Back? Ok time for my rant.
I HATE Jacob van Lunen as the building on a budget author. He makes so many mistakes that it's a wonder they have not fired him yet. This is just one of a long line of outright idiotic things he has done in his articles, such as things like putting 4 Inkmoth Nexus in a "budget" Infect deck, and using Firespout in a Alara/Zendikar Standard legal deck. I think this mistake is inexcusable, especially because of his so called "testing games". I have always found the testing games he plays to be a little off, and the opponents seem not very smart, but now it's obvious that he makes them up! I simply refuse to believe that his playtesting games are real, especially because he claims to test on MTGO, which these games were obviously not played on.
/rant
But in all seriousness, I agree with you. This guy is useless.
Yeah, this thread tends to pop up now and again. I just had to make it though, as someone who works for Wizards he should know that Ponder is banned. I'm absolutely amazed that this made it through editing and to final print, it makes me wonder who they have proofreading these things.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
Building on a Budget used to be one of my favourite columns, back when I cared about Standard/Extended. Seems like it has been going downhill since I stopped reading.
JMS always gave the impression that he worked hard on his decks and put real effort into playtesting them. This guy, not so much. Shame really.
Yeah, this thread tends to pop up now and again. I just had to make it though, as someone who works for Wizards he should know that Ponder is banned. I'm absolutely amazed that this made it through editing and to final print, it makes me wonder who they have proofreading these things.
I can agree that his article has gone way downhill, last good one was the GW Human one I based a very fun deck off of.
Odds of pulling a JtMS from a WWK pack: 1:80
Odds of pulling any specific rare in 5th Edition: 1:133
So, on average, 1 JtMS every 2.222 boxes or 1 Bird of Paradise every 3.694 boxes. Yeah, I'll take my odds with Mythics, they are easier to get than old rares.
Want to support a LGS that finally branched into the selling online world? Send me a pm with your email for a $5 off coupon (usable on purchases of $10 or more) for a LGS that just recently got onto TCG player.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it looks happened. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the first time he made up match results to plug his "new deck idea", in fact i am positive he does this on a weekly bases.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it looks happened. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the first time he made up match results to plug his "new deck idea", in fact i am positive he does this on a weekly bases.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain he's been making them up the whole time too, but I was willing to write it off as him playing against really bad people, which happens. Perhaps he should be required to run it through a daily event now, so we can see his results.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Odds of pulling a JtMS from a WWK pack: 1:80
Odds of pulling any specific rare in 5th Edition: 1:133
So, on average, 1 JtMS every 2.222 boxes or 1 Bird of Paradise every 3.694 boxes. Yeah, I'll take my odds with Mythics, they are easier to get than old rares.
Want to support a LGS that finally branched into the selling online world? Send me a pm with your email for a $5 off coupon (usable on purchases of $10 or more) for a LGS that just recently got onto TCG player.
Either the opponents he tests with have a handicap enforced by MO to get horrible draws, or he makes them up. I'm not sure what I believe...
He used to get some good budget decks some years ago, but now even my competitive Standard UB Control deck is cheaper than his piles of underperforming cardboard.
PS: Also he's so annoying in the SCGLive webcasts. He doesn't seem to know anything that's happening on the table (especially in the Legacy Opens) and still can't shut up even for a second.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
John Doe needs a Wurmcoil. The store owner is selling them for $15. But John Smith has one for trade. He trades his Wurmcoil for a Bladehold that the store owner sells for $20. That's $35 in income that the store owner lost. Now, multiply that by the 30 or so people that play at the LGS and you can see how much money he loses in an evening.
Yeah I used to follow BOAB religiously. Remember when the boab was pyromancer ascension months before the deck made a competitive showing? Or how they suggested a sovereigns of lost alara deck before ROE came out and made it competitive with eldrazi conscription? Yeah Pyromancer Ascension and Sovereigns jumped from $0.1 to $3-5 and that made me think it was some kind of magical oracle giving us secret hints at what jank to buy before it becomes more expensive. Now, not so much.
My last care for BOAB was Runeflare Trap. I went 3-1 at 2 straight FNM's without a SB. People didnt pack counters or artifact hate back then... so fun.
So sad to see him and it now. Unless he shapes it up magically, the feature is dead to me.
I actually posted my first comment on the WotC forums in response to this article, basically for all the reasons mentioned above. Pretty unprofessional all-around. At the end of the day it's really not that big of a deal and is more comical than anything else at this point (I basically tune in now to see where he messes up), but they really need to find someone more capable than him.
EDIT:
This article erroneously lists Ponder as a legal card in the Modern format. I cannot excuse this oversight during editing and due to its core nature for the deck discussed below it cannot be easily corrected. This sort of error should not happen and will not happpen again.
