Nick, you are a worthy opponent, and I accept your challenge. I bet we draw at least 15 spectators, probably more than 20 though.
I've seen the Bw Vampire deck, and while it's certainly respectable, I've recently got word about a pretty sick deck. Not sure if it will still be good by States, but it'll be interesting nonetheless.
It's been a long time since I've seen that one. A few things;
- Rick Karattenmaker = PJ? I get some frat guy thought it was his name, but I dont get how that stuck.
- xpolosport does indeed suck. However if he says that other people aren't good then they probably aren't mtgpros. I'm almost as bad at magic as Mike Flores is, yet I was able to T16 something like 11 straight tournaments at the church because the average play calibur was so low.
- Why are people saying ridiculous things like they win fnm 95% of the time? Who cares? Is that even true? Have you really won 19 of the last 20 fnms? Once again, who cares?
- Like Nick said, no one is the next Jon Finkel... except John Price. I've been telling all of the "good" northeast players that he's actually the nuthigh. Now that he's beaten everybody many times (q'd for the pt on rating... ding!) everyone believes him.
- I think I'm poised for a really big comeback. I'm going to be participating at States and I'm probably the odds-on favorite to win. Current state champion Dan Sondike ran all the way up to upstate New York because he understands he basically has no chance of beating me. John Price will still probably win though.
- T8 is half Jund? Cool. John's list was easily the best, and is probably the "deck to play" and "the deck to beat" in T2 right now. I like the Spreading Seas personally. Spread 'em!
If anyone would like to challenge me to an honor duel at states, I will glady accept this challenge, any time, any place, as long as it doesn't interfere with one of my T8 matches. Bring it on!
Edit: This thread isn't nearly as teched out as the JSS Super Series thread was a few years ago. For top magic strategy, I highly suggest someone dig that up.
In your opinion, does elves (your list I guess) beat Gerry's fae deck + sb plan? It seems like it'd be 50/50 pre-board, but after board it seems like you've got clunky cloudthreshers that dont really accomplish anything against bb + mistbind and masticore. I've never considered Elves to be a bad match-up despite what I've heard repeated again and again.
Also, doesn't elves get mauled by Kithkin? That deck seems well positioned.
This is Blightning with Hell's Thunder instead of Anathemancer and Terror. With all the fixing in today's environment, you have nothing to lose by splashing black.
Anathemancer is only great vs an unlosable match-up, while being about as good as hell's thunder vs bw, and much worse vs gw and the red mirror. I think it's about even with Thunder across the board as far as match-ups go. Hellspark is nice beats, no need for terror as its removal that isn't burn. Also, I'd rather not distort my manabase, contrary to what you think sacrifices must be made.
Childe of Serra and karaxu: You two are about 1 and a half months behind the trends. Path benefits demigod, as they path your early creatures and ramp you up. Also demifod is terror proof with is very important. Nobody plays celestial purge. BFT is a bummer, but it's not the end of the world. If you're afraid of these cards then you should not be playing a red deck. Read Dan Paskins article titled "Who's afraid of the big bad circle".
The T8 of Northeast regs (nj/ny) was 3 BW Tokens 2 GW Tokens 1 Ancient Ziggurat Aggro 1 Cruel Control 1 UW Turbofog
The spectacular John Price with BW tokens beats the mirror
Phil Napoli with GW tokens beats BW tokens
Ancient Ziggurat Aggro (Mike Innace) beats GCB with turbofog
Cruel Control gets the concession from gw tokens because he can't go to nats.
Tournament had 220 people, BW was by far the most played deck, followed by gw. There were DI spectral processions in the room. I think 5cc and Jund were the second most played decks. The poster in the beginning of the thread who said the meta is a r-p-s between fae, 5cc, and bw is 100% wrong. It's much more like a food chain, with bw taking on all comers.
Meh Republicans generally view the left as elitists(which is interesting considering the "pro wealth" view of republicans), who look down upon people who dont view life the same way they do.
Heres my question, where have you been dude? And what happened while you where gone to take you from hilariously offensive Spencer to friendly reasonable Spencer?
To answer these two questions, and then your third question about how Bush wasn't Dem-lite
1. I've had less time for the internet. what with my academic life intensifying. Ima tryin to get into college.
2. Friendly reasonable Spencer wins arguments (and in a few more decades elections!) far more easily than hillariously offensive Spencer. Right now I'm thinking that Barack Obama > Bill Maher, although I like them both very much. Also, my views on economics have shifted towards the center. Economically, I would describe myself as left-moderate, while socially I remain on par with the ACLU.
