[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays - Crazy Stax!

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16568.html

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, October 20th - The Vintage metagame is brimming with powerful cards and strategies, and Shards of Alara adds a new level of intricacy to the mix! Today’s So Many Insane Plays sees Stephen Menendian take an unassuming Blue artifact for a spin, pairing it with some of the most broken cards in the format!

So there is no confusion this time, please do not post the decklist in this premium article in this thread. 

I will, however, be happy to hear comments and try to answer good questions.

[diopter]

Sick deck Smennen.

Couple thoughts:
- Courier's Capsule, despite your argument regarding its synergy with Ruins, seems really mana-intensive and weak. Better as something like Thirst for Knowledge?
- Misdirection seems weak as you don't really have all-in turns. Would they be better as Thirst for Knowledge? Although when I think about it, MisD is great against Chain and Hurkyl's Recall.
- Both Smokestack and Mindlock Orb are 4-ofs that really require first or second turn Shop to be effective. Personally I favor Orb over Stack... would you consider replacing Stack with some Spheres? I know you argue that Stack fully exploits Shop, but my view is that you become too reliant on Shop.

[Smmenen]

Sick deck Smennen.

Couple thoughts:
- Courier's Capsule, despite your argument regarding its synergy with Ruins, seems really mana-intensive and weak.

That's why there is only one.  It's mostly there as a minor fixer that has the potential to recur with Ruins in a random late game situation.  It also helps raise the blue count just a tad. 

- Misdirection seems weak as you don't really have all-in turns. Would they be better as Thirst for Knowledge? Although when I think about it, MisD is great against Chain and Hurkyl's Recall.

That's why they are there, among other reasons.   

- Both Smokestack and Mindlock Orb are 4-ofs that really require first or second turn Shop to be effective. Personally I favor Orb over Stack... would you consider replacing Stack with some Spheres?

Not stack, but other cards I mentioned in the article. 

[nialo]

You definitely got the "Crazy" part right, however I can't see how this is Stax.

You have 4 Mindlock Orb, a Trinisphere and then the usual slow Smokestack / Strip-Crucible. You have very few true lock pieces, let alone quick ones. For example, look at what Jaco wrote in his article on this site about his Stax: "This has a number of potent first and second turn plays, just as any Workshop deck should. It is critical to land two to three lock components on the first two turns of the game." You certainly have a turn one play, I just don't see it being very potent, unless you see the Trinisphere or blue mana + shop or Lotus into Mindlock Orb. It seems sort of ridiculous to imply you can lock the game down early like any other Stax (or even Fish) deck can with so few relevant plays early on.

Speaking of ridiculous, Misdirection? Really? How does that possibly help the overall plan of the deck past being blue and maybe getting lucky and stealing an AR once in a while? There's not even any useful logic behind the decision in the article.

I knew that if I was going to utilize pitch magic, I might as well go all the way and run some Misdirections as well. So I did

yeah...

One Mox diamond is also pretty funny. A singleton with 20 land and Crucible? I mean if you like Diamond go for it, certainly would help the ambition of t1 Mindlock Orb and making the deck have a shot at real viability. One just seems likes waffling, esp. with no real explanation.

Although i have to admit the ending was hilarious.

I’m playing in a local Vintage tournament in the new Shards metagame. I’m super excited, but totally confounded about what to play. I will probably run TPS just to see how it plays in the new metagame, but my backup deck is Parfait.

Obviously TPS got played, because otherwise that would mean you actually played one of these ridiculous decks you wrote about it, in an actual tournament! It just sounds insane even thinking about it!

[Smmenen]

You definitely got the "Crazy" part right, however I can't see how this is Stax.

You have 4 Mindlock Orb, a Trinisphere and then the usual slow Smokestack / Strip-Crucible. You have very few true lock pieces, let alone quick ones.

Huh??? What you say is untrue.


The only one that isn't quick is Mindlock Orb.  Chalice, Trinisphere, and Stack are all turn one plays.  Crucible is also a turn one play.   The only lock parts I didn't run were Spheres/Thorns. 

Speaking of ridiculous, Misdirection? Really? How does that possibly help the overall plan of the deck past being blue and maybe getting lucky and stealing an AR once in a while? There's not even any useful logic behind the decision in the article.

It functions, on offense, identically to Force of Wil.  It helps the game plan by helping you resolve critical bombs like Trinisphere, Stack, Master E, and Mindlock Orb.   It also steals AR and misdirects Chains and Hurkyl's Recalls. 

I knew that if I was going to utilize pitch magic, I might as well go all the way and run some Misdirections as well. So I did

yeah...

