To define casual I find it useful to contrast it to it's accepted opposite, competitive magic. Competitive magic is any game where something tangible is at stake. Usually, that's money or packs. It also fits into any game that is training or practice specifically for playing competitive magic. Practicing for the local 5k is competitive, as is practicing for your local $3 buy in tourney. If the game itself is not about tangible rewards, the drive to compete should be considerably lower. Conversely, as soon as a reward is introduced expecting a "casual" turnout is ludicrous. My local EDH league can't seem to figure out why people would bring "degenerate" decks to the weekly EDH tourney, and I can't help but shake my head. It doesn't matter if the prize is 1 pack or a million, once you start tournament style magic up it becomes competitive. Nothing brings out the competitive drive quite like having money or valuable prizes on the line.
To contrast, casual magic is a game of magic without the stakes that define competitive magic. That would most likely lead a reasonable person to assume that a player in the casual room with a type 2 Jund deck or popular top 8 legacy deck has not brought out an appropriate deck. Generally, if a deck was tuned specifically for a competitive meta-game, it isn't really casual even if it is being presented in a casual environment. That isn't to say casual decks are not tuned, because the casual room almost certainly has a meta-game. People still share ideas, and some ideas are more popular than others. That meta-game may not be defined by the extreme competitive nature of tournament play, but it exists. The idea however that any single card is strictly competitive, and that it has no casual use, is more difficult to quantify and defend I think. You can certainly define break cards down into two categories, good and bad. Some cards are deeper into each camp than others are, but it is rather tough to peg which cards are the farthest in and which are just really good or bad. Magic can surprise you, and cards that look great can stink and vice versa. Bad cards are not "the" casual cards, they are just bad. Casual magic doesn't mean you are playing to lose. If you are playing it is likely to win and not just to play.
I also don't think there is a specific "type" of deck that is not casual. Even though land destruction and denial strategies are met with ire, it doesn't mean they can't be casual. It is certainly everyone's right to tag their games with a statement like, "No ld, no counters," but that is a personal preference. It is arrogance to assume that everyone else will blindly conform to our definition of casual, so be upfront about what you are and aren't willing to play against. Even those hated archetypes have foils in magic, the LD deck doesn't really want to face down super fast aggro. If your deck can't beat LD because you don't do anything for a bajillion turns and you can't design around a meta with LD in it, then say you don't want to play LD and move on. Put that in your game title, and just maybe you'll find someone else who doesn't do a whole lot till he's played fifteen lands so he can hardcast Emrakul, This EDH Game Is Torn The %#&^ Up.
You will re-open an eternal debate here ... the famous 'what is casual'.
In fact, I totaly agree with you.
In theory, there is neither casual nor competitive cards. There are only casual and competitive decks.
But for several players, it seems that some cards gained this attribute. So are some cards like Force of Will as well, but also some other like wasteland, jitte and mind twist in example (that last card not even being played in any competitive decks in classic/legacy btw). It is not a very realistical approach, but it is how it is in some mind though, and I unfortunately doubt you could change that statement, whatever your arguments...
In my opinion, some players are confused between what is a casual deck and what is a beginner deck (no offense to beginner, I highly respect & encourage them as well). Both find place in the casual room, but they are radicaly different. While this frontier isnt clear, this kind of misunderstanding will go on.
To me that's clear, this classic deck is nothing but casual. To try to cast a nantuko shade in a competitive classic environement is like to give to your opponent a Time walk and probably a game in example ... The presence of powerful card wont prevent that deck from loosing extremly quickly and without any doubt vs any serious build. That said, the deck isnt a simple pile of 'card i like' but follow a strategy. That's what defines casual deck to me.
Thank you all for the comments. I really appreciate them.
The issue I have with responding to complainers is that I often feel sympathy for the poor luck they've had and I'll even go so far as to acknowledge when I was lucky, but most of the time you're not going to have that much of a meaningful conversation with someone who is complaining. BradWoj, I like your response to that type of situation. It's simple and is unlikely to cause your opponent to start lashing out at you.
