Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other

[Smmenen]

He was killed at the end of Return of the Jedi. 

His first body was killed at the end of RotJ.  The story of Palpatine continues in a series of comics.

Ok, so he was killed by Han Solo with a Blaster shot to the back...

Is that better?

[Godder]

Just wait for movies 7, 8 and 9 (Lucas has said he won't, but he will, eventually...).

[desolutionist]

I was sort of talking about your avatar

[ELD]

Just wait for movies 7, 8 and 9 (Lucas has said he won't, but he will, eventually...).

CONFIRMED!

[hauntedechos]

ROFL ELD:  good find.

[Smmenen]

Tezzeret is the new Morphling.

--

Stephen Menendian

Has this proven true? 

[Webster]

Tezzeret is the new Morphling.

--

Stephen Menendian

Has this proven true? 

The obvious tidbit to get out of the way is, "What did you think the old morphling was?"

[Smmenen]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

[Matt]

The old Morphling was Greater Morphling.

[Vegeta2711]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

Then how can anyone answer the question?

[ErkBek]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

Then how can anyone answer the question?

I think it was intended to be rhetorical...unless Steve was looking for a "Yes."

[Smmenen]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

Then how can anyone answer the question?

There are questions of far greater ambiguity that people have little difficulty resolving on a daily basis. 

[Webster]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

Then how can anyone answer the question?

There are questions of far greater ambiguity that people have little difficulty resolving on a daily basis. 

Do everyone a favor and say exactly what you mean instead of carrying on with this nonsense. As much as we all love deconstructing your perfectly crafted posts while idolizing the sublime diction contained within, one can only take so much of this.

Tezzeret is the new Morphling.

--

Stephen Menendian

Has this proven true? 

Yes, if you mean "Is Tezerret the go-to win condition for generic blue-based control shells?"
Possibly if you mean "Will Tezerret get ousted by 'the new psychatog'?"
No, if you mean "Is Tezerret good in standard?"

[Smmenen]

rather than delve into semantics, which such a conversation would inevitably spark, I'll leave that open to interpretation. 

Then how can anyone answer the question?

There are questions of far greater ambiguity that people have little difficulty resolving on a daily basis. 

Do everyone a favor and say exactly what you mean instead of carrying on with this nonsense. As much as we all love deconstructing your perfectly crafted posts while idolizing the sublime diction contained within, one can only take so much of this.

It wasn't a trick question. Sheesh. 

We all know art or porn when we see it, and if you've played Vintage long enough, you should know what I mean by "Tezzeret is the new morphling" too. 

[M.Solymossy]

"Should know what I mean by the new morphling"

I agree with Steve.   I had just started playing Vintage seriously in 2004/2005 when Mono Blue and other decks playing Morphing surfaced.  To me, Morphling symbolizes  a time when decks that were slower than molasses could with the game by dropping Superman.  Nothing could deal with Morphing, and he would just win you the game, eventually.

Tezzeret is a whole different monster, but the case is the same none-the-less.  The format since late 2004 has become a whole turn or two faster thanks to advancements in the format (Gifts, IT, Pitchlong, 2 color Grimlong, Flash, Gush decks, Oath all come to mind since then).   Tezzeret gives Control decks the Morphling of 2008.  Drop Tezzeret, and give them 1 turn to either kill you, deal with Tezzeret, or lose the game. 

So yes, Tezzeret is the new Morphling.   

[nataz]

We all know art or porn when we see it

You've never seen quality porn then.

[Smmenen]

So this guy went on a rant about how big of a jerk I am in one of the other forums.   In the rant, he repeatedly called me an “ass,” told me to take “my head out of my ass,” called me a douchebag, and said that I am arrogant, pompous, etc. 

I know that people who are publicly visible in certain communities will be attacked just "because", but sometimes we should call them out.

It doesn't help to antagonize people you play against by asking if they want an autograph, or just general condescention. 