One Mox diamond is also pretty funny. A singleton with 20 land and Crucible? I mean if you like Diamond go for it, certainly would help the ambition of t1 Mindlock Orb and making the deck have a shot at real viability. One just seems likes waffling, esp. with no real explanation.

"No real exlpanation?"  Untrue.  Check again.  As I said in the article, it's a matter of needing to slightly increase the blue mana count to support early Master E without wanting to run more Islands.  If I was running Juggernaut over Master E, I wouldn't need to make that change. 

Obviously TPS got played, because otherwise that would mean you actually played one of these ridiculous decks you wrote about it, in an actual tournament! It just sounds insane even thinking about it!

Maybe you missed the fact that decks I've written about in the last month and a half have not only made top 8s, but they've won tournaments.  My mono blue Tez list won the last ICBM open, and my Ad Nauseam list made top 8 yesterday.   

[Webster]

An interesting take on the premise of running 4 force of will and 4 mishra's workshop.

Courier's capsule is a poor choice. The late game "engine" of courier's capsule + academy ruins is not efficient at all. It requires academy ruins +  to complete and entire loop. Of that mana, only  can be provided by mishra's workshop. It seems better to either:

1. Run a better blue card.
2. Run a better artifact.
3. Run painter's servant et al.


It feels like you want 1 more lock piece or take a different approach focusing more on the tempo aspect sans "late game plan" with something like tangle wire/juggernaut/trike/karn.

Quote from: nialo on Yesterday at 09:50:56 PM
You have 4 Mindlock Orb, a Trinisphere and then the usual slow Smokestack / Strip-Crucible. You have very few true lock pieces, let alone quick ones.

The only one that isn't quick is Mindlock Orb.  Chalice, Trinisphere, and Stack are all turn one plays.  Crucible is also a turn one play.   The only lock parts I didn't run were Spheres/Thorns.

I wouldn't categorize Crucible as a lock piece. Functionally, it doesn't do anything by itself.

Obviously TPS got played, because otherwise that would mean you actually played one of these ridiculous decks you wrote about it, in an actual tournament! It just sounds insane even thinking about it!

Maybe you missed the fact that decks I've written about in the last month and a half have not only made top 8s, but they've won tournaments.  My mono blue Tez list won the last ICBM open, and my Ad Nauseam list made top 8 yesterday.  

Using the argument that "deck's I've written about in the last month and a half have not only made top 8s, but they've won tournaments" doesn't mean you should tote around the results like they're gospel. There are a few common situations that skew tournament results:

1. Good players X and Y play deck A at a tournament and one wins.
2. At a tournament, half the players play deck A; deck A wins.

When looking at a tournament result, what often gets missed is _who_ made top 8 and _what_ was the metagame breakdown. If good players plays, then it's not necessarily going to matter _what_ they play. Good players are generally going to win. If 50% of the top 8 is deck A, and roughly the same for the swiss, then what else was to be expected? Can you really draw a conclusion from that data?

I'm affraid you've become the Flores of vintage.

[DarkfnTemplar]

I'm affraid you've become the Flores of vintage.

Except the part where Steve is actually good at playing magic.  Oh, and that part where his decks do well.

The deck seems interesting. I might play around with it for awhile.

[Smmenen]

An interesting take on the premise of running 4 force of will and 4 mishra's workshop.

Courier's capsule is a poor choice. The late game "engine" of courier's capsule + academy ruins is not efficient at all.

I agree it is not an efficient combo, but there are a small number of times where it will come up. 

The point of Capsule is not that it is great “late game engine” but that it is a marginal fixer that will help you adjust your game plan.   If you have a Mindlock Orb or Crucible + Wasteland in hand and a Chalice, a turn one Mox, Land, Capsule, Chalice, can be a solid turn one play that precedes your turn two Orb or turn two Crucible.

In my testing, it wasn’t efficiency that caused me to include the singleton Capsule, but the smoothness of the draw it created.  The fact that it can be recurred was a minor bonus.  I discovered many situations in testing where both me and my opponent had exhausted ourselves battling it out, and the ability to recur Capsule at that time would have won me games.

That doesn’t mean it’s optimal, only that it performed well in testing.

It requires academy ruins +  to complete and entire loop. Of that mana, only  can be provided by mishra's workshop. It seems better to either:

1. Run a better blue card.
2. Run a better artifact.
3. Run painter's servant et al.


It feels like you want 1 more lock piece or take a different approach focusing more on the tempo aspect sans "late game plan" with something like tangle wire/juggernaut/trike/karn.