Act of Treason is much better in M2011 than M2010. There are many fewer walls and defensive creatures in M2011, which means it's much more unlikely that creature stalls happen. This means that racing your opponent becomes much more important. Now I wouldn't say that Act of Treason is one of the best commons in the format, but it is certainly better than a lot of filler cards and average creatures.
Good work on the article endless. I like the deck so I might have to give it a go. "Casual" is like beauty, it's in the eye of the holder (to some extent) so it's really hard to find any card that someone out there isn't going to ban you for using. To me, casual means that I'm not too concerned about winning/losing but that's just my opinion.
Not a 'casual' card? Well then, please enlighten us all on what the definition and description of "real" casual cards are. I've played magic since 4th edition and I have never noticed any special markings on my cards labeling them casual or otherwise...
I'd been doing something similar for my first few tournaments. While I was playing the top decks in the formats, I really wasn't as I couldn't resist the urge to, as you say, make the decks my own. This resulted in poor tournament showings, never once making the cut. So if a veteran feels that even he needs to acquaint himself with the top decks as they are, new player (like me) should take notice and do the same. Keep up the good work!
Another great article! Thanks! After reading both parts 1 and 2, I really wanted to go try out M11 sealed. Unfortunately, I'm unable to start magic online now due to "Failed to load name table".
Keep up the fantastic work! I always enjoy reading your limited analysis.
The reason people quit to jitte is cause it is clearly not a casual card. Either is mind twist.While the deck may be casual as a whole (obv its not a tourney deck), it is running a lot of cards that are going to get automatic concessions and people blocking you if you are playing this in the casual room.
The deck itself is pretty commonplace, nothing new there, but i do like the off color leylines in the sb.
Jyalt, I'm very glad for your comments. In fact, I'm making myself a note right now to quote you in the next one. Having an opinion absolutely doesn't make my opinion correct. And if you dislike my opinions, I think that's all the cause you need to give me a bad review.
This article, and those yet to come, are most definitely editorials. I'm not going into this thinking that I should be heralded just for stating my opinions. This is the internet and opinions aren't just a dime a dozen - more like you have to pay a dime to avoid a dozen of them.
Once upon a time, my opinion carried a bit of weight in the Magic community. Not a lot, but some. That's not really the case anymore, but I hope I can eventually know that feeling again.
So, please continue to read what I have to say and please continue to rate me poorly if you disagree. I mean this from the heart.
I must say the Leylines surprised me a bit. That must take a lot of people by surprise games 2-3. Particularly 40 counters.dec. (How do they win anyway? Manlands?) Jitte is probably a card that is required in any decent classic deck that includes creatures. I am surprised it doesn't get you more blocks. I know when it was in standard it was the number #1 cause of rage disconnections. I wouldn't run it in cas cas without knowing my opponent first but that is probably one reason I never play Classic.
On the subject of complainers: Everyone complains. Maybe not about magic but everyone complains about something, and everyone complains differently. If my opponent is a jerk about his loss, I ignore him and move on. If someone frowns after missing their second land drop I might say something to the effect of, "hate it when that happens :-(" It depends on the scenario and tone. Mana flood/screw is something just about anyone can relate to, and I can relate with that. I'm pretty talkative anyway, and usually will discuss the format and game afterwards if the other players are talkative. Usually in those convo's someone vents about something, and I really try not to be rude. Hey, I'm a human too.
I think your opponent is right about act of treason, in the sense that its not exactly "good." In context though he isn't entirely right. The card certaintly isn't bad which seems to be what he's implying, and with the right support it is easily worth running. You have the vampire, and that made act of treason a perfectly fine option as a 23rd card(well, 17th). If you pull it withou a sac outlet it helps you push through attacks, but with the vampire its an amazing removal spell. In black/red drafts/sealed pools its value goes up. Although I certaintly wouldn't want to play it without synergy for it in the deck.
If the opponent doesn't have early beats or too many bears, I'd probably side out the Maritime Guard and side in the Lava Axe as a Spitfire enabler/finisher. Was thinking about a third color, but quite a few of the best spells have a double colored casting cost (Adept, Wall, Outrage, Phoenix).