3. Asidefrom the War, another way that Bush was Dem-lite in regards to his economical handling of our Nation was his shrinking the welfare state. Now, I don't think anyone wants a bloated welfare state, but it is awfully hard for the minimum wage earner to get by. The idea that many people on welfare are lazy is sickening; the minimum wage earners who work 2-3 jobs certainly work harder than the majority of the population. Did you all know that almost a quarter of the homeless people in the United States are employed? It really is a shocking statistic.
*Important point* - A lot of conservatives characterize liberals as being "big government". There is of course some truth to this, but only some truth. Many liberals, especially left-moderates, believe in small government. Only rather than build up the nation from the top down, ala trickle down economics, I believe we should build the country from the bottom-up. It's been my general observation that wealth trickles up. This is especially clear when eating out at fancy resturaunts that now use inferior ingredients because there are no longer a sufficient amount of local people who can afford to eat there. sigh.
To be fair, Obama was raised by a single mother, and for a period of time they were on food stamps. He may not have been from Harlem or the South Side (though his wife was) but he was clearly working class, and maybe a bit beneath that. That is of course, mostly irrelevent but not completely.
I'm sorry the lack of civility most of the lefties have displayed these past few pages. The rural living republicans aren't "nutjobs" but rather have had a radically different upbringing than myself, which is why I might see them as such (and of course vice versa).
The reason I made this thread is because the Republicans were doing the opposite of what unpopular parties do, hence the cause for concern. Also the prospective Senate races are incredibly grim. They might win one or two of the open seats depending on Obama's performance (which so far has been quite good, according to the people) but the dems will prob hold on to all of the seats they already have. Dodd is a very easy target, but I honestly think it's impossible for a Republican to win in CN. Dodd will either be primaried out or people will just forget how detestable his conduct has been and he'll win anyway. This combines with the lack of "good leaders" in the Republican party makes things difficult.
I feel this is all just media hype. The party has fallen out of favor after having a long run controlling the country; it was inevitable. In time the dems will make big mistakes just like the Republicans and will fall out of favor. Plus, I highly doubt this country could function with a virtual one party system.
Well of course we wont fall under a one party system. There will always be a majority and an opposition party. I'm just speculating that there might be a niche for a new party, and the republicans will have to move to the center or go the way of the whigs.
Edit: Concensus among most people outside of the party is that the social conservatives must be kicked to the curb, much like the dems did with their southern racists back in the 60s. America still has a plurality of economically conservative people, but the rabble-rousing from the social cons is a real turn off to blue state moderates.
I've been reading a lot lately about how the Republic party is in deep trouble and yada yada yada. The theory is that the Republican party is becoming more conservative, and is losing moderates and independents at a fast rate. Because the people who aren't leaving the party are becoming increasingly conservative, base-pandering will become increasingly conservative, further isolating the right-leaning moderates. Specter's recent switch to the Dems is evidence, as is the Republican response: good-riddance. Jim DeMint offered the ridiculous statement that he would rather the Senate have just 30 "true republicans"
The result of all this would be a regional party; a party that can never lose in the black belt and the mormon belt, but is completely uncompetitive in the Northeast, Pacific coast, and Great Lakes Region. Also this "future" Republican party would have trouble winning in the Midwest and Southwest.
Because the government is spending our money (through taxes) on programs that we disagree with (as if we had no real representation)
So it's (taxation) without (representation) ie the tea party imagery.
I wish I could've gone to one. Too bad my town is in one of the few counties in NY to have voted Obama over Clinton in the primary, so no chance of speaking out against wasteful government spending here.
In the 1700s American patriots protested against taxation without representation. Taxes were levied upon them, and they had no say in the matter. The people protesting in these TEA parties had the opprotunity to vote, and they lost decisively. In fact, Obama captured votes by the second largest percent of the countrys population in American history, almost a full quarter. The only other time this happened was with Reagan in 1984.
None the less, I fully endorse these people's right to peaceful assembly.