Those cards aren’t blue.   I wouldn’t go below 17 blue spells.

Quote from: nialo on Yesterday at 09:50:56 PM
You have 4 Mindlock Orb, a Trinisphere and then the usual slow Smokestack / Strip-Crucible. You have very few true lock pieces, let alone quick ones.

The only one that isn't quick is Mindlock Orb.  Chalice, Trinisphere, and Stack are all turn one plays.  Crucible is also a turn one play.   The only lock parts I didn't run were Spheres/Thorns.

I wouldn't categorize Crucible as a lock piece. Functionally, it doesn't do anything by itself.

I didn’t categorize Crucible as a lock piece.   I set it apart.  I said: Chalice, Trinisphere, and Stax, and then, in a separate sentence, I mentioned Crucible.   On the other hand, when interacting with other cards, it does become a lock piece.  It just isn’t a turn one lock piece.

Obviously TPS got played, because otherwise that would mean you actually played one of these ridiculous decks you wrote about it, in an actual tournament! It just sounds insane even thinking about it!

Maybe you missed the fact that decks I've written about in the last month and a half have not only made top 8s, but they've won tournaments.  My mono blue Tez list won the last ICBM open, and my Ad Nauseam list made top 8 yesterday.   

Using the argument that "deck's I've written about in the last month and a half have not only made top 8s, but they've won tournaments" doesn't mean you should tote around the results like they're gospel. There are a few common situations that skew tournament results:

1. Good players X and Y play deck A at a tournament and one wins.
2. At a tournament, half the players play deck A; deck A wins.

When looking at a tournament result, what often gets missed is _who_ made top 8 and _what_ was the metagame breakdown. If good players plays, then it's not necessarily going to matter _what_ they play. Good players are generally going to win. If 50% of the top 8 is deck A, and roughly the same for the swiss, then what else was to be expected? Can you really draw a conclusion from that data?

Taken to the extreme position, can anyone draw any conclusion from any tournament data?  There are always uncountable X variables, like the one’s you pointed out.   

My testing, experience, and anecdotal tournament results support my view that the decks I’ve been designing and developing are good.

I'm affraid you've become the Flores of vintage.

This is just unfair.

No matter how hard I try to provide interesting, entertaining articles, there will always be someone out there to criticize me.  I realize that.  But this is a low-blow.

A couple of weeks after the Vintage Champs, I traveled into IRC, a big mistake – the venom I experienced there was incredible.   I engaged one person, who was particularly mean spirited, to try and figure out what was motivating all of this anger.   

In the end, he articulated a clear critique of my articles.   At the time, in August, I was in the midst of completing a three part primer on TPS.    He said that my articles were no longer relevant, like they were several years ago.

I looked back at my article archive: http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=Stephen+Menendian

In the past year, I had basically written articles that were:

1) About whatever deck I was playing, usually a GroAtog variant
2) Tournament Reports
3) Metagame Analysis
4) Set Reviews

Because my actual deck choice changed so little from month to month, my articles, in the view of this person, were no longer relevant because I never wrote about new things.   

Somewhere around 2006 and 2007 I started just writing about whatever it was I was playing, taking a lot less chances.  My tournament performance became more consistent as a result, but it meant less innovation. 

So, I took that criticism to heart.  Instead of just playing it “safe” and writing about the decks that I planned to play in tournament, I decided to try to innovate.   Some of those decks I’ve written about, such as Tezzeret, Ad Nauseam, Parfait, and Mindlock Stax.   Others, some failed innovations, I have not written about.   

Now, perhaps I could have played it safe, and not written about Parfait or Mindlock Stax, decks that you (and others) probably automatically dismiss as “bad.”   Perhaps if I had just written 5 articles about Tezzeret variants you would have found that more interesting.    Perhaps.   

But I can’t possibly win!   On the one hand, I am being criticized for not being relevant because I’m just writing about TPS, GroAtog or whatever my preferred tournament deck is at the time.   Now that I have actually put a lot of work into innovating with decks that don’t look like usual Vintage decks (i.e. not Mana Drain decks), I get criticized.   

Now, I readily admit that of the decks I've published, this one is the weakest, but that's not a question of inherent power or potential so much as the fact that I simply haven't had enough time to really tweak it as much as I have with Parfait and Ad Nauseam.  It may come as a surprise to you, but there are only so many hours in a week on top of a full time job and a busy life.  At the very least, I thought it would motivate others to start with my shell and see what they can come up with.  Instead I get slammed. 