If I have the Elixir, I'd happily trade away my ETB creatures (Adept/Owl) and use removal a bit more carefree to shuffle them back in.
PS: I also looked at red/green for a while, since it has packleader (six creatures whith power 3+) as well as 5 more creatures that can survive a Phoenix blow-up. But the curve looked awful. Way too heavy in the 5cc slot.
Since I don't find much time to draft, but when I do, I usually do rather well, I simply love these for the entertainment. I do agree on the principal of Niabock's statement though in terms of Fireball. Wow... just Wow...
p1p4 - There is no way a fireball should be passed by 3 people, especially in the first pack. There wasn't even a foil in the pack.
p3p9 - How does the knight table? Just boggles the mind.
When I read draft walkthroughs they need to be from a draft where the table drafted well, so I can gain insight in to why you pick what you pick. When other drafters at the table are poor, picks matter less as stuff that shouldn't be passed gets passed and I can't learn anything from that. It's fun to draft a broken deck but drafts where the choices were hard and you end up with an average deck make for better articles.
I really like the question and answer format of this article. Had me reading more actively than a typical tournament report, which helped hold my attention. I've done a few of these 4-pack sealed deck tournaments over the past couple of days and I'm 10-2 so far (two 3-0s, two 2-1s). I haven't opened many bombs, so my plan is to play as many counters as I can along with card draw and cheap flyers (incidentally, this is very similar to my draft strategy). This allows me to beat up on decks built in shallow colors with one or two bombs. Nice Goblin Pikers! I'll Cancel your Inferno Titan.
I usually don't respond to opponents who complain. Sometimes, if they keep going on and on, I'll throw in one of these:
"=/ sorry"
Just so they don't get frustrated with my lack of response and bail without conceding. Plus, we've all been there. I can relate.
Am I the only one making this connection? Doubtful, but I havent heard it from anyone yet....
As Hammy notes, the card's art seems to indicate that the person taking possession of it is becoming less of an artifact. Taking this to mean you would need to get rid of an artifact as a drawback makes sense.
However - there is a PILE of MTG cards with the word Opal in them that all have the same exact drawback, that they don't become useful until the opponent casts a creature spell. If you reverse the loss of artifact in that guys hand, it could be an increase in creature.
Mox Opal (0)
When an opponent casts a creature spell, choose a color. Mox opal gains: "T: Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool."
__________________
Missing some neat stuff in the price change charts. Wouldnt want anyone to go without knowing....
I hear ya, man. I admit splitting into two parts is not an ideal solution for a "simple" Limited walkthrough, but I'm not sure what else to do. Counting both parts, this article was almost 10,000 words (an average Mark Rosewater article is ~2,000 words, for example). I could be less analytical and introspective in my writeups, but the consistent feedback I've received since I started writing walkthroughs has been that my level of depth represents the value I provide over other walkthroughs, and is greatly appreciated.
If puremtgo wants to compensate me for the equivalent of two articles and run them as one, that's fine with me, they just have to say the word--and you should feel free to let them know that's what you would prefer. They are trying to spread content out evenly over the course of a week, though, and a single ~10K article for which they are paying double might not make sense for them on a bottom-line level.
Regardless, I would point this out: I put "Pt. 1" pretty plainly in the title. If you like reading all 10,000 words at once, don't read part 1 until part 2 is up! If you ignore my "part ones" until the conclusion is published, you should never have this problem, right?
To define casual I find it useful to contrast it to it's accepted opposite, competitive magic. Competitive magic is any game where something tangible is at stake. Usually, that's money or packs. It also fits into any game that is training or practice specifically for playing competitive magic. Practicing for the local 5k is competitive, as is practicing for your local $3 buy in tourney. If the game itself is not about tangible rewards, the drive to compete should be considerably lower. Conversely, as soon as a reward is introduced expecting a "casual" turnout is ludicrous. My local EDH league can't seem to figure out why people would bring "degenerate" decks to the weekly EDH tourney, and I can't help but shake my head. It doesn't matter if the prize is 1 pack or a million, once you start tournament style magic up it becomes competitive. Nothing brings out the competitive drive quite like having money or valuable prizes on the line.
