I had not thought of that. It could be quite interesting to have an unexpected combo option to the deck. Not entirely sure where I would make the cuts but that is an interesting idea.
I prefer the version showcased in your article. Cloudstone Curio plus several of those other cards let you "go infinite". Heck, with enough Devotion, you can loop Garruk -> Karn to keep untapping Nykthos --> Exile all of your opponent's permanents. I've seen discussion about the infinite Primal Command loop too.
Actually, if they added Purphoros, wouldn't Curio 2x Emissary be infinite damage?
Craterhoof wave is brutal with the combo elves backbone. I wouldn't inflict this on anyone in the name of "fun". It might be fun to crush people I loath with it but even then it would be a short lived sort of fun, not the more enjoyable johnny/timmy stuff that people usually do with Gen Wave.
Those are all great points. I'll defend Cotton's articles as fun, but now I want you to comment more on them to bring in the history of these cards from a tournament perspective that he may not know about.
I am glad to hear that people do like these articles. I'd rather know that it's just my different taste that opposes these articles rather some actual percentage of the readership here having the same point of view as me.
After the second or third of the Alpha articles, I realized that it was really pointless for me to voice my opinion about these articles. I know that this site has a wide range of readers and not everything is going to appeal to everyone.
When the first Arabian Nights article came out, the comparison using Jeweled Bird just really rubbed me the wrong way. If you've never played for ante, then you have no idea how powerful that card actually is - it was the deciding card in winning the 2001 Magic Invitational. There really is no way to compare non-ante cards to it. Once I saw that card analogy, I just started looking at how many other cards I felt were misrepresented in the article. I chose not to say anything because it seemed like I was just nitpicking and looking for something to complain about. I was reading the article in hopes that there might be some historical references to the older cards to show how some of them had a place in the past even if they seem rather useless now. Nothing like that was included, so I felt I was just reacting to the article falling short of my own expectations. Singing Tree jumped out at me in the second AN article. This is a creature that can block one attacker and use it's ability on another - a fact that was completely overlooked in the card analogy. Anyone that drafted Master Edition 1 knows how this card can completely stall a game. So again I went to see how many mistakes I could find in the analogies. And again, I kept my silence with my views on the article.
Then this one came out - and the very first card analogy has a HUGE error in it. Ashnod's Transmogrant turns a creature into an artifact creatue at instant speed (or as a "fast effect" for anyone who remembers what that is). When this card was printed, Terror was one of the most powerful removal spells around. Among it's other uses, Ashnod's Transmogrant was insurance against Terror. Immediately, I thought 2 things to myself - (1) "Try doing that with Shuko" and (2) "If you're going to write these meaningless articles, at least try to do them correctly." That second one is pretty harsh - definitely more harsh than how I prefer to word my criticisms, but it is basically how I feel towards the articles and is exactly what went through my mind.
At that point, I just couldn't hold back anymore and felt I had to say something. So I made my comment. I decided to focus on my issues with the purpose of the article rather than the mistakes I saw in the content. It is pretty obvious to me that my reaction to them led me to scour them for whatever mistakes were there to find. I didn't really want my criticism to just be "You got this card wrong, and this card, and this card..."
All I'm doing here is writing out what went through my mind when I read these articles and made my criticism. I have no idea if you or anyone is actually interested in my thought process, but it may shed some light on my feelings and reaction to the articles.
I really don't like to be the person that takes the negative viewpoint of what should be a positive situation. And again, I am glad to hear that plenty of people do enjoy the articles. I'm just one person, and just as much as the website should cater its content to any one person I hope you don't feel that the opinions/criticisms of one person hold anymore importance than those of any other one person.
I always enjoy these. The mightstone and weakstone 'appeared' in New Phyrexia by dint of being the reason their current owner is its current card type.
As lax as the templating was, it's not to say they didn't at least catch a few problems before print. My favorite story is how Time Walk's wording used to be "Target player loses next turn." Hmmmm pretty strong for just 1U!
Good point about the miter. Or maybe it was a true "artifact" and just something he dug up and brushed the dirt off of.
"A creature of yours". Immediately starts pointing at the opponent's creatures and shouting, "Mine, mine, mine, mine!"
