The Effects of Tier 2 Philosophy on Skill - Magic: the Gathering article

by sky_savage on 2007-04-15 12:02 MDT

Great article and great win. I run the angelfire with busts but no teferi. I think that the busts are what get me through the Dralnu matchup and they seal the deal against tron that i happen to see all the time.

thanks for taking the time

by Malhavoc on 2007-04-15 12:11 MDT

Very good article.

by Apocalypser on 2007-04-15 12:12 MDT

Very nice.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-15 12:26 MDT

Nice article. I just disagree on the fact that they shouldn't print "powerhouses" like Usamaru. Sure it's a great card but it's not good enough unless there are more cards a bit less powerful but still good enough for constructed play to go along it in a aggro deck. So while control gets so many powerhouses aggro gets much less and most decks will have to go with 1 or 2 powerhouses and the rest are weaker cards.

by Vedrfolner on 2007-04-15 12:45 MDT

I think the most important thing in this discussion is the fact that the best player of a deck is its maker. s/He is the one that have tested it the most, and should know how to play it in the most situations. Aldaryn is pointing out that each player should tune the deck to suit his/her own preference, but it goes farther than that: If you copy *insert pro player here* 's deck, and you face him in a tourney - you will most likely lose. What is then the point of netdecking?

I am myself not good enough to outperform any of the pro players in a major tourney round, unless I play a deck they HAVE NOT TESTED AGAINST. It gives me an advantage, actually the ONLY advantage I could possibly have. That is why I play rogue. That, and the fact that deckcreation is the part of Magic that gives me the most fun.

by Via on 2007-04-15 12:50 MDT

You instilled the question in my mind - do you play 4 remand do you? its clearly the best card in current T2.

I like your idea of Odds/Ends, and you are absolutely right about wider format with plenty of possibilities.

We are living in golden age of Magic!

Hey and the guy above wrote very wise comment.

by Lunarvoltage on 2007-04-15 12:59 MDT

This is the best article written here in '07. By far. That isn't too much though, considering that the previous ones have imo been quite horrible. This one at least has a point (although it wasn't expressed too clearly).

by Trotsky1 on 2007-04-15 13:46 MDT

For the angelfire mirror your opponent playing around remand is in fact making a play error. As you could also be holding at leat 1 lighning helix in your hand, which would see his game winning spell wasted. So his decision to demonfire for just your life total was very poor.

Your opponen clearly made the wrong play, not the right play as you suggested. It is much better to run the demonfire into remand and risk the extra card top deck chance for your opponent than to risk wasting one of your own remaining win conditions. Of course there is a lot of missing information from the scenario like you could have 3 lighning helix in then bin and no remands making the remand much more likely and the correct play. But given the information we were given, by you not enough for a proper analysis of the correct play, one assuming all things even should not demonfire for 6.

I think this proves the skill is still figuring out what could be in your opponents hand, as you writing this article completly missed the danger of lightning helix being in hand yourself and this will cost you one game in 50 or less if you continue to play around remand but not lightning helix.

Flawed article.

by Foba83 on 2007-04-15 13:53 MDT

Good article.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-15 14:14 MDT

Trotsky1 pointed out something I completly forgot. You could also have drawn a Lightning Angel making him one helix away from losing.

by Bozo on 2007-04-15 14:39 MDT

In that situation you were definitely a lucksack. There are a lot of decisions you have to make in games that should be based on what you expect your opponent to have in their hand. If you "always play around the worst case" or if you don't play around anything at all, you will lose more than if you play intelligently.

by coolcreep on 2007-04-15 14:48 MDT

Great article. Brings up a lot of good points in a clear and consise way.

by adapt on 2007-04-15 15:14 MDT

Agreed. I enjoy the illusion of the odds for some of these card. The complex insection of unknown cards can't be beat. Very elightening article.