I can go back to writing about just the deck I have been playing, and really stop trying to innovate, or I can continue to try to innovate and try to encourage others to do the same.    But to call me Flores is unfair for a host of reasons.  I was responding to criticism in attempt to engage more readers, try new things, and then, of course, I get criticized for it.   If you don’t like it, just tell me what you WOULD like to read, but don’t resort to bullying, name-calling.   

Sheesh. 

[Neonico]

For me, it's a deck that is not well built and overall, i really think that you did test it alot. I really think that the 3last decks you wrote about really makes your column looks like flores one, i really think that it's a fair comparaison because fortheexception of 3 tunables slots, your ad naseum bringed nothing new, everyone figuredthislist around me here in France, or ICBM team. All the lists i found test better than yours.

About mindlock stax, i see some really better lists all around the forums iregulary browse, both european of american forums. I'll give this one a try, but i can feel that it's easy to find a better list, especially playing 4 Spheres of Resistance first.
 
What disappoint me the most to be honest, as a SCG premium member, is the poor answers you made to any member that critized you 3 last builds. I can mention the answer you made to me about timetwister in your ad nauseum build (its not that good, how can it be bad to have such a bomb with so much rituals and moxen when it's universally played in any storm decks for years ?), the answer you didnt make when i ask about the slow kill of your parfait list, which is alot better with a faster kill instead of alot of useless cards you play, and now, this article and the answers you give to anyone who try to figure how you built this deck.

As a non constructed nor limited player, not sure i'll take a SCG premium again.

[Webster]

It seems better to either:

1. Run a better blue card.
2. Run a better artifact.
3. Run painter's servant et al.


It feels like you want 1 more lock piece or take a different approach focusing more on the tempo aspect sans "late game plan" with something like tangle wire/juggernaut/trike/karn.

Those cards aren’t blue.   I wouldn’t go below 17 blue spells.

The three options I suggested were directed at courier's capsule. The following part was not. Note the paragraph break.

The tangle wire/juggernaut/trike/karn reference was directed at taking a different look at the non-blue cards like smokestack/crucible, giving the deck a staxless feel like Ray's deck (which gave a more definate tempo feeling than most of the shop decks I've seen).

Taken to the extreme position, can anyone draw any conclusion from any tournament data?  There are always uncountable X variables, like the one’s you pointed out.

If there is enough data about specific tournaments, I'd say yes. It's not very hard to recognize the variables that matter if you have enough tournaments and data from those tournaments.

This is just unfair.

No matter how hard I try to provide interesting, entertaining articles, there will always be someone out there to criticize me.  I realize that.  But this is a low-blow.

A couple of weeks after the Vintage Champs, I traveled into IRC, a big mistake – the venom I experienced there was incredible.   I engaged one person, who was particularly mean spirited, to try and figure out what was motivating all of this anger.   

In the end, he articulated a clear critique of my articles.   At the time, in August, I was in the midst of completing a three part primer on TPS.    He said that my articles were no longer relevant, like they were several years ago.

I assure you that I am not an irate illogical malicious person. I am calm, honest, and sincere when it comes to topics like this.

But I can’t possibly win!   On the one hand, I am being criticized for not being relevant because I’m just writing about TPS, GroAtog or whatever my preferred tournament deck is at the time.   Now that I have actually put a lot of work into innovating with decks that don’t look like usual Vintage decks (i.e. not Mana Drain decks), I get criticized.

You can't please everyone. It's a fact of life. Don't take it hard.

Now, I readily admit that of the decks I've published, this one is the weakest, but that's not a question of inherent power or potential so much as the fact that I simply haven't had enough time to really tweak it as much as I have with Parfait and Ad Nauseam.  It may come as a surprise to you, but there are only so many hours in a week on top of a full time job and a busy life.  At the very least, I thought it would motivate others to start with my shell and see what they can come up with.  Instead I get slammed. 

I can go back to writing about just the deck I have been playing, and really stop trying to innovate, or I can continue to try to innovate and try to encourage others to do the same.    But to call me Flores is unfair for a host of reasons.  I was responding to criticism in attempt to engage more readers, try new things, and then, of course, I get criticized for it.   If you don’t like it, just tell me what you WOULD like to read, but don’t resort to bullying, name-calling.

It doesn't matter to me what you write.

I am not criticizing you because of your article topics. I am critiquing your articles because you wrote them. I'm giving you the respect of pointing out the areas that need work, giving you feedback, instead of saying nothing with a reply post of "OMG I LUV UR ARTICLES!!ELEVENTYONE!!! UR THE BEST XOXOXO".

