[Free Articles] 7 Premium Articles Converted to Free Articles

[Smmenen]

Over the last few months, Jaco has converted a bunch of my old premium articles (mostly set reviews) to free articles.  

http://www.eternalcentral.com/new-writers-archived-articles-converted-to-free-and-more-news/

That link has the hyperlink to the free articles, and here's the list that's been converted:

So Many Insane Plays – Return to Ravnica Eternal Set Review
So Many Insane Plays – Avacyn Restored Eternal Set Review
So Many Insane Plays – The Dark Ascension Vintage Set Review
So Many Insane Plays – Innistrad: A Comprehensive Vintage Set Review
So Many Insane Plays – Trends & Predictions for 2012 & A Vintage Tournament Report
So Many Insane Plays – New Phyrexia Vintage Review (formerly on Quiet Speculation)
So Many Insane Plays – The Mirrodin Besieged Vintage Set Review (formerly on Quiet Speculation)

I post this because this for three reasons.

First, this is the first time that a bunch of my articles has been converted from premium to free since I stopped writing for SCG.  

Second, although outdated from a technological perspective, many of these articles are still insightful in terms of metagame analysis (how to think about the Vintage metagame), play decisions and considerations that inform them, and for criteria/heuristics for thinking about Vintage cards in the abstract or from a deck design perspective.  

Third, several of these set reviews took evolving approaches to set review, and it's also fun to contrast my predictions with known outcomes.  

Enjoy!

[DubDub]

Thanks, and thanks to Jaco too.

Couple of thoughts as I look through these:
Did you think that Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas' middle ability only lasted until end of turn?  You were very dismissive of that ability, which really puts a pretty quick clock out if it activates more than once.

It's HILARIOUS to read about how good Jin-Gitaxias is considering that we know Griselbrand was still in the pipe.

Elbrus, the Binding Blade?

Temporal Mastery really still should be good.

Comment on Jace, architect of thought with respect to 'if it only had 5 loyalty to start with, you could get cards twice out of it and then it would still be around to prevent the opponent from resolving their own'.  This comment makes less sense now that they changed the Legend/Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule.  And a comment comparing 'restricted' Regrowth to Treasured Find which makes less sense in light of Regrowth's unrestriction.  It's interesting to see how quickly set reviews become obsolete.  Although the central casting for Vintage: Moxen, Force, Workshop, Bazaar, Confidant etc. hardly ever change, a rotating cast of characters take their turn in the supporting roles.  There was a surprisingly long time period where Tinker got upgrades and new options every set, and same for Oath.  We had Darksteel, Inkwell, Sphinx, Battlesphere, and then Blightsteel got printed.  We had Hellkites, then Iona, then Terastodon, then Rune-Scarred Demon and Dragon's Breath guys.  And then Griselbrand got printed.  Wizards just doesn't know when to stop sometimes, especially with respect to creatures.

[Smmenen]

Thanks, and thanks to Jaco too.

Couple of thoughts as I look through these:
Did you think that Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas' middle ability only lasted until end of turn?  You were very dismissive of that ability, which really puts a pretty quick clock out if it activates more than once.

Yes, I think that mistake was pointed out at the time of the review, and we never bothered to update the article to correct for it.  I think I was under the mistaken impression that this only lasted until EOT.

It's HILARIOUS to read about how good Jin-Gitaxias is considering that we know Griselbrand was still in the pipe.

Indeed.  And my analysis of him prefigures what ultimately developed with Griselbrand (which doesn't come for another year).  I even built a Show and Tell deck in my New PHyrexia Set Review, as you note here.  

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-new-phyrexia-vintage-set-review/

Let’s try to imagine the beginnings of a Vintage Show and Tell deck:
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Pierce
3 Mana Drain
4 Show and Tell
1 Tinker
1 Blightsteel Colossus
3 Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
4 Preordain
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Jace, The Mind Sculptor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will
1 Imperial Seal

And around 25 mana sources

I would, note, however, that my predictions for Griselbrand were exactly on the mark.   Check out the decklist I even designed for it:

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-avacyn-restored-eternal-set-review/

Let me take a stab at designing what I think is the proper direction for Griselbrand Oath.

Griselbrand Oath, by Stephen Menendian
Business (36)

    4 Force of Will
    3 Flusterstorm
    3 Mental Misstep
    2 Mana Drain
    1 Ancestral Recall
    1 Brainstorm
    1 Ponder
    4 Preordain
    1 Memory
    S Journey
    1 Time Walk
    1 Vampiric Tutor
    1 Imperial Seal
    1 Demonic Tutor
    2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
    4 Oath of Druids
    2 Griselbrand
    1 Time Vault
    1 Voltaic Key
    1 Yawgmoth’s Will

   
Mana Sources (25)

    1 Black Lotus
    1 Mana Crypt
    1 Mox Emerald
    1 Mox Jet
    1 Mox Pearl
    1 Mox Ruby
    1 Mox Sapphire
    1 Lotus Petal
    1 Sol Ring
    4 Forbidden Orchard
    4 Misty Rainforest
    1 Polluted Delta
    2 Tropical Island
    3 Underground Sea
    2 Island

Sideboard (1)

    Not listed

   
I have added Lotus Petal because I think this deck will be adept at Yawg Willing frequently for the win. In addition, I have added Imperial Seal for a simple and obvious reason.