To contrast, casual magic is a game of magic without the stakes that define competitive magic. That would most likely lead a reasonable person to assume that a player in the casual room with a type 2 Jund deck or popular top 8 legacy deck has not brought out an appropriate deck. Generally, if a deck was tuned specifically for a competitive meta-game, it isn't really casual even if it is being presented in a casual environment. That isn't to say casual decks are not tuned, because the casual room almost certainly has a meta-game. People still share ideas, and some ideas are more popular than others. That meta-game may not be defined by the extreme competitive nature of tournament play, but it exists. The idea however that any single card is strictly competitive, and that it has no casual use, is more difficult to quantify and defend I think. You can certainly define break cards down into two categories, good and bad. Some cards are deeper into each camp than others are, but it is rather tough to peg which cards are the farthest in and which are just really good or bad. Magic can surprise you, and cards that look great can stink and vice versa. Bad cards are not "the" casual cards, they are just bad. Casual magic doesn't mean you are playing to lose. If you are playing it is likely to win and not just to play.
I also don't think there is a specific "type" of deck that is not casual. Even though land destruction and denial strategies are met with ire, it doesn't mean they can't be casual. It is certainly everyone's right to tag their games with a statement like, "No ld, no counters," but that is a personal preference. It is arrogance to assume that everyone else will blindly conform to our definition of casual, so be upfront about what you are and aren't willing to play against. Even those hated archetypes have foils in magic, the LD deck doesn't really want to face down super fast aggro. If your deck can't beat LD because you don't do anything for a bajillion turns and you can't design around a meta with LD in it, then say you don't want to play LD and move on. Put that in your game title, and just maybe you'll find someone else who doesn't do a whole lot till he's played fifteen lands so he can hardcast Emrakul, This EDH Game Is Torn The %#&^ Up.
Tuned vs untuned really.
Did your wife get any hot loot?
You will re-open an eternal debate here ... the famous 'what is casual'.
In fact, I totaly agree with you.
In theory, there is neither casual nor competitive cards. There are only casual and competitive decks.
But for several players, it seems that some cards gained this attribute. So are some cards like Force of Will as well, but also some other like wasteland, jitte and mind twist in example (that last card not even being played in any competitive decks in classic/legacy btw). It is not a very realistical approach, but it is how it is in some mind though, and I unfortunately doubt you could change that statement, whatever your arguments...
In my opinion, some players are confused between what is a casual deck and what is a beginner deck (no offense to beginner, I highly respect & encourage them as well). Both find place in the casual room, but they are radicaly different. While this frontier isnt clear, this kind of misunderstanding will go on.
To me that's clear, this classic deck is nothing but casual. To try to cast a nantuko shade in a competitive classic environement is like to give to your opponent a Time walk and probably a game in example ... The presence of powerful card wont prevent that deck from loosing extremly quickly and without any doubt vs any serious build. That said, the deck isnt a simple pile of 'card i like' but follow a strategy. That's what defines casual deck to me.
Thank you all for the comments. I really appreciate them.
The issue I have with responding to complainers is that I often feel sympathy for the poor luck they've had and I'll even go so far as to acknowledge when I was lucky, but most of the time you're not going to have that much of a meaningful conversation with someone who is complaining. BradWoj, I like your response to that type of situation. It's simple and is unlikely to cause your opponent to start lashing out at you.
Act of Treason is much better in M2011 than M2010. There are many fewer walls and defensive creatures in M2011, which means it's much more unlikely that creature stalls happen. This means that racing your opponent becomes much more important. Now I wouldn't say that Act of Treason is one of the best commons in the format, but it is certainly better than a lot of filler cards and average creatures.
Good work on the article endless. I like the deck so I might have to give it a go. "Casual" is like beauty, it's in the eye of the holder (to some extent) so it's really hard to find any card that someone out there isn't going to ban you for using. To me, casual means that I'm not too concerned about winning/losing but that's just my opinion.
Magic is often like football, it is a game of inches. Sometimes something as simple as playing the wrong land on the first turn can cost you the game.