by Stucco on 2007-04-15 15:41 MDT

Quality article. It was missing some information which creates some grey area, but I really enjoyed the idea behind it. It was also nice and short... a good article isn't always a long one.

by aXuLe on 2007-04-15 15:45 MDT

Good article.

by _bouncyer_ on 2007-04-15 16:55 MDT

Unlike the others here, i think that this article was horrible, basically you are explaining to people that because you ran a card which is subpar in mostly every situation and your opponent played correctly, but you had a rogue card you won, not impressive. This article is only going to encourage people to run more bad cards. Its obvious that running an unexpected card can be advantageous however this is only true if that added card is equal too or more useful that the card it replaces, really anyone who is good would know that this article was a rediculous waste of time. Lucky for you most of ML isn't good.\

-Bouncy

by Blah234 on 2007-04-15 16:57 MDT

In this game, unless you've seen your opponent's list before hand, you'd have to play as if they are playing the most popular list (That's if he hasn't seen your Remands or Odds/Ends yet). Considering all possible red, blue or white cards in this situation would be hazardous and affect your playing.

THerefore, I don't really see the point in this article.

by Smogan_Bob on 2007-04-15 17:40 MDT

Enjoyed it, always nice to have some articles that help less experienced players

AKA: me

by cjthedude on 2007-04-15 17:57 MDT

great article

by Laplie on 2007-04-15 17:57 MDT

demonfire for 6 probably was not the correct play (as many pointed out) because a simple lightning helix means the demonfire is wasted. However, holding on to the demonfire because you think your opponent has a remand isn't the correct play either. Because in those turns, your opponent might actually draw the remand.

by kcaccidental on 2007-04-15 18:40 MDT

It honestly doesn't matter about the Lightning Helix or the Angel or any other specific gameplay mistakes. The situation was just an example to illustrate a point, namely that those who use netdecking as their sole means of deckbuilding will eventually run into a silly card or a rogue build that costs them the game/match, and that therefore netdecking is 'no longer sufficient'.

Great article.

by kfcman on 2007-04-15 18:44 MDT

greatly written
one of the best on m-l
(with the exception 300 card zoo as that was pure gizenius)

by Jacois on 2007-04-15 18:47 MDT

Laplie, _bouncyer, Trotsky1....

Get your collective Pro-negative heads out of your collective vacuum sealed assholes and realize that this Remand/Demonfire dressed as "Angelfire" topic was merely an "example", and not reasoning to use Odds/Ends over Remand.

I see your ignorant flames as poorly concealed terror at the prospect of subpar players using cards you might not expect. This is evolution baby, buy a ticket or get off the train.

by Zsoltsy on 2007-04-15 21:00 MDT

"
So maybe the right answer is to always play around the worst possible scenario. Or maybe the answer is back up a step. Maybe we should reconsider our deck construction in such ways that our decks can ignore to a greater extent just what our opponent is doing, or rather planning on doing. And maybe this is a subtle tool for Wizards to keep aggro decks near the top in a control metagame, without printing obvious powerhouses like Isamaru, Hound of Konda
"

Am i the only one who sees a lot of rhetorical questions and no question marks?

by Alandariel on 2007-04-15 22:16 MDT

@ Zsoltsy: Those aren't questions. That's why there are no question marks.

@ Trotsky: Flawed article, eh? Write a better one.

@ Bounceyer: First of all, Odds/Ends is a good card vs a suprisingly large amount of decks. Though not a maindeck card for sure, Odds/Ends would be a decent choice for sideboard. On top of that... it was a mere example. :/

@ all flamers: I haven't seen any of you write a better article. And don't say [insert badly written artice by you] was the best article ever. If you flame someone for anything at all, you're not only immature but very unintelligent. The only purposes of flaming are: (1) To make the victim feel inferior, and/or (2) to make yourself look or feel superior. And if you have to flame someone to make yourself look or feel superior, you're obviously not superior. :/

by raichoup on 2007-04-15 22:39 MDT

Helix would have make your opponent dfire for more, but that's not the point of the article!