Regarding your article, I said that courier's capsule is weak, suggested some alternatives for that slot, and another viewpoint in which to look at the deck premise.

Regarding my comment about Flores. If you break down exactly what he does, his traits, and how his opinion impacts PTQ formats, you'd reconsider what you said.

[KingHeavy]

you guys are funny, everybody Eureka!

This sort of comment adds nothing to a discussion, while acting as a potential spam-magnet as well. Verbal Warning.
-Godder

[Mr. Type 4]

If good players plays, then it's not necessarily going to matter _what_ they play. Good players are generally going to win.

I find this comment amusing.  Playing a bad deck is a great way to lose. I don't care how good you are, your opponent can just have the nuts.  If your deck doesn't have outs, then there is no way to win.  I agree that a bad player playing a good deck will probably not win, but it is just as unlikely fora good player to win with an awful pile.

Perhaps the real corollary here is that good players often play good decks.  Would that be so shocking?

[Webster]

If good players plays, then it's not necessarily going to matter _what_ they play. Good players are generally going to win.

I find this comment amusing.  Playing a bad deck is a great way to lose. I don't care how good you are, your opponent can just have the nuts.  If your deck doesn't have outs, then there is no way to win.  I agree that a bad player playing a good deck will probably not win, but it is just as unlikely fora good player to win with an awful pile.

Perhaps the real corollary here is that good players often play good decks.  Would that be so shocking?

No, it wouldn't be shocking.

Regarding my comment. I'm making the assertion that the deck choice is going to be within tolerable limits and not some terrible BG void deck from 2001.

Regarding your comment. I'd put my money on the good player every time. Even in type 1 where broken openings trump everything, in the end, skill takes it home. It's not even close in my mind.

[Liam-K]

For me, it's a deck that is not well built and overall, i really think that you did test it alot. I really think that the 3last decks you wrote about really makes your column looks like flores one, i really think that it's a fair comparaison because fortheexception of 3 tunables slots, your ad naseum bringed nothing new, everyone figuredthislist around me here in France, or ICBM team. All the lists i found test better than yours.

Dude there's very finite number of tier 1 decks you've never head of before to write about.

[zeromancer]

Wow, I never dreamt that I would register here to defend Stephen Mendendian...

...but for me, the recent articles are the reason why I will get premium. In my opinion innovation is just what vintage lacks, and it's a good thing that there's someone who publicly tinkers around with all these new cards from the new set. And besides the new set, when I looked at that parfait-list I thought 'wow - that's different' and played around with it a bit and had a lot of fun - even though I will most likely not take it to a tournament.

Those lists might not be perfect, but they ARE a startingpoint for tweaking. Why do people always expect everything to be perfect? OK, I don't get the use of courier's capsule either, but we always need to keep in mind that certain card choices are based on individual experience, opinion and preference. There might be arguments pro and con, but there might not always be a terminal line of argument to determine the definitely best choice for a certain slot. So why don't you guys just take these lists, test and tweak them the way you like, maybe argue about choices - and if you find they're crap just dump them (although I must admit that those one-syllable answers are really annoying and not helpful in any kind of discussion).

Oh, and about this 'types of articles' thing - maybe a mix would be best. This would annoy all of your critiques equally in respect to their personal preferences

But right now innovating is the right thing, so stay with it for a while longer Stephen.

[mike_bergeron]

Can anyone here ripping Stephen's articles apart please post an article they have written?


I would love to see what magic writing is supposed to be all about.

[nineisnoone]

I reeeallly want to see this deck.  I was working on a FoW + Shop deck awhile back as well.   But at the end of the day, I'm not willing to pay for it (for the record, not asking anyone to post it).

On Capsule... why not run Horizon Canopy?  It's faster mana-wise and the same draw-wise when you consider Ruins is replacing your natural draw.  The downside of losing a land drop or not being blue don't seem to counter-act the benefits.

I too had found Misdirection to be amazing.  Usually you just want to protect stuff and occasionally stealing things is pretty good.  Defensive counters against there bombs is usually a non-issue because you should be locking them out of that option anyways.  

[Vegeta2711]

Can anyone here ripping Stephen's articles apart please post an article they have written?


I would love to see what magic writing is supposed to be all about.

1. That's not a legitimate argument / defense. It's like saying I couldn't criticize bad art if I wasn't already an artist or that if I call a video game unfun I'd of needed to made one that was more fun. It just doesn't work like that, and nor should it. If you have valid reasoning for critiquing something, the whole point is to be open too it.