I have never, ever asked an opponent if they wanted an autograph before a match, during a match, or after a match. 

Is there any actual factual evidence that I, in any way, antagonize people I play against in Magic tournaments? 

And yes you come across as arrogant, pompous, condescending and in general alongside the vast majority of the vintage community, a touch elitist. 
It's been a dicsussion ive had with many people who play vintage who i have met.

People can say all sorts of things about anyone (as we are now seeing in the Presidential campaign), but that doesn't make them true. 

Are there any actual facts to support these defamatory remarks? 

If flores is a pompous ass who feels he is above criticism, who believes anything he writes is gold and that condescending remarks and replies are the best way to answer questions people may raise about his deck, then yes smennen you are flores.

I do not believe that I am above criticism, nor have I ever asserted that I am above criticism.   Do you have any facts to support your claim that I think I am above criticism?   

Everybody needs to pull their heads out of their asses.  Steve, if somehow this penetrates into your brain and you take any of it to heart, then perhaps your audience would be bigger and more willing to pay for premiums.
 

Repeatedly saying that I am an “ass” doesn’t make it true.   Can you point to anything specific that would support your claims? 

[wiley]

It doesn't help to antagonize people you play against by asking if they want an autograph, or just general condescention. 

I have never, ever asked an opponent if they wanted an autograph before a match, during a match, or after a match. 

Is there any actual factual evidence that I, in any way, antagonize people I play against in Magic tournaments? 

I was actually wondering about this since it sounded like he was speaking from experience.  You don't come off as the type of person who would be so antagonistic to your opponents, more like the kind of person that simply ignores their existence as much as possible.

Most of the criticisms that I have read simply sound like misplaced rage at the vintage community being focused onto one of its pundits.

Also, in case you are fishing for ideas for articles, it is fairly interesting (to me anyways) to see a gameplan comparison between similar decks.  For instance comparing the strategies between ad nauseam tendrils and tps, or between various styles of fish decks (that one would probably be centered more around the functioning of their disruption packages).

[Smmenen]

It doesn't help to antagonize people you play against by asking if they want an autograph, or just general condescention. 

I have never, ever asked an opponent if they wanted an autograph before a match, during a match, or after a match. 

Is there any actual factual evidence that I, in any way, antagonize people I play against in Magic tournaments? 

I was actually wondering about this since it sounded like he was speaking from experience.  You don't come off as the type of person who would be so antagonistic to your opponents, more like the kind of person that simply ignores their existence as much as possible.

I'm generally friendly  and respectful with opponents, particularly in real life, but even on MWS, so I, too, was a bit puzzled by that comment.

Most of the criticisms that I have read simply sound like misplaced rage at the vintage community being focused onto one of its pundits.

That could be.   In any case, there is definitely rage.   Such vitriol!  I find it hard to imagine that any one on the mana drain, let alone myself, could summon all of that anger in the context of a card game.

Also, in case you are fishing for ideas for articles, it is fairly interesting (to me anyways) to see a gameplan comparison between similar decks.  For instance comparing the strategies between ad nauseam tendrils and tps, or between various styles of fish decks (that one would probably be centered more around the functioning of their disruption packages).

That's a good idea.  I have some unusual article ideas for the next couple of weeks, but if anyone has some suggestions for articles they'd like to see, I will give your request serious consideration.   This is as good a place as any to do that. 

[Demonic Attorney]

I just want to note that it's unseemly for one person involved in a dispute to post an argument in a forum where the other party can't respond.  It's especially misleading to ask questions of eightywpm knowing full well he can't answer them because he doesn't have the posting privileges to respond here. 

This is not say that I agree with eightywpm's remarks, or endorse the manner in which they were presented, but you're going about your counterargument in an unfair way.  If you don't see a problem with that, by all means proceed.  But in my view, your exchange with eightywpm has at this point ceased to be a debate and is now a monologue by you in which you're pretending to engage with eightywpm and his concerns, but in reality you're talking to him in a forum where he is silenced by virute of his membergroup, so the only person who gets any say in the matter is you.

