This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Good Game: Evolution of a Fish. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
I always enjoy reading about those fish. Excellent article, and quite helpful, as always. However, I have one concern about the Legacy deck. I know you said you don't know where to fit in the Sovereign, but I think he simply needs to be fit in somewhere. I run an elf deck that focusses on hitting hard and quick, and running 10 lords really helps (4 Archdruid, 4 Imperious, 2 Champion). I feel like with the deck you have, having a little extra help is always good. Just my $.02, and feel free to take it or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I edit my posts a lot after submitting them. Deal with it.
While the writing and information in this article was fine, I must admit that it's hard for me to believe that your readerbase honestly wanted to hear about Merfolk again. That is, you've now officially written about Merfolk more than I've written about Faeries in the past, which is a pretty daunting accomplishment. I know that I'm personally not thrilled about writing so many articles about the same deck, and I can't imagine you are either. Had you not included the Legacy list, I'd have been pretty put off by this as a whole. I understand that you're a very large proponent of the deck (much like Adrian Sullivan), but I think there's a lot more to talk about in Standard besides Merfolk (although this article comes at a pretty coincidental time, what with Merfolk winning two PTQs and a Nationals last week).
In any case, I guess it's just a nitpick from one writer to another. Looking back, I wrote about Faeries too much, and I don't want you to be known as "the Merfolk guy" rather than "that guy who has good ideas" or something like that. As I said before, the article was as well-written as they usually are, but I thought I'd offer my insight on the issue that was personally bothering me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Member of Team RIW Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge! View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
He's come to a lot of the same realizations that we've arrived at in the competitive forum discussion of the deck - Path, Sower, and BFT are all needed cards in the 75 of this deck - there really isn't any way around it.
Personally I'd never run this deck without access to at least 3 paths - and when he lost without them it didn't really surprise me.
There are definately some good insights in this article though - I particularly find his insights on 'Lark to be helpful, although I doubt I'd run more than 3 in the 75, and probably not more than 2.
I'm not surprised at all that he reduced the Thrashers - I'm still convinced that 2 is the right number in the MD.
The only decision that he made that I'm in downright disagreement with is Pollen Lullaby over Sleep. Sleep is simply a more agressive card, for a more agressive deck. If someone is sitting behind walls, GSS, or a sea of tokens and the game is at a stalemate...I simply want sleep.
Also - he mentioned how scary the Fae match can be...and in several places he said that if the opponent landed BB the game was a blow out...but he never made a board correction to deal with that. In my Meta - I often see people take a mull until they get that bitterblossom, because they are convinced that is how to beat Fish...and when I go turn 3 Wispmare they might as well scoop. Generally I think that the Fae match can be made much better with just a few different card choices.
Lastly - I'm dissapointed that he didn't really talk about ponder much (other than a brief mention). I'm really surprised since the inclusion or exclusion of ponder is generally a pretty hot topic among Fish Fans.
Overall though, I'm extremely happy to see this article and the content within it - albeit surprised. Only a month left for this deck in Type 2 - and despite the fact that the Meta will change drastically I think there are decks with a better likelyhood of surviving....Soldiers being one of them - which he touched on several times, maybe that was the article to consider...
I am going to have to agree with Mosschops on this one.
Everybody has their own personal pet deck, one that they are known for no matter what else they play. I, personally, am the Enchantress guy at legacy, becuase I run it almost 100% of the time, and I love the deck. Andrew first showed up writing about Merfolk becuase he loved the deck and thought it would do well, and he played and trimmed and played some more to make it so. Also he has a very casual way of writing with plenty of dry humor to break up the monotony of the matches.
And shin, I think the reason why people didnt like your many fae articles is becuase you wrote about them as your favorite deck but you seemed to like winning a whole lot more and Fae were more like a means to an end instead of a true pet deck. Also the coincidence that Andrew just happens to be doing his once a month writing about a deck he has been working on for 6 months to a year, and the fact that the new lord made the deck Top 8 worthy recently isnt that much of a stretch when you think about it.
P.S. Andrew, you will love legacy my friend, once I started I all but turned my back on standard. How big is the playgroup out in your area? We are lucky and have a large tournament every week here in Atlanta, so I get to play regularly, but I know most areas cant support it.
While the writing and information in this article was fine, I must admit that it's hard for me to believe that your readerbase honestly wanted to hear about Merfolk again.
better believe it
I read your articles Andrew, for the fish.... when you wrote about the fae... it lacked the analysis because it was'nt your deck, when you write about fish, it was YOUR element
well, Prosak ditched the Fish for 5CC at the last PTQ in Phoenix. Of course, Prosak spanked me round 2 (it's in my report on the PTQ) and then managed to win the whole thing...