2. http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=Josh+Silvestri

Go. Nuts. I haven't just written one article, I've written almost 100.

[mike_bergeron]

Can anyone here ripping Stephen's articles apart please post an article they have written?


I would love to see what magic writing is supposed to be all about.

1. That's not a legitimate argument / defense. It's like saying I couldn't criticize bad art if I wasn't already an artist or that if I call a video game unfun I'd of needed to made one that was more fun. It just doesn't work like that, and nor should it. If you have valid reasoning for critiquing something, the whole point is to be open too it.

2. http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=Josh+Silvestri

Go. Nuts. I haven't just written one article, I've written almost 100.

Wow, someone is defensive.  I did not say I was going to criticize the article posted, I simply asked for something to reference.  Thank you for posting your articles, I look forward to randomly selecting one to compare to Stephen's to see what all the hullabaloo is about.  And I will go nuts, but only after I am done reading.

[Vegeta2711]

Wow, someone is defensive.

Not really, I simply hate that type of statement get run out there, because it's a very cheap way of trying to invalidate people's thoughts on something. Perhaps you didn't mean it as such, but it sounded like a challenge rather than an actual request.

[mike_bergeron]

Wow, someone is defensive.

Not really, I simply hate that type of statement get run out there, because it's a very cheap way of trying to invalidate people's thoughts on something. Perhaps you didn't mean it as such, but it sounded like a challenge rather than an actual request.

stop replying I'm reading your article on flash.

Edit: your article on flash http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15734.html

This article was one of the reasons I was once a premium member.  It gave me a good break during lunch to read something I actually enjoyed rather than CNN.  The specific points of the article are well though out, and I really like how you include the opinions of well known posters as well as magic players.(andy P, chapin)  In one paragraph you discussed why some vintage players did not jump on flash, mainly the 'unfun' factor of the deck. Great point. I played it once in a tourney, tied my first round and then wanted to drop because it was so lame.  8/10

Stephen's article: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15876.html
First off, I read 3/4 of Stephen's articles. I will admit it now.  However, I really like his line of reasoning in this one.  He lists his (and his teams) top unrestricted spells, and gives it a metric.  That is cool for a couple reasons: it makes internet people go crazy, spawns ridiculous arguments on the boards, and makes you (at least in your head) assign your own metrics to your list.  Stephen points out that the metrics don't necassarily mean anything other than for his own enjoyment, but as far as entertainment value, this article was good.  9/10

So, my original point- Stephen writes good articles compared to other well known magic writers. (in my humble opinion)

[RaleighNCTourneys]

I'd just like to say that I enjoy reading articles like these rather than ones about established decks. As an on-and-off premium subscriber, articles like these push me toward having it rather than not. I don't give a shit if Steve didn't test the list at all and is just BSing us, even if one card in the deck spaks a new idea for me or my team, then the article was worth it. 

[Smmenen]

Here I go...

I don't know why I allow myself to get embroiled in silly debates, but perhaps I hold out hope that something productive can emerge from them.

Here's the bottom line:

I have a weekly column that I will be writing for the foreseeable future, and have been writing since SCG Premium went to a weekly format.  My column, before that, was a couple of times a month since 2004.   So, most of what is said here is not particularly relevant for a host of reasons.   I can write about whatever I want to write about, will probably have enough readers read it to support a weekly column, and damn the rest of you. 

But I don't take that tack.  And I don't for a number of reasons.   Ultimately, my columns are not about me or you, they are about both of us.   I write what I enjoy writing about and what I think it important, but I also care about what readers think.   I want them to also enjoy my articles, I take care to try and improve the content and quality of my articles.

For that reason, I don't mind criticism because I can use constructive criticism to improve my articles.  So, when someone says to me: try to be more relevant by writing about new and innovative decks, that's what I've done.   Shards of Alara has given us plenty of deck building material, and I wanted to see what could be done with them.   That doesn't mean that these decks are going to break the format, but it does mean that they should be explored.   To my knowledge, I am the first person to post a decklist with Mindlock Orb, Mishra's Workshop, and Force of Will in a public forum.    That seemed worth writing about.

Even Webster, who was critical of some of my deck choice decisions, but more importantly called me Vintage Flores, said:

An interesting take on the premise of running 4 force of will and 4 mishra's workshop.

He found my article interesting.   Objective achieved.   

However, he also said:

You can't please everyone. It's a fact of life. Don't take it hard.

It's not about trying to "please everyone" so much as assuming that there are, to some degree, shared views about what large chunks of my audience would like to see.   If I assumed that most criticisms were specific simply to the person who raised them, there would be no point in responding to them in any way, since they only pertained to one individual. 