It's always fascinating to look back at the glorious era before the templating. I can't believe that they needed Rosewater (a comedy writer!) to point out that, I don't know, maybe they should start using unambiguous expressions and recurring terms, like board games used to do since about 50 years. What's weird is that Garfield, a mathematician, was behind this. You would think it would all be extra rigorous. Maybe he was actively trying to be more casual. So that the comedy writer had to come and tell the mathematician to be more accurate.
That was just a miter that belonged to Urza. He inherited it from a bishop uncle. He would only wear it for masquerade balls.
I can't tell who's who in Primal Clay, but why the girl is so happy and the guy seems upset at her? And why do they even exist simultaneously, if they are different forms of the same creature?
I hear you about Weakstone, that art is the stuff nightmares are made of. But losing the actual card made you overlook the flavor text, which is the exact same one from Mightstone, except that while Urza found the Mightstone, Mishra found the Weakstone. Mishra should have seen it coming.
I enjoy these articles for a number of reasons, they are interesting to a huge swath of magic psychographs and while the humor may range from subtle to slapstick its a bit much to outright dismiss it. These are light hearted design articles that manage to bridge the gap of older players and newer players.
i feel like maybe your being overly harsh just cause you can't find any enjoyment from the series.
These are cards you can play with on MTGO, I think you met the criteria. Heath has not mentioned anything to me about it, and you have the full backing of your content manager. Keep them coming please!
"In closing, I don't like sports, but every newspaper still has a sports section."
Yeah, I've been thinking since a while to write a letter to the newspaper I read, saying, "Please explain to me what's the purpose of your sports section. I keep reading it, and it does nothing for me, because I don't like sports. In fact, I don't even understand most of what's written on it. So why is it even there? I feel like it should be on some other newspaper that I don't read."
You're right that my articles aren't useful. As a Magic player, I have little to no interest in competitive playing, or in anything spikey. Readers who are looking for that type of content will find nothing of substance in anything I write. This includes my "then vs. now" series, my "fun with __" series, all the other series, AND all the random one-offs. Like that one where I spent an entire article illustrating how to make a creature (like BFM's flavor text) literally wear a Polar Kraken and Phyrexian Dreadnought as jewelry. One of my favorites by the way. But in no way useful.
Most of my articles begin with a disclaimer about their irrelevance to tournament players. This particular one was the (I think) seventh in its series, so I didn't bother, but perhaps I should have.
As for why I did write it, there's really only one main purpose, and it's none of the ones you mentioned. That purpose is that I found it interesting. I've been playing Magic since Ice Age (about 16 of its 20 years), and I've watched the game grow over time. Not a lot of people have stuck with it that long, and don't have the perspective on it that I have, and they might find it interesting too. Other people have been playing as long (or longer) than I, and they might enjoy it for nostalgic reasons. Other people still don't really care about the history, and I guess I can't do much for them, but at least I'll have hit two different demographics already. This is arguably enough to justify publishing it.
The issue remains, should they be published HERE? This is a very good question. The name of the site is "Pure MtGO," and if we allow this series on this site, then we have allowed an impurity; they are not about MtGO. I admit to having been very worried myself about breaching this boundary, and I've lost many nights of sleep over it. But it seems the owner of the site is okay with it, and who am I to argue policy with my boss?
In closing, I don't like sports, but every newspaper still has a sports section.
These are my favorite articles on the site. Perhaps because I actually played with those cards. (Collosus of Sardia, how I hate thee!)
So by all means, keep them coming.
Thanks for the comment.
I had not thought of that. It could be quite interesting to have an unexpected combo option to the deck. Not entirely sure where I would make the cuts but that is an interesting idea.
Forgot to mention it during the cast but if anyone has any ideas for a new challenge to replace the memory jar challenge let us know.
I prefer the version showcased in your article. Cloudstone Curio plus several of those other cards let you "go infinite". Heck, with enough Devotion, you can loop Garruk -> Karn to keep untapping Nykthos --> Exile all of your opponent's permanents. I've seen discussion about the infinite Primal Command loop too.