The rift isn't between Republicans and Democrats at all. The real rift is the culture war, which has been fought ever since this country's inception. The United States is simply too big to have one common culture. I just back from Orlando where I met lovely people from north florida and georgia who home schooled their kids and then sent them to private christian colleges. When they left the pool me and my mother looked at each other and said in unison "Christian nut jobs". There is still a huge divide between pious rural southerners and northern urban/suburban agnostics and this plays out on the political stage through the Republicans and Democrats.
As for Obama, he's doing a fine job and is very popular. I mean, he is "the man", and we have a natural inclination to not like that. Last night one friend of mine was discussing how Obama's economic plans are too liberal, while another argued that they weren't nearly liberal enough. Obama isn't actually a big government guy at all and has more similarities with Reagan *gasp!* than one would think. The primary difference is Obama works from the bottom up, while Reagan worked from the top down. That's why. imo, Obama's economic and political theories will succeed while Reagan's did not.
I don't know how people complain about the farie mirror being impossible to win if the other player resolves a bitterblossom, and then claim the deck isn't skill testing. Maybe people can beat a bitterblossom through good play? I think faeries is prob the hardest deck to play right now, but if you have experience with it it's prob the best.
It's only an auto-win vs fae if you already have the initiative, and if you already have the initiative you can prob win the game if you had a spell other than vortex. Thoctar is just as game breaking vs fae, and it's a difference maker in the mirror.
I've seen the Bw Vampire deck, and while it's certainly respectable, I've recently got word about a pretty sick deck. Not sure if it will still be good by States, but it'll be interesting nonetheless.
It's been a long time since I've seen that one. A few things;
- Rick Karattenmaker = PJ? I get some frat guy thought it was his name, but I dont get how that stuck.
- xpolosport does indeed suck. However if he says that other people aren't good then they probably aren't mtgpros. I'm almost as bad at magic as Mike Flores is, yet I was able to T16 something like 11 straight tournaments at the church because the average play calibur was so low.
- Why are people saying ridiculous things like they win fnm 95% of the time? Who cares? Is that even true? Have you really won 19 of the last 20 fnms? Once again, who cares?
- Like Nick said, no one is the next Jon Finkel... except John Price. I've been telling all of the "good" northeast players that he's actually the nuthigh. Now that he's beaten everybody many times (q'd for the pt on rating... ding!) everyone believes him.
- I think I'm poised for a really big comeback. I'm going to be participating at States and I'm probably the odds-on favorite to win. Current state champion Dan Sondike ran all the way up to upstate New York because he understands he basically has no chance of beating me. John Price will still probably win though.
- T8 is half Jund? Cool. John's list was easily the best, and is probably the "deck to play" and "the deck to beat" in T2 right now. I like the Spreading Seas personally. Spread 'em!
If anyone would like to challenge me to an honor duel at states, I will glady accept this challenge, any time, any place, as long as it doesn't interfere with one of my T8 matches. Bring it on!
Edit: This thread isn't nearly as teched out as the JSS Super Series thread was a few years ago. For top magic strategy, I highly suggest someone dig that up.
Also, doesn't elves get mauled by Kithkin? That deck seems well positioned.
Anathemancer is only great vs an unlosable match-up, while being about as good as hell's thunder vs bw, and much worse vs gw and the red mirror. I think it's about even with Thunder across the board as far as match-ups go. Hellspark is nice beats, no need for terror as its removal that isn't burn. Also, I'd rather not distort my manabase, contrary to what you think sacrifices must be made.
Childe of Serra and karaxu: You two are about 1 and a half months behind the trends. Path benefits demigod, as they path your early creatures and ramp you up. Also demifod is terror proof with is very important. Nobody plays celestial purge. BFT is a bummer, but it's not the end of the world. If you're afraid of these cards then you should not be playing a red deck. Read Dan Paskins article titled "Who's afraid of the big bad circle".
4 Ghitu Encampment
20 Mountain
Creatures 24
4 Figure of Destiny
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Hell's Thunder
4 Boggart Ram-Gang
4 Demigod of Revenge
4 Incinerate
4 Flame Javelin
4 Volcanic Fallout
4 Pyroclasm
4 Magma Spray
4 Banefire
3 Everlasting Torment
I think this is the best deck.
The spectacular John Price with BW tokens beats the mirror
Phil Napoli with GW tokens beats BW tokens
Ancient Ziggurat Aggro (Mike Innace) beats GCB with turbofog
Cruel Control gets the concession from gw tokens because he can't go to nats.