In general, my view is that the best way to address the fact that different people like to see different things is to do just that: write about different subject matter.   I have a large and diverse audience on a format that only a small sliver of the Magic community plays or is even familiar with.  I write to an audience that is both novice and expert.   Everyone, as I said, has different expectations.  I'm pretty sure that the non-Vintage portion of my audience probably doesn't care about the Vintage metagame reports I do.   That's fine.   There are 52 columns a year.  There is bound to be something there for everyone.   

What's so fascinating about this thread is not what is said, but what's not said.

I mean, the actual particular , and identifiable criticisms that have been raised in this thread have been incredibly minor and mild.   A couple of posters critiqued my use of a single Courier's Capsule.  Another the way I respond to forums posts.   Nialo said that i didn't have enough turn one lock parts.  And yet, there is now a big back and forth defending me and critiquing me. 

That's because we are all arguing about what is implicit.  This, is perhaps, best illustrated by the back and forth between Josh and Mike.

Can anyone here ripping Stephen's articles apart please post an article they have written?

I would love to see what magic writing is supposed to be all about.

Can anyone here ripping Stephen's articles apart please post an article they have written?


I would love to see what magic writing is supposed to be all about.

1. That's not a legitimate argument / defense. It's like saying I couldn't criticize bad art if I wasn't already an artist or that if I call a video game unfun I'd of needed to made one that was more fun. It just doesn't work like that, and nor should it. If you have valid reasoning for critiquing something, the whole point is to be open too it.

2. http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=Josh+Silvestri

Go. Nuts. I haven't just written one article, I've written almost 100.

Josh didn't post a criticism of my article, and yet has implicitly endorsed the tacit (unspoken) subterranean criticisms in this thread.

In essence, and this is basically the gist of Nialo's post: he is claiming that the decks I've posted are bad, and rather than just come out and say it (although he comes very, very close), he attacks things that are eminently defendable.  Thus, his criticism of the lack of lock parts really doesn't hold up.   he attacked my use of singleton Mox Diamond, which was explained in the article, and explained again here, and finally, made fun of the fact that I talked about possibly playing Parfait.

In short, the subterranean criticism isn't a critique of my writing, per se (as even Webster found this article interesting), it is a veiled attack on the decklists I've offered.   I'm sure the IRCer's are gleefully expressing themselves more openly.  (Why don't you guys have the balls to come out and say what you feel about my Parfait deck? - you KNOW you want to say how bad you think it is).

The truth is that if I had just written a Tez article or another article on Ad Nauseam rather than about Parfait and Mindlock Stax, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.   Calling me Flores is just an easy, facially ambiguous (yet clear in meaning) way of attacking me in a subterranean manner.  You can go ahead and call me Flores if you would like, but such a claim deserves greater scrutiny than a bald assertion that I share similar traits.   State what those traits are and support your statements with facts rather than veiled attacks and name-calling. 

With respect to the question of my answers to criticism or questions raised, there are several things that could be said.  First of all, to a large extent, many of the questions raised are already answered in the article.   My job, as I see it, is to anticipate and preemptively answer as many questions as possible in the article itself.   It's not to make sure that I respond to every forum question or comment raised.   Thus, in my Ad Nauseam article, for example, I wrote extensively about the debate between Thoughtsieze and Pact of Negation.   When the same questions popped up in these threads, responding to them would have been merely repeating the content of the article.    Likewise, the point that Neonico made about Timetwister was implicitly answered in that article as well, in my discussion about the need for a new shell rather than reasoning based upon what has worked in other storm decks.   

Sometimes, the questions, although well-intentioned, are too simple to even address. For example, someone asked why I didn't include Cabal Therapy over Thoughtseize in my Ad Nauseam list.   Should I provide a full analytical answer to that question?

Third, sometimes questions are posed or critiques raised which put the burden on me to explain why something is not there, when it clearly makes more sense to ask the person to present their reasoning for why something should be included first.   An assertion that something else tested better is not an analytical statement that can be reasoned with or against. 

Finally, sometimes, as in the case of Mindlock Stax, I admitted in the article that there were many other options, and that I probably did not reach an optimal configuration here, but that it was something for people to tinker and play around with.   I was not rejecting Webster's suggestion that Courier's Capsule was suboptimal, but rather explaining why I included one beyond the reasons I provided in the article. 

[Vegeta2711]

Josh didn't post a criticism of my article, and yet has implicitly endorsed the tacit (unspoken) subterranean criticisms in this thread.