To Everyone: Thanks for all the support in these articles! It's really awesome to get all this feedback (even the negative kind, as long as it's constructive/legitimate).
To Shin: Thanks for the advice--really! I'm always a little apprehensive about writing about the fish again because I worry that people are going to get bored and ditch the column, but the forums for my last article were quite clear: people wanted more fish. Well, I live only to serve...
Although I do enjoy reading about the evolution of Fish, I must say there is currently a void of standard articles in the current MTGS canon, and it would be enjoyable if there were more articles about standard as a format, then one particular standard deck.
I make it a point, and generally happily so, to read all of your fish articles, but unless there is a new writer in the mix that will write about the standard format in general, it would be ideal if the lone standard writer could occasionally discuss other decks/topics.
There has been a lack of fresh articles on this site lately (although it's not something I would put on the shoulders of this writer specifically,) and I hope they seek out a new standard writer soon.
Aluren/Imperial recruiter? What sorta punk runs that?
If ya wanna playtest anything else in Legacy, I can just about toss together most any other deck, just lemme know. The Merfolk will live on for a while there, even after the bulk of the deck leaves standard.
I have seen another legacy fish deck, and it had the 12 lords. No sygg or thrashers I believe. It was a sick deck, and I think 12 lords is the way to go. No point in exposing yourself to wastelands...
Oh and I actually laughed when I read about the win on a mull to 3.
While the writing and information in this article was fine, I must admit that it's hard for me to believe that your readerbase honestly wanted to hear about Merfolk again. That is, you've now officially written about Merfolk more than I've written about Faeries in the past, which is a pretty daunting accomplishment. I know that I'm personally not thrilled about writing so many articles about the same deck, and I can't imagine you are either. Had you not included the Legacy list, I'd have been pretty put off by this as a whole. I understand that you're a very large proponent of the deck (much like Adrian Sullivan), but I think there's a lot more to talk about in Standard besides Merfolk (although this article comes at a pretty coincidental time, what with Merfolk winning two PTQs and a Nationals last week).
In any case, I guess it's just a nitpick from one writer to another. Looking back, I wrote about Faeries too much, and I don't want you to be known as "the Merfolk guy" rather than "that guy who has good ideas" or something like that. As I said before, the article was as well-written as they usually are, but I thought I'd offer my insight on the issue that was personally bothering me.
Trying not to step on anyone's toes here, but I thought this was a little tacky. If you had a problem with the article, I "feel" it would have been more appropriate to do so in the writer's forum or with a personal message.
Trying not to step on anyone's toes here, but I thought this was a little tacky. If you had a problem with the article, I "feel" it would have been more appropriate to do so in the writer's forum or with a personal message.
The moderators are not in the business of discouraging legitimate criticism of articles in this forum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Trying not to step on anyone's toes here, but I thought this was a little tacky. If you had a problem with the article, I "feel" it would have been more appropriate to do so in the writer's forum or with a personal message.
Uhm, how was it tacky at all? If Andrew's response wasn't an obvious indication, I think it's quite clear I meant no ill intent and was just offering a critique. That is, I mean, what this thread is for? If a writer doesn't have his work publicly critiqued then what good is it, really?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Member of Team RIW Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge! View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
I have nothing against the critique or comments. That is fine.
It just seemed like you let your a fellow writer walk outside with his fly down. You knew it was down, but you let him go out in public. As soon as he got out in public, you announced that it was down.
We have the writer's forum to give feedback to each other. Hopefully, the feedback is given before the article goes out. Not after.
It kinda struck me in a sense as quasi-unprofessional.
Maybe this will better explain it. Mark Rosewater writes an article about Magic. He has Richard Garfield read it over and doesn't say anything. Mark then publishes online. As soon of the article comes out, Richard responds in the forums and elaborates how Mark did a bad job. How do you think Mark would feel? Not to mention, it makes the company look bad.
It is the same in other professions. Doctors don't take residents out in public and broadcast how the resident totally botched up a patients surgery. They don't do that. They take the resident to somewhere private and point out his/her mistakes and discuss them.
To be fair, I am sure you just didn't get a chance to read the article before it went up and your heart is in the right place. Kudos to you for actually giving feedback. It doesn't happen enough.
With that said, I just think as a fellow writer, I shouldn't critque another writer publically. I feel like it makes us seem less professional, but that is just me.
I have nothing against the critique or comments. That is fine.
It just seemed like you let your a fellow writer walk outside with his fly down. You knew it was down, but you let him go out in public. As soon as he got out in public, you announced that it was down.
We have the writer's forum to give feedback to each other. Hopefully, the feedback is given before the article goes out. Not after.
It kinda struck me in a sense as quasi-unprofessional.