Remand is so powerfull that it changes everyone's habits, everyone tries to minimise its effects, specially players which need the good tempo.

And that's the second effect of Remand, which works even if you don't have it in your oppening hand : it does force your opponent to play in a suboptimal way.

I found the article very well written, thanks for this good stuff.

by SUPER_X on 2007-04-16 00:26 MDT

It is obvious that if you have the time to test decklists you copy (or initially build wich I'm assuming no), you will make changes to what you think is best for the metagame you are going to face. I think this article just says that... wich is rather obvious, I don't think this is new in the game, nor the "tier 2" cards that of course do something, nor the random silver bullets you sometimes put into your pet decks.
If you don't have time to test, then you're better off trusting a decklist played by a pro that's been probably tested very well and is a consistent build. Netdecking works (also still works), for a vast majority of the players.

"Reading" or skills in the game you described are kinda blur and irrelevant, you're holding demonfire and 2 wogs, you lose in so many cases scenario, that he just chose one solution and put his money on it, probably not the best solution to the problem but most probably was gonna lose anyway even if he knew the "tier 2" card you were holding.
Also, you weren't bluffing, you were leaving mana to play odds, so there's really no supreme skill in just leaving mana open to play what's in your hand.
I think you're overanalyzing a case that really doesn't have that much importance. Like people throwing eot Teferis waiting for a remand and meeting mana leak in an angelfire deck, that's a bit more significant change on the list (and would be a much better and less refutable example of what you're trying to say).

Anyway, I think you might have reached your goal on some readers. But maybe you're making their heads busy with the wrong questions. I may have agreed at some point with the article if it didn't have the word new in it. Also to many "I think"s, "may"s and "maybe"s. So, you're not giving answers, you're not giving (or instilling) the correct questions neither. That's my way to see it and probably the way some others do too; but you can't get everyone happy, and it's probably a better article than most free ones.

by PsyK on 2007-04-16 00:30 MDT

Interesting article. You're definately a luck sack :P but he raises a good point well supported by Vedrfolners comments. Netdecking can work against you, if your opponent knows every card in your deck before turn 3 and you're still confused by what they're playing they've got a decent advantage over you which could lead to you making a serious error in game. The demonfire situation explained wasn't that big a deal, but i'm sure people can think of a far worse situation where someone made an obvious error because they didn't actually know what they were playing against.

by SOAD on 2007-04-16 01:00 MDT

Some ppl says Remand Buys a turn, Remand is usless in lategame, Remand is awesome 1 card for 2, whatever REMAND isnt band and altought it isnt a good card, Its just a card that will be a powerhouse in some situations and a tempo-killing machin in other ones, why to play around it if you can only see how does that card is useles vs Demonfire, and Yes, you are a lucksack because, fliping a coin is a 50%-50% and its not an always sure thing, ok good for you got lucky and got the right side of the coin.

by Shyft- on 2007-04-16 02:53 MDT

Also, I don't see how getting Hellbent on the Demonfire changes things if you have the "copy" version of Odds/Ends. Pretty much, if you (for some strange reason) feel your opponent has odds/ends AND does not have the resources to kill you any time soon, you just don't play the Demonfire.

Thirdly, yes, Odds/Ends is a strictly inferior card. Quite simply, Remand is among the best cards ever printed in Magic. Odds/Ends is, well...not.

Currently, Remand is in top tier decks in :

T2, 1.x, and Vintage (Hasn't found the right Legacy deck yet).

Sure, you can find reason for playing Odds/Ends, maybe as a supplement to Remand, but it simply is not as good, especially in a deck like Angelfire with 29 mana sources, where Remand further presses the mana advantage designed into the framework of the deck. Further, the comparison makes absolutely no sense, they don't have a similar function at all. Odds/Ends is a midgame removal card or a situational counterspell whereas Remand is primarily an early game tempo card or a late game cantrip.