...This is laughably awful and I'm amazed at the unbound paranoia here. You didn't make the statement I was responding too, hence why I used quotes. I've posted the same thing before on any number of message boards especially on the SCG boards and Deviant Art. It simply is a pet peeve I have where somehow an opinion should be invalid because they don't meet some arbitrary level of qualification for a creative piece. As one of my artist buddies told me before, she got more useful criticism from her mom on her work, who had no artistic training at all, than 90% of the other artists she spoke too.

[Moxlotus]

The article gave me something to think about.  That is what I like in an article.  Whether the deck turns out to be the next big thing or if it turns out to be a complete pile is irrelevant.  It threw and idea out there and I found myself thinking about options for it all day.  That means the article stuck in my head and intrigued me.  That's what I like. 

This thing will certainly be goldfished and toyed with.

[God_Campbell]

I would like to defend this article, it was a great read as is almost all of Steve articles, the fact of the matter is that while not his best article, he wrote a "diamond in the ruff" article if you will. He did state this was not the most optimal list, so if I was to throw this together and found the capsule one-of as crap...well then try something different, same with the lack of lock pieces argument.

They give me things to think about when I am toying around with deck lists on MWS and with testing partners, and that is why I read Steve's weekly writings.

[Smmenen]

Josh didn't post a criticism of my article, and yet has implicitly endorsed the tacit (unspoken) subterranean criticisms in this thread.

...This is laughably awful and I'm amazed at the unbound paranoia here. You didn't make the statement I was responding too, hence why I used quotes. I've posted the same thing before on any number of message boards especially on the SCG boards and Deviant Art. It simply is a pet peeve I have where somehow an opinion should be invalid because they don't meet some arbitrary level of qualification for a creative piece. As one of my artist buddies told me before, she got more useful criticism from her mom on her work, who had no artistic training at all, than 90% of the other artists she spoke too.

Fair enough, Josh   Apologies

[Vegeta2711]

Josh didn't post a criticism of my article, and yet has implicitly endorsed the tacit (unspoken) subterranean criticisms in this thread.

...This is laughably awful and I'm amazed at the unbound paranoia here. You didn't make the statement I was responding too, hence why I used quotes. I've posted the same thing before on any number of message boards especially on the SCG boards and Deviant Art. It simply is a pet peeve I have where somehow an opinion should be invalid because they don't meet some arbitrary level of qualification for a creative piece. As one of my artist buddies told me before, she got more useful criticism from her mom on her work, who had no artistic training at all, than 90% of the other artists she spoke too.

Fair enough, Josh   Apologies

npnp, happens.

[Hillboy]

*scratches head, wishes he could see the article, thinks about getting premium, wants a peanut butter sandwich, wonders why there's the hullabaloo about article writers writing articles, thinks even poor articles can teach one something, like if one read an article where one said I use STP because there are a lot of Relentless Rat decks in my meta, then I'd wonder what meta has relentless rat decks, and where can I play in this meta?...*

You can't please everyone all the time, even your own insecurities can drag you down.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

Sigh... Never thought I'd be one to defend Smenenenenen but articles like this one (and yes, the Parfait one as well) are the reason that I renew my SCG Premium account.

A couple weeks back, I saw his TPS article and opted to read Chapins instead. Who hasn't heard every little scrutiny regarding freaking TPS? Every report posted on these forums with one freaking changed card is suddenly a "new innovative" pile of shit that needs to have a monstrous amount of elaboration... It's just Long...... still. Always has been. Intuition Tendrils? Yeah... right. T1T. The shit gets old. I finally broke down and sold out after the restrictions. Who the hell wants to play in a format thats a repeat of what it was years ago? Deja vu tends to get very, very old very, very quickly.

Then come articles like this. Parfait? "Crazy Stax"? I raise an eyebrow- obviously intrigued- and proceed to read the articles. They may indeed (as many here seem to be infinitely sure of) be piles of shit, and I always find myself thinking "creative, but if I ever built this I would try this instead"... Then realize what just happened. It got me thinking about the format again. Wanting to try new things. Absolutely amazing... And I see it happening here as well... I'm just not sure people realize what he is doing. Well, I shouldn't say that. I notice (and it takes a fair amount of filtering) that the smart ones do. They did the same thing I did. They were intrigued enough to tinker with it... If only for fun. It was something different that got us thinking about, well, something different.

So Steve, avoid the apes flinging feces and continue doing what you're doing.

... Though I would definitely be sporting Undergrounds, Urbogs, Duresses, and Dark Confidant.