It's pretty sweet that I developed that list before the card have even been released, since it's so close to the form the archetype has often taken since.

Elbrus, the Binding Blade?

I thought Stoneforge decks would be better in this format based upon what we saw in Dark Ascension, and I thought that Stoneforge decks might try this as a singleton.  

Temporal Mastery really still should be good.

Not in Vintage though.  

Comment on Jace, architect of thought with respect to 'if it only had 5 loyalty to start with, you could get cards twice out of it and then it would still be around to prevent the opponent from resolving their own'.  This comment makes less sense now that they changed the Legend/Planeswalker Uniqueness Rule.  And a comment comparing 'restricted' Regrowth to Treasured Find which makes less sense in light of Regrowth's unrestriction.  It's interesting to see how quickly set reviews become obsolete.  Although the central casting for Vintage: Moxen, Force, Workshop, Bazaar, Confidant etc. hardly ever change, a rotating cast of characters take their turn in the supporting roles.  There was a surprisingly long time period where Tinker got upgrades and new options every set, and same for Oath.  We had Darksteel, Inkwell, Sphinx, Battlesphere, and then Blightsteel got printed.  We had Hellkites, then Iona, then Terastodon, then Rune-Scarred Demon and Dragon's Breath guys.  And then Griselbrand got printed.  Wizards just doesn't know when to stop sometimes, especially with respect to creatures.

Yes, that rule change does change my analysis of this Jace.  

***

General question: which set review do folks like best?   I used very different approaches.  Which approach do folks like best?

The hardest set reviews were like Innistrad or Dark Ascension, where I analyzed *every single card*, and even gave an example of why 95% of the cards would never see play because they were strictly or nearly strictly inferior to other cards.  

Then again, it may be moot, as I'm not writing set reviews again until they start making better Vintage cards. 2013 was abysmal compared to 2011 and 2012 in that regard.  

[DubDub]

Well, I pretty much skimmed through each of the reviews, but I think it's way overkill to discuss, mention, and even list all the unplayable chaff in these sets.  The few articles you organized with subheadings of "unplayable" "marginally playable" and "definitely playable" I just skipped to the definites.  Vintage has such a high bar for entry that at most we'll see only a handful of cards show up consistently from a given new set.  I think this is actually a great boon to us because set reviews can focus much more in depth on these few, and you should feel free to come up with whole decklists like the Griselbrand Oath.  I think it's more worth your time and the readers time to discuss Mental Misstep in depth than it is to logically prove that Vault Skyward is unplayable along with 93% of the rest of Scars of Mirrodin.

[Smmenen]

Well, I pretty much skimmed through each of the reviews, but I think it's way overkill to discuss, mention, and even list all the unplayable chaff in these sets.  The few articles you organized with subheadings of "unplayable" "marginally playable" and "definitely playable" I just skipped to the definites.  Vintage has such a high bar for entry that at most we'll see only a handful of cards show up consistently from a given new set.  I think this is actually a great boon to us because set reviews can focus much more in depth on these few, and you should feel free to come up with whole decklists like the Griselbrand Oath.  I think it's more worth your time and the readers time to discuss Mental Misstep in depth than it is to logically prove that Vault Skyward is unplayable along with 93% of the rest of Scars of Mirrodin.

I generally agree with your view that going through each and every single card is a  time sink and largely a waste.  I found some value in doing so, however.  It forced me to consider more carefully exactly why a card woudn't see play, even when it was obvious.  Also, it ensured that I didn't miss anything.

The reason I went to reviewing every card for Innistrad and Dark Ascension was that I missed Slash Panther in New Phyrexia.  I believed that if I had been more careful, that card would not have slipped through my net.

That said, I think looking at just "definitely" playable is a mistake.  Take my Innistrad set review: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-%E2%80%93-innistrad-a-comprehensive-vintage-set-review-and-updated-ultimate-vintage-checklist-downloadable-product/

I organized the cards into:
 1) Unplayable
2) Remotely Playable
3) Possibly Playable
4) Definitely Playable.

Look at what I put under Remotely playable: Delver of Secrets

And look at what I put under Possibly playable: Lab Maniac

Both were cards that the other vintage set reviews ignored, but the latter was a card I played in a tournament (the waterbury) less than a month later!

Cards I listed under Possibly & Remotely playable ultimately ended up seeing play.  

