of speculation? You could say this is my first speculative attempt, I wanted a chance to play these in-game-changing cards with a view to shift them off once it's no longer purchasable. Looking at shops & bots I've already made my cash/tix back, but they are also at zero stock so I have no idea what the "real" value is. I don't mind if I do loose out a bit because I will get some months enjoying them for play... I notice FTV: Dragon's isn't worth much, but I guess that Legends are more functional.
Another thing I like about Innistrad, and I'll be watching how this effects current card prices, is that tribes often stuck to 1 colour is now splashing out. I've seen red Vampires and blue Zombies, this is going to give those tribes a much broader play-style appeal - and raise those prices?
Will try it out, thanks.
The difference is Split Second. Against Infect is 1 for 3 in Blighted Agent, Blazing Shoal, and the card pitched to Shoal, unless it is turn 1 Inkmoth Nexus. If your opponent does not have Shoal on turn 3 keep your mana open if you have Sudden Shock. Ok to take a few hits. If you do not have it don't try to bluff, just try to expand your mana and build your board.
Hey man,first of all i would like to tell you that this is the first time i am seeing any of your article ,i saw all the videos and liked it but i would like to appreciates one more ting that it is the only blog where the author has replied back to almost all the comments ,really difficult so hats off,waiting for reply to mine comments as well
I wholeheartedly agree on your singletons. I will try them out as soon as RGD drafts are over.
BTW. Yeah, Skinshifters saved my life on a ton of occasions too.
Thank you for your suggestion, I do believe though, that it won't be much different than Lightning Burst. Every time I drew one I wished it could deal 1 more dam.
Anyway, I don't remember if I mentioned in the article but I think I'll try running Shattering Spree in the SB should I see much affinity in the TP room after the RGD drafts are out.
For Sam Blacks giving away the match.
There was an article by someone on SCG that helped test sams match up. It may have been drew levin. They came to the conclusion that sam was in dire straights, they lost 10 straight postboard games when they were on the play, and only lost 6 games of 10 when they were on the draw. The match up was very grindy and having that 1 extra card was the difference they needed to get sam 2 wins at all in the top 8 against josh.
I also loved the antoni de rosa's deck. i would prolly play it in modern if i had the cards.
liked this article a lot guy, and i feel like you redeemed your self from the 4 paragraph counter top deck.
lucindo is blocked becasue he is a poor sport and a cry baby, i listeneted to him complain 1 too many times that i was a luck sack and bad player, when i played legacy more regularly.
Man what a grind these matches were too, ill agree to that. Not sure if its the deck i played, the match ups, or just cause im not familiar with the format.
oops on clan name. this is whiffy.
Missing the fun here lol. Try Sudden Shock for sb.
Jake corrected this in at least the final game, but if you have 3+ bounce lands in RGD you should almost always play first so that you don't have to discard do to bounce lands. No point in giving up tempo to gain a card if you have to give it right back by discarding.
For at least the last year they only compensate you the cost of the draft less any winnings - which is super irritating, especially when things screw up in a the top of of an event.
The lands that didn't get used went down (particularly compare Underground Sea with Watery Grave). Cloudpost is one of the top decks, not a single top deck.
Regardless, I *would* be much happier playing Modern over Legacy if only the ban list of Modern wasn't so arbitrary. It is not based on power level at all. I'll see soon if they change that.
I don't think combo decks want to run Jace - even Splinter Twin, which is rather more controlling than the other UR combos is unlikely to want it. Even if they do, the Mind Sculptor has proven to be not overpowered in a format where games finish turn 3 often. Even Stoneforge should come off based on power level, even when it goes right it is just a turn 3 4/4 lifelink vigilance swinging on turn 4. Compare that to several - or indeed, arbitrarily large number - of tokens swinging on turn 3 or 4 (from Empty the Warrens on turn 2 or 3, or Splinter Twin on turn 4). But I don't mind too much if Stoneforge stays banned for a while longer to see if people stop judging Modern power levels based on either Standard or Legacy performances (the lack of FoW etc. changes a lot).