[Smmenen]

 In answer to your claim of unfairness, I will post, unedited, any response eightywpm has which he sends me by PM.   

My questions, while phrased in response to eightwpm, were actually in response to anyone who feels similarly.   

This is not say that I agree with eightywpm's remarks, or endorse the manner in which they were presented, but you're going about your counterargument in an unfair way.

I would hope that you would go further and condemn the manner in which he presented them.  Name-calling (calling someone a 'douchbag' and an 'ass') should be totally unacceptable here.   

[Smmenen]

My plan for articles in the near future is this:

Next Monday: TPS tournament Report
Then: Experiment with Unrestricted Vintage, prompted by a SCG reader
Sometime in the future: Primer on new mental magic variant devised by Chapin

Suggestions are welcome!

[hitman]

I can't wait for the mental magic article.  I have a small group of friends that love to play and would enjoy anything mental magic-related. 

On another note, I've played you a couple times and you've never been a jerk.  I wouldn't take the criticisms too much to heart.  While it's encouraging to get positive feedback, it's unusual to get it in a community that rarely agrees on anything.  In any case, people tend to be more vocal when it comes to criticism than when it comes to praise so you may have a much greater following of readers that enjoy your articles than those who negatively respond would have you to believe.  Keep up the good work.  Some of us appreciate it.

[Smmenen]

Thanks dude

[Tha Gunslinga]

I have never, ever asked an opponent if they wanted an autograph before a match, during a match, or after a match. 

I think I will have to start asking opponents if they want autographs.  It seems like a great way to throw people off.

[desolutionist]

Sephiroth on MWS now goes by The Great Sephiroth Menendian and has asked if I wanted your/his autograph.

[Harlequin]

So, I'm going to start with one big 'full discloser.'  I don't subscribe to SCG premium.  Basically the only reason I don't is convenience: SCG is blocked at work.  So you can take my comments for what they are worth - which is basically nothing.  But I'd still like to put them out there.  As with most things, I'm fairly indifferent to you Steve.  I'm no more a 'Steve fan' than I am a 'Steve basher.'  I like that you are a loud voice for our community, and respect that it is an extremely difficult and committed job.  The difficulty is certainly because, as you have pointed out, it's impossible to please everyone.  On the other hand, I find some of your claims and arguments to be somewhere between self-absorbed to fully arrogant and demeaning to others.

Most importantly: I'm not trying to change you, your mind, or your style.  Keep it up.  I'm just making an observation... you can tuck it away in the back of your mind, or you can use it to line your birdcage - I honestly and completely do not care.



Ok, thats out of way:

I find it hilarious that you wrote a tournament report about TPS, on the back of your 3 "innovation" articles.  I mean really, the title of your article could have been: How to Pander to an Audience.  Personally, I don't care what you play, nor how much you pander to appease certain groups of your audience.  I agree that at the end of the day, being basically the only regular vintage essayist, you are almost forced to spread your topics around to make sure that everyone can relate.  You need to write some creative stuff to appease people who identify themselves as innovators; you need to write some detailed stuff to appease people who identify themselves as analysts; and you need to write reports about your victories to appease people who identify themselves as 'powergamers' who want to win tournaments with the best deck.

What I find funny is that with the TPS article you basically simultaneously agreed with people who said your innovation was a failure, and slapped the face everyone who defended your decks as innovative and potentially viable.  I'm sure you didn't realize this at the time, but It's pretty funny to watch now.

I mean immagine your some dude, you don't win tournaments that much because you play scrubby decks.  Your pet deck is say.. parfait.  Now you dream final comes true: someone out there is backing me up, and thinks 'your' deck is a winner.  Now when your friends say "don't play parfait"  you can say "Steve thinks is a good deck."   Now you wake up Monday morning to read the SCG headlines: "Steve Just Pooped on You!"