Also, explain your article. What in the world does "Tier 2 Philosophy" even mean? Not everyone in the world goes and masturbates to Karsten articles every week or worships WOTC.

Despite these HUGE flaws, I commend the article for at least trying to show a different point of view. Try again sometime.

by Malhavoc on 2007-04-16 05:37 MDT

To all those that are bashing Odds/Ends.. come on! That was just an EXAMPLE to explain something much more interesting. We are not here to discuss if Odds/Ends should be maindecked or not..

by Conkisstador on 2007-04-16 05:52 MDT

Superbly written. My style asks for a solution but that's the only thing I'm left asking for.

Few comments:
Skred > Remand. Skred is basically Swords to plowshares. 1cc removal hat kills anything on any point of the game.
Playing rogue tweaks is what makes the best plyers great. Although it became relatively standard in many places... the affinity player maindecking Mana Leak became the genius that won the turn after it got played.
Admittedy, this current cardpool offers SO many choices to deckbuilders. Tier2 is an interesting concept too, cuz look at Battle of Wits. That deck decided to run all the good BUW cards. Look at them. Every single one is in another deck or has been. Wits = Add 4x Win and Subtract Consistency. Some players like that.

I almost always play my rogue builds (BR Spirit/arcane, 27-1 v affinity [lost 1 to mana leak] go figure!) but it is pretty awesome that even the best decks can be tweaked to counter the metagame or just add some shock to it. I don't know if everyone checks trial decks but my last one i played UG scryb with SB = UG control. 5 of my 6 matchups told me i was playing a bad metagame choice. 4 trygons were amazing. rune snag > mana leak won m control matches. Voidslime playing against ProjectX where normally i have Shadow Of Doubt.

I even go further than parity in t2. limited offers the same choices. I ay have 23awesome cards to play in a curve... but in the rigt draft I often see reasons to cut morph for trickbind. they dont see it (even tho they probably should since 90% of tables spin the card) and it wins.
Anyways, I gotta go but the reason i bring up limited here is because he same questions from here translate directly across formats. Expect my article soon ;-)
peace

by aldaryn on 2007-04-16 08:03 MDT

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I just want to say

1.) The article is not perfect. I expect flames, in particular:
2.) The opening situation is not factual. I constructed it to make a point, and I forgot about Lightning Helix. I apologize for the poor construction. I should re-do the situation if I revise the article for some reason to make the point more concise. But as some of you noticed, the specific concern I was trying to make here was not my opponent's error on the side of other possible cards in my deck, but on guessing a known card vs. a "tier 2" card.
3.) I am very happy to see semi-healthy discussion. Flames come with the territory and if you can see through the smoke, there is some constructive criticism to be had here. Bouncy actually did have a point. Though I wouldn't call it a terrible card. I recall Dralnu, Lich Lord being quite "terrible" when Time Spiral came out, until non-American magic players did what they do and showed us our lack of ingenuity.
4.) Have fun!

by aldaryn on 2007-04-16 08:09 MDT

Super_X = good criticism, Thank you.

I do see that many people are getting hung up on the crappiness of Odds // Ends and the specifics of the scenario. That was not my intent, and I blame myself. I should have constructed a more narrow example.

Shyft- Although I love me some Karsten porn, I see your point. By "Tier 2 philosophy" I mean the WOTC flooding Type 2 with "good, but not great" cards, so that there isn't always "one best deck" like back in the day with Necro, Affinity, etc.

I may attempt a revision and submit it to the site again later.

Via- yeah, I play 4 Remand ;) Apart from the questions I'm trying to instill here, I'd definitely call Remand the better card.

Red- My point is just that, that it's harder and harder to "read" your opponent, and as thus you should focus on using this to your advantage, and knowing your OWN deck as best you can, by your own construction and consideration of this vast sea of playables.

