|
|
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
Posts: 2807
Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2012, 10:17:50 am » |
|
Seems like a very solid read... He advocates Rack and Ruin. He has the same problems with Vintage that I have Cube Drafting: "Ermagerd, this card's so good! (In a constructed format that I was an expert in 3 years ago.)" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Prospero
Aequitas
Administrator
Basic User
Posts: 4854
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2012, 10:52:32 am » |
|
Seems like a very solid read... He advocates Rack and Ruin. He has the same problems with Vintage that I have Cube Drafting: "Ermagerd, this card's so good! (In a constructed format that I was an expert in 3 years ago.)" Feel free to write an article of sufficient length, with sufficient theory and content, and then have it published on a major site. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StanleyAugust
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2012, 11:25:29 am » |
|
I find it a bit problematic that a writer for the biggest resource on Vintage doesn't even play Vintage regularly. He writes about one of the best and most popular decks in Vintage but clearly haven't played or tested enough with the deck to actually be one of the best players with the deck.
I mean it's fairly obvious as he even says so himself: "It had been over a year since I last played Vintage. In this time, Flusterstorm, Snapcaster Mage, Mental Misstep, and Grafdigger's Cage had all been printed. Since all of these cards were in Lanigra's winning list, my priority in testing was to evaluate these cards myself and work out which of them belong in the deck (...) I didn't know which of the new counters was better, and that meant testing them against other decks."
Dan, if you are reading this, I hope your not too let down by my comment as my intention wasn't to bring you down in any way. You'll probably admit yourself that there are others with way more testing with this deck than you.
And with all this said, I did actually enjoy the article, though I would have liked a tournament report as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cruel Ultimatum
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2012, 12:25:57 pm » |
|
Seems like a very solid read... He advocates Rack and Ruin. He has the same problems with Vintage that I have Cube Drafting: "Ermagerd, this card's so good! (In a constructed format that I was an expert in 3 years ago.)" Yes, evaluating cards on your past experience is a terrible idea... The biggest thing I agree with from the article is cutting the 3rd snapcaster. And not having a 3rd jace, but that is harder to say without knowing his metagame. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Egan
ECW
|
|
|
|
bluemage55
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2012, 09:05:03 pm » |
|
The biggest thing I agree with from the article is cutting the 3rd snapcaster. And not having a 3rd jace, but that is harder to say without knowing his metagame. Yeah, cutting the 3rd Snapcaster seems solid. I also don't hate cutting the 2nd Bolt in favor of different removal, but not for Rack and Ruin... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aahz
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2012, 09:52:59 pm » |
|
The biggest thing I agree with from the article is cutting the 3rd snapcaster. And not having a 3rd jace, but that is harder to say without knowing his metagame. Yeah, cutting the 3rd Snapcaster seems solid. I also don't hate cutting the 2nd Bolt in favor of different removal, but not for Rack and Ruin... I've been finding myself siding out the 3rd Snapcaster a lot, so I just wanted to chime in to agree. 2 is seeming more and more like the right number. I'm almost always happy to see Bolt though, so at the moment dropping below 2 main seems questionable for me, but probably very metagame dependent. I'm on the fence about Jace. My anecdotal opinion is that 3-4 Jace feels like too many, while 2 just feels right. I think without more Jace you really need a Top to control Bob flips. Finally, while I love Rack and Ruin from the old days, I can't imagine resolving it these days versus Shops (so I wouldn't run it). However, I'd like to point out the line in the article where he mentions using it versus Blue opponents' artifact mana. This is an angle that is being ignored by the haters. Just sayin'. Always good to see Vintage articles/content out there. I'm quite impressed with the sheer volume of Vintage content in the last week or two. Good show, folks! I hope it keeps up and I don't have to go weeks without anything to read/listen to about Vintage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lemnear
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 01:21:32 am » |
|
Yeah, the amount of Vintage articles increased but imo the quality drop to the Rock bottom. Most of the reads only state and endlessly repeat the obvious, lost themselves in hilarious details (from an article 2 weeks ago: reason the shift from 1 flusterstorm to 1 spell pierce for about 2/3 of a page) or draw inadequate analogies to other formats / past metagames. I have to admit those Kind of articles reached my personal threshold of annoyance and sometimes reap critic.
In this case it feels like he wanted to write an article about modern but SCG's told him they are flooded with those and can only offer space for a vintage article lol
joke aside, after reading I think the article include #1 and 3# of my no-go's listed. He repeats stuff we have all read Time and Time again in similar matter with similar reasoning and his changes to Marc's deck are based on a Vintage metagame from the age of Mirrodin and Kamigawa where rack'n ruin was a legit way to wipe Trinisphere + threat unless they hardlock you the turn after.
Todays workshops Stack resistors (sometimes combined with a clock) which make R&R costing 4 or 5 mana facing a 4-Turn-clock. Back then you simply tried to reach 3 mana before your opponent got Trinisphere + crucible + strip mine/smokestack online which was a completely different story he doesn't even adress while suggesting R&R. These are the Kind of thoughts/reasoning I miss these days.
Maybe I should conside to addr "discuss a format (Decks, metagame or Ban-List) unless you really Play it" to my no-go-list, especially after having Brad Nelson heared discussing the Legacy Ban List back then at "The Magic Show" quoting obviously false Data and rumors (tournament performance and results of survival) as facts and drawing conclusions while never sleeved up a Legacy Deck himself before.
As said before in another thread: I rather read less about Vintage than a flood of words without content.
I do miss the time where chang staxx, meandeck Gifts, 8-discard-miracles grow, etc. appeared as decks with a New gameplan and followed a shitload of spot-on analysis of decision trees, metagame and Card interaction instead of being endlessly, needlessly told how good snapcasting a flusterstorm is.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 01:25:23 am by Lemnear »
|
Logged
|
Member of Team RS (Germany)
|
|
|
Phele
Basic User
Posts: 562
Tom Bombadil
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 02:21:47 am » |
|
Sounds like a torture for you to read it. MAN, don't exaggerate that much. I have no interest at all, what your personal no-go-list is, but have to read paragraph over paragaph from you about that. Do you see my point? Same for your comments on Rack an Ruin, which we already had in this tread. Thanks for pointing this out in detail again, captain obvious.
I think, it is not appropriate to ciritcize an with much effort writen article so fundamentally while not offering an alternative. Show me your list of full length evidence based Vintage articles, that we can start to nitpick about your stuff.
I am very fine to read about experiences of all kind of players and their view on their metagame. I don't agree with some of his boarding choices, but so what. Thank's Dan!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow; Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
Free Illusionary Mask!!
|
|
|
|
bisamratte
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 12:44:34 pm » |
|
I like the article as it's about my favorite deck and reflects some opinions that are new to me. On the other hand phases like "I have always disliked Sensei's Divining Top, as it is mana intensive and often clunky. I replaced it with Gifts Ungiven (...)" don't seem to be very logical. I also don't like most of the new card choices, but I also didn't like Marcs'. Getting new options is always fine and even if I would not play it, I'm able to think and decide about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- The Slayer of Annecy -
|
|
|
|