Not a 'casual' card? Well then, please enlighten us all on what the definition and description of "real" casual cards are. I've played magic since 4th edition and I have never noticed any special markings on my cards labeling them casual or otherwise...
I'd been doing something similar for my first few tournaments. While I was playing the top decks in the formats, I really wasn't as I couldn't resist the urge to, as you say, make the decks my own. This resulted in poor tournament showings, never once making the cut. So if a veteran feels that even he needs to acquaint himself with the top decks as they are, new player (like me) should take notice and do the same. Keep up the good work!
Another great article! Thanks! After reading both parts 1 and 2, I really wanted to go try out M11 sealed. Unfortunately, I'm unable to start magic online now due to "Failed to load name table".
Keep up the fantastic work! I always enjoy reading your limited analysis.
The reason people quit to jitte is cause it is clearly not a casual card. Either is mind twist.While the deck may be casual as a whole (obv its not a tourney deck), it is running a lot of cards that are going to get automatic concessions and people blocking you if you are playing this in the casual room.
The deck itself is pretty commonplace, nothing new there, but i do like the off color leylines in the sb.
4 paths is not enough to beat soul sisters, you really need some mass removal. or at least 8 pieces of removal in your deck.
I am new to this...i know I have been living in the dark age but i am totally hooked to it!
thanks!
Jyalt, I'm very glad for your comments. In fact, I'm making myself a note right now to quote you in the next one. Having an opinion absolutely doesn't make my opinion correct. And if you dislike my opinions, I think that's all the cause you need to give me a bad review.
This article, and those yet to come, are most definitely editorials. I'm not going into this thinking that I should be heralded just for stating my opinions. This is the internet and opinions aren't just a dime a dozen - more like you have to pay a dime to avoid a dozen of them.
Once upon a time, my opinion carried a bit of weight in the Magic community. Not a lot, but some. That's not really the case anymore, but I hope I can eventually know that feeling again.
So, please continue to read what I have to say and please continue to rate me poorly if you disagree. I mean this from the heart.
Thanks for the kind words! I only wish I'd thought of it sooner.
Congrats on the newborn (to be)!
I must say the Leylines surprised me a bit. That must take a lot of people by surprise games 2-3. Particularly 40 counters.dec. (How do they win anyway? Manlands?) Jitte is probably a card that is required in any decent classic deck that includes creatures. I am surprised it doesn't get you more blocks. I know when it was in standard it was the number #1 cause of rage disconnections. I wouldn't run it in cas cas without knowing my opponent first but that is probably one reason I never play Classic.
EDIT
Don't know if you are aware of it but this:
http://jamuraa.com/pure/deck_new.php
makes decklists look fairly presentable.
On the subject of complainers: Everyone complains. Maybe not about magic but everyone complains about something, and everyone complains differently. If my opponent is a jerk about his loss, I ignore him and move on. If someone frowns after missing their second land drop I might say something to the effect of, "hate it when that happens :-(" It depends on the scenario and tone. Mana flood/screw is something just about anyone can relate to, and I can relate with that. I'm pretty talkative anyway, and usually will discuss the format and game afterwards if the other players are talkative. Usually in those convo's someone vents about something, and I really try not to be rude. Hey, I'm a human too.
I think your opponent is right about act of treason, in the sense that its not exactly "good." In context though he isn't entirely right. The card certaintly isn't bad which seems to be what he's implying, and with the right support it is easily worth running. You have the vampire, and that made act of treason a perfectly fine option as a 23rd card(well, 17th). If you pull it withou a sac outlet it helps you push through attacks, but with the vampire its an amazing removal spell. In black/red drafts/sealed pools its value goes up. Although I certaintly wouldn't want to play it without synergy for it in the deck.
Awesome play and great report.
Those little mistakes we all wonder about why we make them.
I usually make a lot more.
If people complain that's their problem, really.
They're responsible for their behaviour.
Nice article. I really have to try 4 booster sealed soon.