TugaChampion - I'm not saying they shouldn't print Isamaru...but if they can avoid too many cards with that obvious of a power level, and still make such decks viable, I think that's probably healthier. I mean, as we've seen, Boros is still viable without Isamaru.

by sui_slush on 2007-04-16 10:36 MDT

I personally did not like the article as I don't really think you properly address the questions you raise. I don't think any of us with this opinion (Bouncy, Red, Shyft, myself) have flamed you, we are just stating our opinions, which you have to expect if you put something out there for praise/criticism.

by aldaryn on 2007-04-16 11:00 MDT

The article wasn't meant to answer the questions, but for you to...but perhaps that is poor form, I don't know, but I know what you mean. I apologize if I sounded overly defensive

I can't say with confidence that I successfully captured the essence of what I wanted to discuss, but there is certainly something there worth discussing, as this new tier 2 philosophy has surely changed the fundamentals of tournament-level play, if only subtly.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-16 11:27 MDT

_bouncyer_ is just someone who overrates his own skill. He's not that good. He can't even judge a good draft deck when he loses to it as I have beaten him 2-0 with an amazing BWR slivers draft deck and he said it was crap (and worse he drawed very well because both games he got turn3 Kraken suspended and also had sulfurous blast to kill 3 of my slivers in one game). And I'm not the first one to notice he's not that good. He also made 1 or 2 obvious mistakes that many "noobs" wouldn't make!

by aldaryn on 2007-04-16 12:52 MDT

Tuga - fascinating, but irrelevant.

by Revik on 2007-04-16 15:02 MDT

VERY well written article. Although, I really dont see a point worth writing an article around. Run rogue cards and you'll always win? There's a reason the tier 1 cards are tier 1, you know.

by Ffancrzy on 2007-04-16 16:08 MDT

I honestly think every 1 is misjudging the point of the article (which was well written I might add).

He was basically saying that it is harder to simply "know" what your opponent was playing (card for card) because of the wide range of viable cards...again the example was just that....an example...

Well written, good concept but the example (as others have pointed out) is flawed because i probably would have played aroung helix just as much as remand...like you said you made it up

by sc4rs on 2007-04-16 20:12 MDT

Also, even if Demonfire was uncouterable, Odds/Ends could copy it and send it back to his face for the win. Granted, it would rule out the other side of the coin flip, but if the coin flip was the same in either case, it wouldn't matter what decision they made in that scenario, because casting Demonfire in the first place would lose them the game, which they couldn't really know based on what you had, because of the random chance involved in the coin flip. Even assuming they know you have Odds/Ends, by casting Demonfire they're essentially determining the game by a coin flip, meaning the "play skill" question isn't really what's at stake in this example.

It's a good topic to think about though. Well written.

by Laplie on 2007-04-17 01:52 MDT

I wasn't trying to flame or anything. I just think the article is making the wrong point. Good players will not be "frozen" by what might be in their opponents hand. Even if you know every single card in your opponent's deck, its still a mistake to play around every card they have.

When the control player leaves UU open (back in counterspell days), it was a mistake to always assume that they had counterspell in their hand. If you did, you played right into what they wanted, while they held a grip full of lands.\

In the example, if the demonfire player waited so he could have enough mana to play it twice in a turn because he feared remand, he committed a bunch of errors. By not playing, he gave you time to draw an answer if you didn't have one/he gave you time to draw a win condition. And remand is not even a hard counter, so giving you the 1 draw off remand is probably better than letting you draw for a few turns anyway.

I always laugh internally when my opponent says something like "I know you have the Swords to plowshares so i'm not going to play ...." because they are just giving me time to get what i want.