Maybe this will better explain it. Mark Rosewater writes an article about Magic. He has Richard Garfield read it over and doesn't say anything. Mark then publishes online. As soon of the article comes out, Richard responds in the forums and elaborates how Mark did a bad job. How do you think Mark would feel? Not to mention, it makes the company look bad.
It is the same in other professions. Doctors don't take residents out in public and broadcast how the resident totally botched up a patients surgery. They don't do that. They take the resident to somewhere private and point out his/her mistakes and discuss them.
To be fair, I am sure you just didn't get a chance to read the article before it went up and your heart is in the right place. Kudos to you for actually giving feedback. It doesn't happen enough.
With that said, I just think as a fellow writer, I shouldn't critque another writer publically. I feel like it makes us seem less professional, but that is just me.
I didn't even notice I still had access to the Writer's Forum until you made this post. Awesome!
But in any case, I think you're basically just wrong. Have you ever seen the forums posts from, say, Gerry Thompson in Cedric's old articles? You know, where he savagely ripped him a new one each week? Guess who's a great writer now? Cedric. Like, I think Andrew took the comment as well as I could have hoped, because I meant it exactly how he took it. He knows I was speaking from experience on this particular subject (writing about the same deck, etc), and thus appreciated my feedback. I don't think I have to remember to go into the writer's forum each Thursday to read his articles before they go out so I can give him advice. Instead, I'll do what everyone else would do and offer my help publicly. I'd expect the same from my peers, and I've been given that kind advice from those people in the same manner. It's how we get better, and it's always welcomed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Member of Team RIW Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge! View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
If you're taking suggestions for article topics, I'm interested to know what you'll play in Standard post-rotation. Will U/W aggro still be viable? Deft Duelist hopes so. Or will you adopt a completely different deck? Or perhaps shift focus to a different format? (Although doing that just because the deck you played rotated out seems like a questionable move.)
Perhaps you could extrapolate this for your readers: how exactly does one settle on a new deck when all the key cards in your pet deck rotate out? It's a question we've all struggled with. Maybe you could offer insight?
In any case, I guess it's just a nitpick from one writer to another. Looking back, I wrote about Faeries too much, and I don't want you to be known as "the Merfolk guy" rather than "that guy who has good ideas" or something like that. As I said before, the article was as well-written as they usually are, but I thought I'd offer my insight on the issue that was personally bothering me.
Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge!
View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
Personally I'd never run this deck without access to at least 3 paths - and when he lost without them it didn't really surprise me.
There are definately some good insights in this article though - I particularly find his insights on 'Lark to be helpful, although I doubt I'd run more than 3 in the 75, and probably not more than 2.
I'm not surprised at all that he reduced the Thrashers - I'm still convinced that 2 is the right number in the MD.
The only decision that he made that I'm in downright disagreement with is Pollen Lullaby over Sleep. Sleep is simply a more agressive card, for a more agressive deck. If someone is sitting behind walls, GSS, or a sea of tokens and the game is at a stalemate...I simply want sleep.
Also - he mentioned how scary the Fae match can be...and in several places he said that if the opponent landed BB the game was a blow out...but he never made a board correction to deal with that. In my Meta - I often see people take a mull until they get that bitterblossom, because they are convinced that is how to beat Fish...and when I go turn 3 Wispmare they might as well scoop. Generally I think that the Fae match can be made much better with just a few different card choices.
Lastly - I'm dissapointed that he didn't really talk about ponder much (other than a brief mention). I'm really surprised since the inclusion or exclusion of ponder is generally a pretty hot topic among Fish Fans.
Overall though, I'm extremely happy to see this article and the content within it - albeit surprised. Only a month left for this deck in Type 2 - and despite the fact that the Meta will change drastically I think there are decks with a better likelyhood of surviving....Soldiers being one of them - which he touched on several times, maybe that was the article to consider...
Everybody has their own personal pet deck, one that they are known for no matter what else they play. I, personally, am the Enchantress guy at legacy, becuase I run it almost 100% of the time, and I love the deck. Andrew first showed up writing about Merfolk becuase he loved the deck and thought it would do well, and he played and trimmed and played some more to make it so. Also he has a very casual way of writing with plenty of dry humor to break up the monotony of the matches.
And shin, I think the reason why people didnt like your many fae articles is becuase you wrote about them as your favorite deck but you seemed to like winning a whole lot more and Fae were more like a means to an end instead of a true pet deck. Also the coincidence that Andrew just happens to be doing his once a month writing about a deck he has been working on for 6 months to a year, and the fact that the new lord made the deck Top 8 worthy recently isnt that much of a stretch when you think about it.