I think that there is no reason whatsoever to leave a lot of cards in the ban list, and I think that the format can have a healthy representation of all 3 major archetypes with just unbanning stuff and that is what I defend. Just as we had in Overextended, even with Stoneforge and Jace control wasn't dominating, there was plenty of Aggro and Combo doing well. If WotC decides to not unban any control cards I will know this format is not for me.
As a "proof" that Overextended was extremely relevant, people that knew Overextended were able to very reasonably predict the metagame before the PT. There are some slight variations but it was pretty much correct: 12-post, UR combo, anti-combo Zoo and little control.
I personally didn't expect Splinter Twin to show up as better than the red ritual based combos, but I also didn't fully expect that the format would be SO combo dominated with SO little control - and Twin as a more "control-combo" benefits against the other combos I guess. There was even a Blazing Shoal deck (not nearly as tuned as Sam's) in Overextended as well. I actually said that Zoo was going to go more anti-combo, but I imagined more Canonists, Teegs and other creature hate instead of outright permission or Rule of Law - but that is what seems to work better (and a strong sign that a true blue permission deck should be allowed to power-up with Jace and Vision as options at least).
Finally I'm not sure the pros generally liked the format that much as there are several comments that make me think the opposite - particularly articles (that include Zvi's on SCG) arguing for changes to the ban list.
"However, I do find some entertainment in correcting your mistakes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies"
okay then...
"Apparently, the perception is that because we are writing that we are pros with endless Magic income."
you responded
"Please use specific quotes. Nobody said anything of the sort."
I never even implied anything like this was said. "Apparently" and "perception" refer to inferences that I made based on your original post, which said this:
"Why is it the majority of writers on this site can't afford to build tier 1 decks?"
I made the only logical inference from this very judgmental post, in my opinion.
So there you go, I used specific quotes. Thanks for inviting me to this "tod did" consortium...
video is cutoff, cant see whole pack while drafting
Ahoy-hoy. I have been playing with this deck quite a bit on MODO over the last week or so (I had most of the cards lying around from an old block deck), and feel like I can offer a couple of neat ideas which have tested well for me in the TP room (I don't have my decklist on me, but I might post it up later).
Firstly; I've also cut the fauna shamans, and as a result, I like a singleton spitebellows in the maindeck. It's not a good card, but allowing flamekin harbinger to tutor up a removal spell has been really useful for me, and I feel like this is better than adding black for shriekmaw.
Secondly; I have 3 vithian renegades and one ingot chewer in the sideboard. The renegades obviously have better synergy with the deck as a whole, but again, harbinger's tutoring feels like something we can take more advantage of than just mindlessly getting rage-forger every time.
Thirdly; for the same reasons, I'm going to try 1 fulminator mage and 3 goblin ruinblasters.
Fourthly; I'm convinced that burning-tree shaman is pretty nuts. It's awesome against splinter twin, surprisingly good against affinity, and a big body for it's cost. Notably, it's the only shaman naturally bigger than a wild nacatl.
Fifthly; seal of fire out of the sideboard is very good against the infect shoal decks, 'though I still don't feel like we're winning many against that deck. Dismember might be worth testing, as it's good against twin and shoal-infect.
Sixthly; I have you to thank for the idea of running skinshifter in this deck. I am beginning to think that it is actually the best card in the deck, and I've won plenty of games through it. I've beaten shoal-infect a couple of times through pilots failing to notice my shifter could turn into a bird!
Seventhly; I was very dubious of your running Elvish visionary, but once you play this deck for a while, you realise that the win condition is more of a rage-forger combo-kill than anything, and the visionary is actually perfect for that.
Eighthly; I wish I could afford raging ravines!
That ended up longer than I intended....
I thought nobody played Legacy any more. Aren't they all much happier playing real dual land prices for faux dual lands and then losing to cloudpost.dec anyway these days?
So . . . what's the deal with the Lucindo block? LOL
Actually, although I haven't played Legacy in ages, I still got a kick out of these videos. They seem so darned grindy, though.
It should be noted, that if you subscribe to Whiffy's Youtube channel, you can see the videos ahead of time. =D Hence my comment is faster than the video length.
