ya know what i like to do when someone says a card is unplayable? i build a deck around it, and a smash their face with it. i can see myself doing this alot with this set. just because you dont like the card, doesnt mean its unplayable.
I think that sets should be looked at with a "will the format be more fun with these being legal or not?" mindset. I think t2 has the potential to be much more fun if it's slower than it's current incarnation. Will that happen when Shards hits? I'm not sure. My gut says yes, because the best rares mostly require you to have three different colors, but I fear that some variety of Zoo might consume the whole metagame, if it's any slower than it is now. The next few weeks should be interesting, I can't wait to see what the pros come up with.
Deck Building and playing the game use two different parts of the brain. It's possible to be good at one and not the other.
As such, how many "pro's" developed their own lists? Most likely they used someone else. I do know from friends of mine that they utilize think tanks who are better at abstract thinking than active thinking to make decks/secret tech.
Your argument is based on inane BS for the simple reason that they utilize two different skills.
Can I see that study?
I'd say 90% of pros have developed or helped develop top tier decks with their teams. Most of them also make last minute tweaks, like SB slots, that make all the difference. Go read some reports.
I dont like salvage titan. The cost for him is too terrible and sacrificing 3 artifacts is too painful for a 6/4 vanilla creature. Esper charm is also nice you should try it i guess.
You understand that he essentially has persist without the -1/-1 counter, right?
Wrong. This entirely depends on the format. You are used to a blazing fast Type2 where your counterspell cannot just be a counterspell. (i.e. multiple modes on cryptic)
Should type 2 slow to a crawl after lorwyn/shadowmoor block rotates out...things will get shaken up to the point where this kind of counterspell is backbreaking.
Too often subpar players analyze a card in a vacuum and don't look at the meta that could shape the card into a winning piece of a deck.
This is true, but we've seen the creatures Zoo gets in Shards. I don't think T2 is slowing down any time soon.
what makes a pro anyways whos to say that newbie who made his one hit wonder at breaking the current metagame dosent stick arround and see things through every pro was a "newbie" who rocked something in the past and as for skill level if you are playing in a ptq as a "newbie" you will be trying your darndest to play at textbook level with whatever deck you are piloting and give 100% . flukes happen the noobs win tournies every once in a while but it cant be all luck i think it has something to do with the player in question as well
We do have records of who wins championships, you know. You can just look at top8's and you'll see the same names over and over again.
Those are pros. Also, learn how to punctuate.
1. actually rouge decks have won tournaments.
2. If only pros came up with all the optimal decks how come non-pros still win tournaments?
Just cause the can play better the decks better than the rest of us doesn't mean they make the best decks.
1. Why do all noobs spell "rogue" as "rouge"? Rouge is makeup.
2. 8 out of 10 champions are pros if you count every major championship. Maybe more.
Magic is a game of skill and luck. It is possible that a newbie designs a rogue deck that breaks the metagame every once in a while, but soon after the deck he used is perfected and piloted to top8's by pros, while the newbie stops winning. That happens because if you're skilled enough, you can control how much luck affects the game. If you don't believe me, check Paul Cheon's latest article on scg.com, where he wins round 10 by basically telling his opponent what to do without the opponent noticing.
I can easily see this card being ape**** insane in limited. Attack, use any kind of giant growth-ish effect, sacrifice to gain a billion 1/1s. Not to mention if you get a bunch of unearth cards.
Really? Ridge Rannet sucks.
Can I see that study?
I'd say 90% of pros have developed or helped develop top tier decks with their teams. Most of them also make last minute tweaks, like SB slots, that make all the difference. Go read some reports.
You understand that he essentially has persist without the -1/-1 counter, right?
This is true, but we've seen the creatures Zoo gets in Shards. I don't think T2 is slowing down any time soon.
We do have records of who wins championships, you know. You can just look at top8's and you'll see the same names over and over again.
Those are pros. Also, learn how to punctuate.
1. Why do all noobs spell "rogue" as "rouge"? Rouge is makeup.
2. 8 out of 10 champions are pros if you count every major championship. Maybe more.
Magic is a game of skill and luck. It is possible that a newbie designs a rogue deck that breaks the metagame every once in a while, but soon after the deck he used is perfected and piloted to top8's by pros, while the newbie stops winning. That happens because if you're skilled enough, you can control how much luck affects the game. If you don't believe me, check Paul Cheon's latest article on scg.com, where he wins round 10 by basically telling his opponent what to do without the opponent noticing.