Tournament had 220 people, BW was by far the most played deck, followed by gw. There were DI spectral processions in the room. I think 5cc and Jund were the second most played decks. The poster in the beginning of the thread who said the meta is a r-p-s between fae, 5cc, and bw is 100% wrong. It's much more like a food chain, with bw taking on all comers.
I went 6-2 with a sick mono-red list.
To answer these two questions, and then your third question about how Bush wasn't Dem-lite
1. I've had less time for the internet. what with my academic life intensifying. Ima tryin to get into college.
2. Friendly reasonable Spencer wins arguments (and in a few more decades elections!) far more easily than hillariously offensive Spencer. Right now I'm thinking that Barack Obama > Bill Maher, although I like them both very much. Also, my views on economics have shifted towards the center. Economically, I would describe myself as left-moderate, while socially I remain on par with the ACLU.
3. Asidefrom the War, another way that Bush was Dem-lite in regards to his economical handling of our Nation was his shrinking the welfare state. Now, I don't think anyone wants a bloated welfare state, but it is awfully hard for the minimum wage earner to get by. The idea that many people on welfare are lazy is sickening; the minimum wage earners who work 2-3 jobs certainly work harder than the majority of the population. Did you all know that almost a quarter of the homeless people in the United States are employed? It really is a shocking statistic.
*Important point* - A lot of conservatives characterize liberals as being "big government". There is of course some truth to this, but only some truth. Many liberals, especially left-moderates, believe in small government. Only rather than build up the nation from the top down, ala trickle down economics, I believe we should build the country from the bottom-up. It's been my general observation that wealth trickles up. This is especially clear when eating out at fancy resturaunts that now use inferior ingredients because there are no longer a sufficient amount of local people who can afford to eat there. sigh.
To be fair, Obama was raised by a single mother, and for a period of time they were on food stamps. He may not have been from Harlem or the South Side (though his wife was) but he was clearly working class, and maybe a bit beneath that. That is of course, mostly irrelevent but not completely.
I'm sorry the lack of civility most of the lefties have displayed these past few pages. The rural living republicans aren't "nutjobs" but rather have had a radically different upbringing than myself, which is why I might see them as such (and of course vice versa).
The reason I made this thread is because the Republicans were doing the opposite of what unpopular parties do, hence the cause for concern. Also the prospective Senate races are incredibly grim. They might win one or two of the open seats depending on Obama's performance (which so far has been quite good, according to the people) but the dems will prob hold on to all of the seats they already have. Dodd is a very easy target, but I honestly think it's impossible for a Republican to win in CN. Dodd will either be primaried out or people will just forget how detestable his conduct has been and he'll win anyway. This combines with the lack of "good leaders" in the Republican party makes things difficult.
Well of course we wont fall under a one party system. There will always be a majority and an opposition party. I'm just speculating that there might be a niche for a new party, and the republicans will have to move to the center or go the way of the whigs.
Edit: Concensus among most people outside of the party is that the social conservatives must be kicked to the curb, much like the dems did with their southern racists back in the 60s. America still has a plurality of economically conservative people, but the rabble-rousing from the social cons is a real turn off to blue state moderates.
The result of all this would be a regional party; a party that can never lose in the black belt and the mormon belt, but is completely uncompetitive in the Northeast, Pacific coast, and Great Lakes Region. Also this "future" Republican party would have trouble winning in the Midwest and Southwest.
Could this happen? If so, how soon?
In the 1700s American patriots protested against taxation without representation. Taxes were levied upon them, and they had no say in the matter. The people protesting in these TEA parties had the opprotunity to vote, and they lost decisively. In fact, Obama captured votes by the second largest percent of the countrys population in American history, almost a full quarter. The only other time this happened was with Reagan in 1984.
None the less, I fully endorse these people's right to peaceful assembly.
As for Obama, he's doing a fine job and is very popular. I mean, he is "the man", and we have a natural inclination to not like that. Last night one friend of mine was discussing how Obama's economic plans are too liberal, while another argued that they weren't nearly liberal enough. Obama isn't actually a big government guy at all and has more similarities with Reagan *gasp!* than one would think. The primary difference is Obama works from the bottom up, while Reagan worked from the top down. That's why. imo, Obama's economic and political theories will succeed while Reagan's did not.