I think the article also fails to address one of the stronger arguments towards "threat diversity" in that your opponent must also have "answer diversity." Where cards like Cranial Extraction and extirpate are used, maybe its better to run multiple slightly different win conditions. Or if you plan on running 2 Echoing Truths, maybe you run 1 echoing truth, 1 chain of vapor so Chalice for 2 doesn't shut you off.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-17 02:30 MDT

aldaryn you too are irrelevant so you should just die.

by Vedrfolner on 2007-04-17 02:54 MDT

It is all about adapting to the metagame. The deck that won the last trial, and the decks it beat to get there are 75 known cards each. Are you the best player in M-L? No? Then don't copy those decks completely! Don't copy the Dredge deck that won the last Standard trial, because my sideboard just got from 2 Extirpates to 4, and from 0 Tormod's Crypt to 2, and do you seriously believe I am the only one? The metagame changes from trial to trial, and if the next one has 4 tron decks in top 4, cards like Parallectric Feedback and Wreak Havoc may see play and they will hurt you just enough to make your decision to copy that Tier 1 deck a bad decision. Do you play 4 Sulfur Elementals in that tron deck of yours? Yes? When was the last time you actually encountered a Boros deck? 2 Months ago? Okay. When was the last time you encountered a Dralnu deck? 2 Weeks ago? Okay. Then why do you play 4 Sulfur Elementals in your tron deck?

Stop copying, and start thinking!

by Revik on 2007-04-17 04:20 MDT

Vedrfolner, these decks have been thought out already, and you forget that we're all not deckbuilding geniuses like you...

by Kaesh on 2007-04-17 06:34 MDT

Vedrfolner: Sulfur Elementals are good vs everything :[

Obviously the point of the article is partially correct, but it has been always true, and the changes in wizards policy (like printing less total crap) were quite insignificant and didn't really change much. There have always been alternative ways to build decks, and speaking of some mythical times where there have been definite best versions is just bullshit and shows you haven't really been playing then.

PS. I've lost to having my Demonfire Oddsed, but it was like 6 months ago at the very least :P

by Vedrfolner on 2007-04-17 07:04 MDT

if opponent is not playing counterspells or white creatures with thoughness 1, Sulfur Elemental is just a 3/2 flash creature for 2R. Decent enough but hardly a devastating win condition in a control deck...

by aldaryn on 2007-04-17 07:23 MDT

I am actually glad here to see where people say that I'm wrong and point out other issues to be made, such as threat and answer diversity. At the very least the wheels are turning. This is good! Good post Laplie

by Vlada on 2007-04-17 08:03 MDT

People that liked this article are all noobs, you read coupple of lines that sound smart and are all OMG WTF GREAT ARTICLE, i feal sorry for you all.
Really bad article, and i will not spend time for explaining why, because if you cant get it yourself, you are not worth of my time, simple as that.
And as i recall Andariel is noob that we quoted in many situations saying rofl things, so i dont get it why any1 took this article seriosly.
It rly lack in any new/good informations, and are just encouraging people to play rogue cards, because it can pay off once in a while, and that's really pathetic.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-17 08:48 MDT

Just stfu vlada. You are so fuking stupid that it hurts! You and your little friend Random (who lucklily I haven't see online for a while) are the worst shit of this league.

PS: I forgot that little sucker sebas!

And btw aldaryn isn't much better than you guys which was proved by his rude comment on my comment.

by Kytep on 2007-04-17 12:25 MDT

@ Tuga

I don't want to pretend to speak for Aldaryn, but it looks to me like he was not suggesting that *you* are irrelevant, but rather that the topic you brought up (bouncyer's alleged incompetence) is not relevant to the debate at hand ("Tier 2 philosophy"). So I don't think it was a personal attack; to me it was more like "Huh? Why are you bringing this up? That doesn't have anything to do with our discussion."