I really enjoyed this even though it was not what I was expecting.
That happened to me last week in one of my last Urzas drafts. I got compensated, but not much because I won 3 packs in the draft. I thought they used to compensate the full price no matter how much you won. Maybe I've forgotten or they are getting stingy.
Hey Jake, I notified @mtgonline, and they've seen the error. Make sure you contact a CS so they can compensate you.
"As I understood it, one of the main reasons you built this deck was because you couldn't afford any of the big money cards in the format"
As I said in my other comment, I can afford them but don't want to because Magic is a game; we agree that is a great one, but still a game so I don't feel like spending more for it than I do to eat. I have a budget reserved for Magic and try to do the best with it.
And since you are at it, I used the word "afford" once in the entire article and then always said I'm not WILLING to spend that much, so if you want to quote me at least do it right, thanks.
"Where did I, or anyone else for that matter, ask anything about what you WANT to build?"
Your question implied that I couldn't afford tier 1 cards so I corrected you.
"You even boasted about your fair share of wins. I think it is safe to assume you are "into playing constructed"
Wrong twice again; first of all I did not boast, I just stated it because it's just true (and I remember even implying that I myself was surprised about it).
Second, enjoying constructed play and getting excited about constructed at some points does not mean I'm into it. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one, which is: sometimes I enjoy playing constructed.
"B) Does your family have to be rich to own/play with a tier 1 deck?
C) A lot of competitive players don't have expenses too?
D) You may need to pay for something else...don't we all?"
Although retorical, I will answer anyway.
No, yes, yes.
The difference is that other people devote to Magic a budget bigger than I do. If I would and then something happened in my real life so that I had to spend a consistent sum of money I would be forced to ask my parents for help (even if temporary) and I don't want to. Hence the comment about them.
"Excuse me if I'm just tired of writers here going through the winning Daily Events decks, picking out the cheapest deck, and tossing together a half ass deck, and then writing about it. It isn't everyone, but it has been done here to death. I think I am afforded the right to have the opinion that I would prefer a writer who maybe has saved their limited money for months, and built something that actually competes with a field."
First of all, I write about Magic because I like Magic and if puremtgo (who "pays" me for it) would deem my articles not worth publishing because I'm too inexperienced, they have all the rights not to (they did in the past and was totally fine with it), so if they publish me they think it's worthy of their credit.
Second, there is a weapon against what you describe, it's called constructive criticism.
Posts like your first one, just qualifies the writer as troll.
EDIT: sorry for double post.
Thank you for the comment :)
Well thank you. My next article is more in-depth on how to figure out how to speculate on your own. It basically lays out how to track prices, movement, and stuff like that. It also shows you how to find cards to look for, and things like that.
I also love cheap decks, and my next article talks about the rebirth of white weenie, which is like $2 at the lowest. And that may be high. But it's still playable for a low price, and get it right, it may by tournament playable.
Nice and gets me thinking. I'm a new player (played real life back in revised days, sold up and just got back in now 15+ years later) so this type of article is perfect. I also mostly play Standard, but dabble in Classic because I got some fun 1-off mythics, but usually get my rear-end handed to me. My attitude to MTGO is casual, I love drafting and I start to form decks based on fun cards, so I have lots of different decks with none of them being killer or tournament ready but I have fun playing.
So I'm definitely your target audience in regards to the cost-level your talking about. When I'm trading or buying, I'm rarely looking for anything over a 0.5 ticket cost.
Whats your thoughts on FTV: Legends in terms of speculation? You could say this is my first speculative attempt, I wanted a chance to play these in-game-changing cards with a view to shift them off once it's no longer purchasable. Looking at shops & bots I've already made my cash/tix back, but they are also at zero stock so I have no idea what the "real" value is. I don't mind if I do loose out a bit because I will get some months enjoying them for play... I notice FTV: Dragon's isn't worth much, but I guess that Legends are more functional.
Another thing I like about Innistrad, and I'll be watching how this effects current card prices, is that tribes often stuck to 1 colour is now splashing out. I've seen red Vampires and blue Zombies, this is going to give those tribes a much broader play-style appeal - and raise those prices?