I'd like to also draw a personal line in the sand here.  Steve, I think you're certainly creative.  But you're not what I would call innovative.  Creativity is certainly not an insult, I think many people are not creative deck theorists.  It takes a certain mind to be able to propose decks that have creative collection of cards that have interesting synergy.  But the key difference between Creative Theory and Innovation are the stones required to put your money where your mind is.  I think this is what frustrates people who strive to be innovative.  They see people being creative on the forums.  But when it comes down to that creative person putting $25 on the table at a tournament those same people just default back to tried and true lists.  Meanwhile the reader ends up going 1-4 with creativity.dec. 

For what its worth (which again, is not very much), I think an interesting article would be one where you go though how you personally decide what deck to play at a given event.  Both in the abstract theoretical level, and in practical experience (noting successes and failures).

Keep up the good work,
~ Jeff
  ~~ aka Harlequin.

[Smmenen]

What I find funny is that with the TPS article you basically simultaneously agreed with people who said your innovation was a failure, and slapped the face everyone who defended your decks as innovative and potentially viable.  I'm sure you didn't realize this at the time, but It's pretty funny to watch now.

I don't agree with this *At All*.I didn't slap anyone in the face.   


If you read my report I explained, in detail, why I chose TPS over the other decks, and the reason was not  "cause I think TPS is better " nor "because the other decks I innovated weren't good."    My deck choice had nothing to do with how good I thought Ad Nauseam or Parfait was.   

I mean immagine your some dude, you don't win tournaments that much because you play scrubby decks.  Your pet deck is say.. parfait.  Now you dream final comes true: someone out there is backing me up, and thinks 'your' deck is a winner.  Now when your friends say "don't play parfait"  you can say "Steve thinks is a good deck."   Now you wake up Monday morning to read the SCG headlines: "Steve Just Pooped on You!"

Well, I would say to that person: that's bunk!   Parfait IS really good and if I had faced it, I probably would have gotten my ass kicked.  I played TPS for different reason, which I articulated in the article.

I'd like to also draw a personal line in the sand here.  Steve, I think you're certainly creative.  But you're not what I would call innovative.  Creativity is certainly not an insult, I think many people are not creative deck theorists.  It takes a certain mind to be able to propose decks that have creative collection of cards that have interesting synergy.  But the key difference between Creative Theory and Innovation are the stones required to put your money where your mind is. 

I think if you look at my history in Vintage, it's hard to say that I'm not innovative, considering I've created many of the top decks of Vintage of the past, and played them!   There are countless examples.   I used to actually try to play a different deck at every major tournament.   Do I do that anymore?  Not really.  But I used to.   

[LotusHead]

As a Vintage Player with limited resources (I own the cards I own (p7 2 shops 1 bazaar no drains) I have to work very carefully within the 10 proxy norm that is the American Vintage scene.

I take all tourney reports seriously and even if the pilot is playing a deck I don't (or can't), it leaves very valuable information for me to digest.

Steve: Write whatever articles you do, because it gets a whole heck of a lot of people excited about vintage.

I don't have premium.

And I don't play Storm, ever. (except Bomberman with ETW sometimes).

[Smmenen]

My three part TPS primer, I think, remains as useful today as it was when I wrote it a couple of months ago.   I tried a very different approach with my primer.  Rather than just describe how each card works or rather generically describe the overall approach, I tried to give the reader a frame to understand how everything fits together.  I then explained how all of the cards worked within the context of that framework. 

Part One introduced the archetype, and explained the decks various engines and its disruption suite, with guidelines on usage.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16270.html

Part Two covered the decks tutor suite, with guidelines on usage, and a description and explanation of the deck’s manabase.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16298.html

Part Three focused on matchups and sideboarding, with detailed sideboard plans and descriptions of every major Vintage match.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16330.html