Kytep

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-17 12:44 MDT

lol I know he was saying my comment was irrelevant for his article. The problem is that it was relevant as bouncyer once again is bashing the league thinking he's very good when in fact he's not that good and worse he's an arrogant ass. And although Aldaryn didn't insult me he basically said that my comment didn't matter when bouncyer's comment is really insulting him.

by aldaryn on 2007-04-17 12:48 MDT

I was trying to succinctly and tactfully avoid flamewars, which failed miserably, as you can see. why bother, i s'pose.

by Vedrfolner on 2007-04-17 13:34 MDT

I wonder if there are any articles which are actually judged as good by the social retards who are frequenting these boards...

by Vlada on 2007-04-17 16:51 MDT

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-17 16:48 CET

Just stfu vlada. You are so fuking stupid that it hurts! You and your little friend Random (who lucklily I haven't see online for a while) are the worst shit of this league.

PS: I forgot that little sucker sebas!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yes, i admit, i hope one day i will become good as you... roflmao

by CloudRisen on 2007-04-17 17:01 MDT

This article is terrible because it starts out with terrible plays to begin with. The idea here is that your opponent with 13 lands Held demonfire for a turn under the assumption he'd run it into remand? WTF. Yes Allow you to have additional Turns to find ways to win. With 2 Wrath of Gods and 0 answers to one of your demonfires his chances of winning grew slimmer and slimmer as the game went on, this article does nothing but appeal to the barns who dont see into the situation that your opponent created for himself through terrible misplay.

If your opponent had been worth a damn he would have ran demonfire out for 9 points 2 turns in a row, allowing him to not only avoid Lightning Helix collateral damage and also to avoid random Mana Leaks, You won a game by a card that flips a coin to determine the outcome, what if he had been a good player and Ran out those WoGs the turn before and then your only option was to get the 50/50 chance that odd's/End's works to your advantage. This article did nothing but show the gross misplays a player can make with what should be an easy to play deck.

by aldaryn on 2007-04-17 17:33 MDT

CloudRisen: did you read the posts? it was a poor construction and i apologize, but NOT the point. I'm really hitting myself here for not making a more concise, narrow example. :(

by Ffancrzy on 2007-04-17 18:31 MDT

@Vlada

I dont see why you have such a hate for this article. While it has been noted by many (including aldaryn) that the example was indeed not perfect, it was the idea behind the article that I personally found interesting. Your comments aren't constructive. At least some of the "flamers" such as Bouncy and others at least provided some reason for why they disliked or thought the article was not very good, however blunt they were.

You said that he was a noob and that you didn't know why anyone took him serious. Thats not a very good reason to discredit something and basically discredits anyone with the ability to improve.

The point of the article was not to get people to play rogue cards. but rather to step back and see how the current standard pool effects the way we construct decks and the way we play. This may not be a brand new idea, but then again you were just riddiculing him for aparently trying to "encourage people to play rogue cards" which each 'suggested card' would be a new idea.

All that said you if still believe that the article was poor you are entitled to your opinion and are under no obligation to share your reasoning. I am simply trying to make my opinion known, being that I believe this was a good article and while it has some flaws it has a good overall message

by aldaryn on 2007-04-17 21:14 MDT

I think the rarity / "rogueness" of Odds // Ends also caused unnecessary confusion. There are certainly Tier "1" cards that still have to be decided between - something like Mana Leak vs. Voidslime in Scryb & Force, for example.

by loucdubs on 2007-04-18 01:52 MDT

Look, m-l is a joke. I don't get on here that much and every time I do I see bullshit like this arguing. Which in fact just turns me off to the whole idea. Nobody has the right to criticize these people, none of you all are that good. I'm not either. my rating on here is like 1587. But I test with people who are currently in Yokohama, Japan preparing for the pro tour. And I hang out with your boy pwnz all the time and have known him since I was 11. Me and him have been top 5 under-18ers in our respective state for a while so all of you all who feel like they need to express how big their magic dick is should really put a sock in it.

by TugaChampion on 2007-04-18 06:44 MDT

Vlada, you'll never be like me because you're probably not even human! You are just a fuking retard asshole alien who happens to play Magic.

by Vlada on 2007-04-18 06:49 MDT

Damn Tuga, you got me this time....
Now go drink nice warmth cup of STFU coffie...

by Vlada on 2007-04-18 08:12 MDT

by loucdubs on 2007-04-18 09:52 CET

But I test with people who are currently in Yokohama, Japan preparing for the pro tour.