P.S. Andrew, you will love legacy my friend, once I started I all but turned my back on standard. How big is the playgroup out in your area? We are lucky and have a large tournament every week here in Atlanta, so I get to play regularly, but I know most areas cant support it.
Thank you for the fish! =D
better believe it
I read your articles Andrew, for the fish.... when you wrote about the fae... it lacked the analysis because it was'nt your deck, when you write about fish, it was YOUR element
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
well, Prosak ditched the Fish for 5CC at the last PTQ in Phoenix. Of course, Prosak spanked me round 2 (it's in my report on the PTQ) and then managed to win the whole thing...
To Everyone: Thanks for all the support in these articles! It's really awesome to get all this feedback (even the negative kind, as long as it's constructive/legitimate).
To Shin: Thanks for the advice--really! I'm always a little apprehensive about writing about the fish again because I worry that people are going to get bored and ditch the column, but the forums for my last article were quite clear: people wanted more fish. Well, I live only to serve...
I am only sadden that the archtype will lose quite a bit come rotation =(
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
I make it a point, and generally happily so, to read all of your fish articles, but unless there is a new writer in the mix that will write about the standard format in general, it would be ideal if the lone standard writer could occasionally discuss other decks/topics.
There has been a lack of fresh articles on this site lately (although it's not something I would put on the shoulders of this writer specifically,) and I hope they seek out a new standard writer soon.
If ya wanna playtest anything else in Legacy, I can just about toss together most any other deck, just lemme know. The Merfolk will live on for a while there, even after the bulk of the deck leaves standard.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
oh .... thats sad..
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
i started playing legacy and looked to fish as a budget option.
i tried playing w/o stifles and wastelands to keep money in my wallet...
but then i got tired of loosing.
stifle/ wasteland in legacy fish is just as important as fow/daze imo
and as other people have mentioned >8 lords is awsome. ( i run 11 now, and still have room for 3 curse catchers and 4 wakethrashers)
Oh and I actually laughed when I read about the win on a mull to 3.
1800+ in Limited
3-0ing after drafting 17 non-basics in Cube
Trying not to step on anyone's toes here, but I thought this was a little tacky. If you had a problem with the article, I "feel" it would have been more appropriate to do so in the writer's forum or with a personal message.
The moderators are not in the business of discouraging legitimate criticism of articles in this forum.
Uhm, how was it tacky at all? If Andrew's response wasn't an obvious indication, I think it's quite clear I meant no ill intent and was just offering a critique. That is, I mean, what this thread is for? If a writer doesn't have his work publicly critiqued then what good is it, really?
Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge!
View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
It just seemed like you let your a fellow writer walk outside with his fly down. You knew it was down, but you let him go out in public. As soon as he got out in public, you announced that it was down.
We have the writer's forum to give feedback to each other. Hopefully, the feedback is given before the article goes out. Not after.
It kinda struck me in a sense as quasi-unprofessional.
Maybe this will better explain it. Mark Rosewater writes an article about Magic. He has Richard Garfield read it over and doesn't say anything. Mark then publishes online. As soon of the article comes out, Richard responds in the forums and elaborates how Mark did a bad job. How do you think Mark would feel? Not to mention, it makes the company look bad.
It is the same in other professions. Doctors don't take residents out in public and broadcast how the resident totally botched up a patients surgery. They don't do that. They take the resident to somewhere private and point out his/her mistakes and discuss them.
To be fair, I am sure you just didn't get a chance to read the article before it went up and your heart is in the right place. Kudos to you for actually giving feedback. It doesn't happen enough.
With that said, I just think as a fellow writer, I shouldn't critque another writer publically. I feel like it makes us seem less professional, but that is just me.
I didn't even notice I still had access to the Writer's Forum until you made this post. Awesome!
But in any case, I think you're basically just wrong. Have you ever seen the forums posts from, say, Gerry Thompson in Cedric's old articles? You know, where he savagely ripped him a new one each week? Guess who's a great writer now? Cedric. Like, I think Andrew took the comment as well as I could have hoped, because I meant it exactly how he took it. He knows I was speaking from experience on this particular subject (writing about the same deck, etc), and thus appreciated my feedback. I don't think I have to remember to go into the writer's forum each Thursday to read his articles before they go out so I can give him advice. Instead, I'll do what everyone else would do and offer my help publicly. I'd expect the same from my peers, and I've been given that kind advice from those people in the same manner. It's how we get better, and it's always welcomed.
Read my Constructed column on Star City, Thirst for Knowledge!
View my MTGS-era TFK articles here!
It is just my opinion.
Honestly, I really do give you kudos for feedback.
Perhaps you could extrapolate this for your readers: how exactly does one settle on a new deck when all the key cards in your pet deck rotate out? It's a question we've all struggled with. Maybe you could offer insight?
When did this happen? =/