-- Trick Jarrett, Editor-in-Chief of DailyMTG.com
I can only hope that he intentionally added a 3rd 'p' to 'happen' at the end there...if so, then well played.
While I like to harvest the BoaB collumns for deck ideas (I had a lot of fun with a proliferate heavy Lux Cannon deck last year) I agree that they're very poor compared to previous iterations of the column. I remember once last year when Van Lunen won both of his playtesting games using a card that wasn't even in his deck list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If not, here is the link:http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/boab/186
Go read it, i'll wait.
.....
Back? Ok time for my rant.
I HATE Jacob van Lunen as the building on a budget author. He makes so many mistakes that it's a wonder they have not fired him yet. This is just one of a long line of outright idiotic things he has done in his articles, such as things like putting 4 Inkmoth Nexus in a "budget" Infect deck, and using Firespout in a Alara/Zendikar Standard legal deck. I think this mistake is inexcusable, especially because of his so called "testing games". I have always found the testing games he plays to be a little off, and the opponents seem not very smart, but now it's obvious that he makes them up! I simply refuse to believe that his playtesting games are real, especially because he claims to test on MTGO, which these games were obviously not played on.
/rant
What are your thoughts?
I used to really enjoy BoB for it willingness to use an innovate deck list. yeah they weren't always the strongest but they were different.
The match reports just aren’t believable.
BoB has the feel of a 'filler' article on the mothership.
But in all seriousness, I agree with you. This guy is useless.
Yeah, this thread tends to pop up now and again. I just had to make it though, as someone who works for Wizards he should know that Ponder is banned. I'm absolutely amazed that this made it through editing and to final print, it makes me wonder who they have proofreading these things.
JMS always gave the impression that he worked hard on his decks and put real effort into playtesting them. This guy, not so much. Shame really.
Juju Alters - Altered MTG Cards
I can agree that his article has gone way downhill, last good one was the GW Human one I based a very fun deck off of.
But where is Ponder Banned in?
Standard
WBGWBGABZAN AGGROWBGWBG
His deck is supposed to be Modern legal, and Ponder was one of the first cards they banned when Wizards created Modern.
That's not true at all. Ponder was legal for the first major Modern tournament and was banned shortly after.
Odds of pulling any specific rare in 5th Edition: 1:133
So, on average, 1 JtMS every 2.222 boxes or 1 Bird of Paradise every 3.694 boxes. Yeah, I'll take my odds with Mythics, they are easier to get than old rares.
Want to support a LGS that finally branched into the selling online world? Send me a pm with your email for a $5 off coupon (usable on purchases of $10 or more) for a LGS that just recently got onto TCG player.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it looks happened. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the first time he made up match results to plug his "new deck idea", in fact i am positive he does this on a weekly bases.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain he's been making them up the whole time too, but I was willing to write it off as him playing against really bad people, which happens. Perhaps he should be required to run it through a daily event now, so we can see his results.
Odds of pulling any specific rare in 5th Edition: 1:133
So, on average, 1 JtMS every 2.222 boxes or 1 Bird of Paradise every 3.694 boxes. Yeah, I'll take my odds with Mythics, they are easier to get than old rares.
Want to support a LGS that finally branched into the selling online world? Send me a pm with your email for a $5 off coupon (usable on purchases of $10 or more) for a LGS that just recently got onto TCG player.
He used to get some good budget decks some years ago, but now even my competitive Standard UB Control deck is cheaper than his piles of underperforming cardboard.
PS: Also he's so annoying in the SCGLive webcasts. He doesn't seem to know anything that's happening on the table (especially in the Legacy Opens) and still can't shut up even for a second.
Totally. Got owned by his own article. Come to think of it I actually regretted reading his previous articles.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyBecause, he plays against a LITERAL goldfish. And you know how quiet goldfish are, they are so shy
Well hold on, my goldfish regular beats me
Then again, he does like to dress up in a fish costume and play fish...
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyAll his goldfish plays is go fish.
-.- I know its bad, it the best i had on short notice
Even worse than that, since he claims to test on MTGO, it is literally impossible to join Modern games with banned cards.
He mentions his opponent scooping to showing him a wildfire, so it was most likely tested with paper.
=
"Sup dawg! I herd u like mountains so I equipped a mountain on your mountain so your can swing with land while you swing with land!"
This, 1,000 times. I've just stopped reading the articles, the last lot have just been terrible.
So sad to see him and it now. Unless he shapes it up magically, the feature is dead to me.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyEDIT:
I can only hope that he intentionally added a 3rd 'p' to 'happen' at the end there...if so, then well played.