Listen, son, if you at least said you are going in Yokohama, that would maybe help a litlle to impress someone, but that obv. isnt anything spectacular, but saying HOW YOU PRACTISE WITH PEOPLE WHO GO...thats like saying:" i have friend, that have friend, that knows guy who are going on PT"
roflmao...
You think no one here ever atended PT....
I could talk about what you said a lot more, but dont have time, must laughing to that.
Kid, you have still a lot to learn, especialy that testing with people who go on PT, or even if you are going on PT, doesnt make you pro, or make you able to judge is someone good or not.
So go back from whenever you came from, play, test, improve your game, qual. for some PT, do something on it, and then come back to bullshit.
OK?

by CMA-Flippi on 2007-04-18 13:52 MDT

by loucdubs on 2007-04-18 23:06 MDT

see, point proven. You assume too much. assuming gets you nowhere. i wanted to see how these people would react and here it is. Your head is so far up your ass you can't even decipher what is true and what isn't. If your admins are wondering why you can't get a substantial amount of competitive players on this site, it's because of this. half-ass players get to shine and get a podium to talk shit when they normally couldn't. thanks for the offer for free online magic but i'll stick with mtgo if i must. Good luck with your program but with people like this you won't get recognization from anyone but a bunch of burnt out not-so-good wannabes.

by Vedrfolner on 2007-04-19 03:51 MDT

I think that people who determine their worth depending on their DCI or m-l rating really need to stop and think a little. Magic is a game. It has no value.

Consider this: How many hours have you played magic? 2000? 3000? Even more?

I have played many hours myself, but at least I don't assume it means anything. Because it don't.

by Wiley on 2007-04-21 18:51 MDT

I just read this article and realized how good it is. I mean obviously remand is great and the assertion that odds/ends is better is highly flawed (if he is indeed saying that) but the point gets across very well.

This all reminds me of back in the days of Invasion (I started around Prophecy, which is right before Invasion) where even cards like Mahamoti Djinn were considered playable.. in fact I think Serra Angel still was also. I'd have to check some old decklists.

This article really encapsulates the way I build decks (also the reason my constructed rating is so low, admittedly, but what can you do). I often include cards like crime/punishment, sunforger, muddle the mixture and similar cards that are certainly quite good but have gotten lost in the overwhelming sea of playables

by Vodka_7up on 2007-04-23 18:15 MDT

Nice article, keep it up. I appreciate something that makes people think/debate opposed to spoon feeding me. You obviously did well considering the range of debate.

by Zellse on 2007-04-29 20:24 MDT

People who believe the article is poor because Odds/Ends is subpar prove the point of the author: if you contain your thinking to netdecks you will lose to tech. He runs Odds/Ends for a reason, be it surprise value or a metagame choice or because he was on a dare from a friend to run them doesn't matter. A good player can find inspiration from seeing other decks but tweak them to their own tastes.

by TheOrb on 2007-08-04 09:16 MDT

Agreed with Zellse. While some cards are just obviously better than others, there are situations and circumstances when a subpar card might actually be more helpful than a more commonly used and accepted one. Try to take your mind off of the specific example and see the general point.

Before I started playing in local tourneys, I used to think you were allowed to see your opponent's decklist before you played them. And, coming to find out this isn't really true, I've come to understand that the factor of suprise, even at the cost of playing a worse card, can be devastating to your opponent. What happens when you attempt to draw out a Remand so that you can replay a card, when your opponent simply Cancels or does something weirder like Rune Snags you? Remand may be a better choice than those cards, but those cards sure as hell mess with an opponents original gameplay plan.