Actually, if they added Purphoros, wouldn't Curio 2x Emissary be infinite damage?
Neat.
It's always the Elves' fault. They ruin everything!
Note: for some reason I forgot to add it to the list at the end, but the next event (tomorrow) is always Underdog as planned.
The Nykthos Wave deck *has* taken at least one event: http://puremtgo.com/articles/slugs-lair-black-blue
Note dates! :)
Craterhoof wave is brutal with the combo elves backbone. I wouldn't inflict this on anyone in the name of "fun". It might be fun to crush people I loath with it but even then it would be a short lived sort of fun, not the more enjoyable johnny/timmy stuff that people usually do with Gen Wave.
It does! They fixed it on MTGO, of course. Yay digital cards!
The reprint of wits end is much easier on the eyes. But didn't the m13 have a printing error in the flavor text.
I was thinking of a U/R Faeries deck with the Pestermite/Splinter Twin combo built in. Have you considered this?
Those are all great points. I'll defend Cotton's articles as fun, but now I want you to comment more on them to bring in the history of these cards from a tournament perspective that he may not know about.
Fair points, and I admit freely that my comparisons are sometimes imperfect. Of course I welcome discussions in the comments section.
Wit's End: I guess you meant to link the Dissension one? (The existence of another version makes the solution of that problem easier, anyway.)
Yeah, it turns out that if you combine +1/+0 and -1/-0, the result is "Exile target permanent".
I am glad to hear that people do like these articles. I'd rather know that it's just my different taste that opposes these articles rather some actual percentage of the readership here having the same point of view as me.
After the second or third of the Alpha articles, I realized that it was really pointless for me to voice my opinion about these articles. I know that this site has a wide range of readers and not everything is going to appeal to everyone.
When the first Arabian Nights article came out, the comparison using Jeweled Bird just really rubbed me the wrong way. If you've never played for ante, then you have no idea how powerful that card actually is - it was the deciding card in winning the 2001 Magic Invitational. There really is no way to compare non-ante cards to it. Once I saw that card analogy, I just started looking at how many other cards I felt were misrepresented in the article. I chose not to say anything because it seemed like I was just nitpicking and looking for something to complain about. I was reading the article in hopes that there might be some historical references to the older cards to show how some of them had a place in the past even if they seem rather useless now. Nothing like that was included, so I felt I was just reacting to the article falling short of my own expectations. Singing Tree jumped out at me in the second AN article. This is a creature that can block one attacker and use it's ability on another - a fact that was completely overlooked in the card analogy. Anyone that drafted Master Edition 1 knows how this card can completely stall a game. So again I went to see how many mistakes I could find in the analogies. And again, I kept my silence with my views on the article.
Then this one came out - and the very first card analogy has a HUGE error in it. Ashnod's Transmogrant turns a creature into an artifact creatue at instant speed (or as a "fast effect" for anyone who remembers what that is). When this card was printed, Terror was one of the most powerful removal spells around. Among it's other uses, Ashnod's Transmogrant was insurance against Terror. Immediately, I thought 2 things to myself - (1) "Try doing that with Shuko" and (2) "If you're going to write these meaningless articles, at least try to do them correctly." That second one is pretty harsh - definitely more harsh than how I prefer to word my criticisms, but it is basically how I feel towards the articles and is exactly what went through my mind.
At that point, I just couldn't hold back anymore and felt I had to say something. So I made my comment. I decided to focus on my issues with the purpose of the article rather than the mistakes I saw in the content. It is pretty obvious to me that my reaction to them led me to scour them for whatever mistakes were there to find. I didn't really want my criticism to just be "You got this card wrong, and this card, and this card..."
All I'm doing here is writing out what went through my mind when I read these articles and made my criticism. I have no idea if you or anyone is actually interested in my thought process, but it may shed some light on my feelings and reaction to the articles.
I really don't like to be the person that takes the negative viewpoint of what should be a positive situation. And again, I am glad to hear that plenty of people do enjoy the articles. I'm just one person, and just as much as the website should cater its content to any one person I hope you don't feel that the opinions/criticisms of one person hold anymore importance than those of any other one person.