Here is the deck I'd run with your second pool:
1,Aether Adept
1,Air Servant
1,Augury Owl
1,Berserkers of Blood Ridge
1,Canyon Minotaur
1,Chandra's Outrage
1,Cloud Elemental
1,Elixir of Immortality
1,Gargoyle Sentinel
1,Lightning Bolt
1,Magma Phoenix
1,Mana Leak
1,Maritime Guard
1,Sleep
1,Wall of Frost
2,Chandra's Spitfire
6,Mountain
7,Island
If the opponent doesn't have early beats or too many bears, I'd probably side out the Maritime Guard and side in the Lava Axe as a Spitfire enabler/finisher. Was thinking about a third color, but quite a few of the best spells have a double colored casting cost (Adept, Wall, Outrage, Phoenix).
If I have the Elixir, I'd happily trade away my ETB creatures (Adept/Owl) and use removal a bit more carefree to shuffle them back in.
PS: I also looked at red/green for a while, since it has packleader (six creatures whith power 3+) as well as 5 more creatures that can survive a Phoenix blow-up. But the curve looked awful. Way too heavy in the 5cc slot.
Since I don't find much time to draft, but when I do, I usually do rather well, I simply love these for the entertainment. I do agree on the principal of Niabock's statement though in terms of Fireball. Wow... just Wow...
p1p4 - There is no way a fireball should be passed by 3 people, especially in the first pack. There wasn't even a foil in the pack.
p3p9 - How does the knight table? Just boggles the mind.
When I read draft walkthroughs they need to be from a draft where the table drafted well, so I can gain insight in to why you pick what you pick. When other drafters at the table are poor, picks matter less as stuff that shouldn't be passed gets passed and I can't learn anything from that. It's fun to draft a broken deck but drafts where the choices were hard and you end up with an average deck make for better articles.
I really like the question and answer format of this article. Had me reading more actively than a typical tournament report, which helped hold my attention. I've done a few of these 4-pack sealed deck tournaments over the past couple of days and I'm 10-2 so far (two 3-0s, two 2-1s). I haven't opened many bombs, so my plan is to play as many counters as I can along with card draw and cheap flyers (incidentally, this is very similar to my draft strategy). This allows me to beat up on decks built in shallow colors with one or two bombs. Nice Goblin Pikers! I'll Cancel your Inferno Titan.
I usually don't respond to opponents who complain. Sometimes, if they keep going on and on, I'll throw in one of these:
"=/ sorry"
Just so they don't get frustrated with my lack of response and bail without conceding. Plus, we've all been there. I can relate.
Am I the only one making this connection? Doubtful, but I havent heard it from anyone yet....
As Hammy notes, the card's art seems to indicate that the person taking possession of it is becoming less of an artifact. Taking this to mean you would need to get rid of an artifact as a drawback makes sense.
However - there is a PILE of MTG cards with the word Opal in them that all have the same exact drawback, that they don't become useful until the opponent casts a creature spell. If you reverse the loss of artifact in that guys hand, it could be an increase in creature.
Mox Opal (0)
When an opponent casts a creature spell, choose a color. Mox opal gains: "T: Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool."
__________________
Missing some neat stuff in the price change charts. Wouldnt want anyone to go without knowing....
Linvala 3.25-10.75
Renegade Doppelganger 0.12-1.75
Extractor Demon 0.40-1.75
Best regards -
I hear ya, man. I admit splitting into two parts is not an ideal solution for a "simple" Limited walkthrough, but I'm not sure what else to do. Counting both parts, this article was almost 10,000 words (an average Mark Rosewater article is ~2,000 words, for example). I could be less analytical and introspective in my writeups, but the consistent feedback I've received since I started writing walkthroughs has been that my level of depth represents the value I provide over other walkthroughs, and is greatly appreciated.
If puremtgo wants to compensate me for the equivalent of two articles and run them as one, that's fine with me, they just have to say the word--and you should feel free to let them know that's what you would prefer. They are trying to spread content out evenly over the course of a week, though, and a single ~10K article for which they are paying double might not make sense for them on a bottom-line level.
Regardless, I would point this out: I put "Pt. 1" pretty plainly in the title. If you like reading all 10,000 words at once, don't read part 1 until part 2 is up! If you ignore my "part ones" until the conclusion is published, you should never have this problem, right?