In Dark Ascension, I divided the cards into just three categories:

Unplayable
Unlikely But Remotely Playable
Playable

But with Avacyn Restored, I went back to the Innistrad 4-category revew.  

With Return to Ravnica, I abandoned all pretense of such categorization, let alone attempt to review every card in the set, and did a standard, alphabetical review, stopping to analyze just cards that seemed worth discussing.

At the end of the day, I find it far more satisfying to do my set reviews by podcast, but there is a large demand for written set reviews.   I'll probably publish set reviews again at some point, but I'm not completely satisfied with any of these approaches.  

[DubDub]

Well, in my opinion that classification of Delver was a pretty predictable mistake.  At the very least I think it's reasonable to have realized that it would be very good in Legacy (a format with unrestricted Brainstorm) and to make a comment to that effect.  Laboratory Maniac I think is fine to be more skeptical of at first, because it's not just a 3/2 flying one mana creature.  It would take some time to see if an Oath or Doomsday approach would work with Maniac.

I see what you're saying about missing Slash Panther, but I believe the Vintage community is mature enough to know you (or anyone) isn't going to get it right all the time.  And even if you had reviewed Slash Panther (by virtue of reviewing every card in that set) you might have still 'missed it.'  Reasonable people are going to understand that the best use of your time is to explore the cards in a new set for Vintage play as you see fit.  Because reasonable people don't want 220+ Unplayable grades to sift through.  If you miss Slash Panther, so what?  Catch it at the beginning of the set review three months later.

[Smmenen]

Well, in my opinion that classification of Delver was a pretty predictable mistake.  

First of all, if it was so predictable, then why was I the only set reviewer, or apparently person in the entire Vintage community, to talk about it as a possible playable in October or November 2011?

The other VIntage revieweres didn't even mention it.  See:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/22846_Picking_Brains_The_Innistrad_Vintage_Review.html

and

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/22839_Vintage_AvantGarde_Innistrad_Vintage_Set_Review.html

Of the three people who reviewed Innistrad for Vintage, in published set review, I was the only person who even *mentioned* Delver.

The Vintage community didn't fare much better.  There wasn't a single discussion thread on it in the VIntage general strategy forum except this brief on analyzing the math: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43732.0

If it was so obvious, the SCG set reviewer and the collective Vintage community would have at least *mentioned* it.  There are threads for tons of garbage cards.   I mean, Sydri has a 32 post thread for it and Ral Zaerk got 68 post thread.

At least I described that it could be played in Vintage.  I was the only person who actually *mentioned* Delver as a possible playable to my knowledge at the time.  I also thought it was a definitely playable in Legacy; I just wasn't sure that people would actually try it in Vintage, although I thought its basic stats warranted play.

I also wouldn't characteirze my review as a mistake, per se, as a prediction.  I did not say it was unplayable, and I explained exactly where and how it might be used, and exactly why, and everything I said was true.  

That said, I agree with your basic point.  I just find that being compleatist, and being accurate as possible, is a point of pride for me.   I want to be, empirically, the most accurate set reviewer out there, for any format.  I'd rather be wrong a card than not mention a card.

I find the failure to mention cards that ultimately see play in Vintage far less excusable than misclassifying a card that is at least analyzed.  The failuire to mention cards looks much worse in historical retrospect, I believe, than being wrong at the margins of whether a card is really good or just good.

With Delver, my hesitation was the lack of Aggro-Control decks that had been played in the format, and I was right in the sense that it took 3 months before folks started building Delver decks in Vintage.  I'm very happy with my analysis of Delver as historical record, which can possibly be attributed to being compleatist.  I would be much more unhappy if I had failed to mention it. 

[DubDub]

I guess I'm conflating the playability of Delver in Vintage with it's playability in Legacy.  It was pretty clear that a BLUE WILD NACATL WITH FLYING would be pretty damn good in Legacy.  Perhaps I'm overestimating the degree to which you would want to make comments about new cards for Legacy instead of just Vintage.

Delver is less good in Vintage than Legacy because there are the opportunities to hit an 'I-win' button like Tinker or Time Vault which makes the ~12 damage it deals in what should be an impressively short time irrelevant, in some cases.  Also, it's my opinion that because Delver is such a staple in Legacy that has enjoyed such success people are simply playing adaptations of RUG Delver in Vintage.  That's nothing more than an anecdotal claim, but that's my impression.

[MTGFan]

Steve wasn't as high on Delver as he probably should have been, but he at least mentioned its potential playability.

The other reviewers (DeMars, Hornung, and even Chapin) either didn't mention it at all or dismissed it as a fringe player. Chapin didn't even list it in his Top-15 Eternal playables in his Innistrad review, which seems kind of crazy for someone who is usually an astute judge of card ability.

(http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/22861_Innistrad_In_Constructed_Part_3.html)

In that article he lists garbage like Skaab Ruinator and Victim of Night above Delver as Eternal playables in his Top-15 list.