I always enjoy these. The mightstone and weakstone 'appeared' in New Phyrexia by dint of being the reason their current owner is its current card type.
As lax as the templating was, it's not to say they didn't at least catch a few problems before print. My favorite story is how Time Walk's wording used to be "Target player loses next turn." Hmmmm pretty strong for just 1U!
Good point about the miter. Or maybe it was a true "artifact" and just something he dug up and brushed the dirt off of.
"A creature of yours". Immediately starts pointing at the opponent's creatures and shouting, "Mine, mine, mine, mine!"
It's always fascinating to look back at the glorious era before the templating. I can't believe that they needed Rosewater (a comedy writer!) to point out that, I don't know, maybe they should start using unambiguous expressions and recurring terms, like board games used to do since about 50 years. What's weird is that Garfield, a mathematician, was behind this. You would think it would all be extra rigorous. Maybe he was actively trying to be more casual. So that the comedy writer had to come and tell the mathematician to be more accurate.
That was just a miter that belonged to Urza. He inherited it from a bishop uncle. He would only wear it for masquerade balls.
I can't tell who's who in Primal Clay, but why the girl is so happy and the guy seems upset at her? And why do they even exist simultaneously, if they are different forms of the same creature?
I hear you about Weakstone, that art is the stuff nightmares are made of. But losing the actual card made you overlook the flavor text, which is the exact same one from Mightstone, except that while Urza found the Mightstone, Mishra found the Weakstone. Mishra should have seen it coming.
Off subject, but when you have the time whiffy, I'd like to see you start writing again
I enjoy these articles for a number of reasons, they are interesting to a huge swath of magic psychographs and while the humor may range from subtle to slapstick its a bit much to outright dismiss it. These are light hearted design articles that manage to bridge the gap of older players and newer players.
i feel like maybe your being overly harsh just cause you can't find any enjoyment from the series.
These are cards you can play with on MTGO, I think you met the criteria. Heath has not mentioned anything to me about it, and you have the full backing of your content manager. Keep them coming please!
I love the articles because you know the varied audience, and because this are cards that I have memories of.
"In closing, I don't like sports, but every newspaper still has a sports section."
Yeah, I've been thinking since a while to write a letter to the newspaper I read, saying, "Please explain to me what's the purpose of your sports section. I keep reading it, and it does nothing for me, because I don't like sports. In fact, I don't even understand most of what's written on it. So why is it even there? I feel like it should be on some other newspaper that I don't read."
To add to the comments others have already made,
You're right that my articles aren't useful. As a Magic player, I have little to no interest in competitive playing, or in anything spikey. Readers who are looking for that type of content will find nothing of substance in anything I write. This includes my "then vs. now" series, my "fun with __" series, all the other series, AND all the random one-offs. Like that one where I spent an entire article illustrating how to make a creature (like BFM's flavor text) literally wear a Polar Kraken and Phyrexian Dreadnought as jewelry. One of my favorites by the way. But in no way useful.
Most of my articles begin with a disclaimer about their irrelevance to tournament players. This particular one was the (I think) seventh in its series, so I didn't bother, but perhaps I should have.
As for why I did write it, there's really only one main purpose, and it's none of the ones you mentioned. That purpose is that I found it interesting. I've been playing Magic since Ice Age (about 16 of its 20 years), and I've watched the game grow over time. Not a lot of people have stuck with it that long, and don't have the perspective on it that I have, and they might find it interesting too. Other people have been playing as long (or longer) than I, and they might enjoy it for nostalgic reasons. Other people still don't really care about the history, and I guess I can't do much for them, but at least I'll have hit two different demographics already. This is arguably enough to justify publishing it.
The issue remains, should they be published HERE? This is a very good question. The name of the site is "Pure MtGO," and if we allow this series on this site, then we have allowed an impurity; they are not about MtGO. I admit to having been very worried myself about breaching this boundary, and I've lost many nights of sleep over it. But it seems the owner of the site is okay with it, and who am I to argue policy with my boss?
In closing, I don't like sports, but every newspaper still has a sports section.
These are my favorite articles on the site. Perhaps because I actually played with those cards. (Collosus of Sardia, how I hate thee!)
So by all means, keep them coming.