In regards to A. niger, I didn't want to keep piling on the heap of fun facts. I could spend all day doing that. A fungus I probably could have mentioned.
Interesting thought on Ghave. I never thought of him as a slime mold, but there is some validitiy to the idea. Although, slime molds technically aren't a fungus. They are ameobae or other organisms.
I will admit scanning through the Magic card lexicon that I totally missed Mycosynth Lattice. Good eye.
I by no means am claiming it is a solid definition. It is simply a different approach to looking at the game.
Let' try tackling this in another way. You are talking about playing good Magic and we are talking about playing good decks. A film professor once told me in order to appreciate good movies you have to watch a lot of bad movies. Forest Gump good movie. The Death Bed, the Bed that Kills is a horrible campy movie.
Take life gain. One could argue it is changing the state of the game. Well, sure. Everything changes the state of the game to some degree. So, what happens if I filled my deck with nothing, and I mean nothing, but life gain. Eventually, I will lose. There is no winning strategy. I am doing a lot of things. Maybe even drawing a couple cards off Survival Cache, but I am not really doing anything.
It is one of the reason I think some players love their Fungus decks especially Fungus Commander decks. New players love them because they are constantly doing something during their upkeep. Their doing stuff. That means they are winning right? My point isn't those decks can't be good in the Commander format. The act of doing something doesn't actually mean you are doing something productive.
It is one of the reason I think casual players love decks with Doubling Season. They are making tokens and putting counters on everything. They are doing stuff man. I play Akroma's Vengeance. They recover and start doing more stuff. They are playing Magic man. This is where it is at. I play and activate Oblivion Stone.
We can look at people playing bad Magic by not attacking. They are afraid of the boogeyman might jump out at them so they don't attack. Sure, they are playing creatures. They are doing stuff and then they get hit by a Wrath of God or the opponent just combo's out and kills them.
A common fault in some new players building decks is they often take out woefully understocked in graveyard, enchantment or artifact hate. There is nothing in their deck. The entire decks is ineffective. They can't do anything cause of their opponent's Humility in play. They have no enchantment destruction.
I bring up durdling to say hey, is your deck or whatever actually doing what it needs to be doing or are you just running around in circles/going the long way to get there?
Well, this is one of those food for thought articles.
There are many times there is no one right answer. We humans create ideas, definitions and categories to better understand things. Many science students come into college believing science and evolution are done. In reality, we actually know so little about many, many things. Students get frustrated when they ask their professor something and all they get is a shoulder shrug and no answer.
Durdle is something to think about. It's maybe not perfect and neither is any scientific study. New graduate students love to pick apart their peers papers or presentations. No study is perfect. We have two options. We can continue to pick apart the study or... appreciate what it has to offer. The data is flawed, but the experimental design is great and shows promise. The experiment was flawed, but the logic and possiblities are very promising.
My approach to durdle was asking: are you spinning your wheels? Does the metagame require your deck to be more interactive with the opponent or does it need to be faster? If you lost the game, did you actually do anything?
Lol. Like the post Soulbanana and good luck with that.
I agree it is easy to overload on tap lands. More and more, I am taking comes into play tapped lands out of my decks and replacing them with basics or better lands. Some amount of tapped lands are okay, but drawing too many just slows you down so much in so many games that you tend to get blown out. I've gotten more reliant on signets and the like. Sure, they get blown up at times, but they at least allow you to get stuff on the table and going.
Tutor and a lot of combo decks are durdlish. When playing those decks, you are typically not interacting with an opponent or their board. Travis Woo lately has made a deck surrounding Summoner's Egg that intends to set up some huge fatties. The problem is you spend many turns doing a whole lot of nothing while the opponent smacks you around with creatures. The deck falls about against any discard as they pick apart your hand.
I'm not saying durdle is inherently bad. I do think it is easy fall into the trap of thinking you are doing something to progress your game forward when you are not. I think though if you skip a turn tutoring or setting up something, it better be pretty powerful. Otherwise, decks like Jund are just going to have a field day with your deck and thank you for an easy win.
It is something to be conscious of... It isn't necessarily bad. It can be when people spin their wheels to make a mediocre play. Whenever you aren't interacting with an opponent, you are giving them a free turn. It is like telling the player that is piloting splinter twin "hey, go ahead with your combo. I'm not going to be interacting with you so have at it. Maybe I will combo off before you. Otherwise. Good game."
Thanks Garp74 for your response. Boards don't often get replies or well thought out responses such as this from new players. So.. thanks again.
I did find it interesting how the Fat Pack can have negative consequences from the buyer later such as yourself. I'm sure even "feeling" like you are being taken or dupped can't be a good thing. Anyway, it is an aspect of your response that I found really interesting.
Regarding the player-designed cards, I believe that the winner of the Invitational (a tournament made up of Magic pro players and community contributors) got to design a card, not the winner of Worlds. I do like the idea of pro tokens though.
I guess time has muddled my memory as you are correct. Unfortunately, we did lose the invitational so I guess the default would be the world champion.
In regards to the other reposnses:
Of all the suggestions, the spellbook is what gets people the most excited. Some people like or are okay with the other suggestions. The spellbook really, really excites Magic fans. I think it is mostly has to do with the whole flavor of the idea and it just makes sense or should I say it is very grokkable.
The only change I'd like to see is to have the previous core set rotate immediately when the next one is made legal.
It doesn't make sense the way things are currently set up to have two core sets legal for a few months.
Having individual sets rotate out instead of whole blocks has two major problems:
-It's too confusing as to which sets/cards are legal and which aren't. -This is too many changes to the format in such a short span of time. Entire archetypes will be created and destroyed every few months instead of just once a year.
I was looking forward to the responses and we seem to have an interesting variety.
This I find interesting. One of the biggest complaints from players is the environment growing stale; especially nowadays with Magic Online. I get the sense many don't like the proposal because it creates too many changes. I thought when writing the article that a high rotation would be a good thing cause it would keep the format "fresh". Can we have our cake and eat it too?
I really like the Helm and Rest in Peace combo in Enchantress! It is a lot less clunkier than some decks running Emrakul as the win-con. If I were to take the deck to a tournament tomorrow, the only thing I would change is to add some Enlightened Tutors and trim something for them.
Meyou, considering that most comments featured here agree that threat-assessment is important and agree with your points regarding proper evaluation of threats - yet still are reacting negatively to the article... Then when content isn't to fault, it can only be context and tone they're reacting to.
There's nothing wrong with what you're trying to communicate. But this didn't come off too well.
I hear yeah. I am making a mental note on the reaction to this article, but I am not going to apologize for trying something new. I am also taking your comments lightly because this article was in the que for over a month. There was plenty of time for you to make any critiques then instead of waiting for it to go public and then jumping on the band wagon. It could be my paranoia, but I find it tacky.
I also sometimes take the comment section with a grain of salt. Just because the comments are for the majority negative, doesn't mean it is a full representation of the reading population. Also, just because the majority of people say something doesn't mean some people didn't enjoy it. I don't like Woody Allen movies. It doesn't mean Woody Allen should stop making them cause a few people don't like them.
Besides, this is the Internet. Comment sections tend not to draw people who love rainbows and sunshine. It is the Internet.
Anecdotal, but the first posting to an article always dictates the tone of the comment section. If the first post is very negative, the trend will continue. If the first few posts are positive, the trend usually continues. It has not surprised me how this has progressed.
I usually don't go back and forth like this to stoke the fire, but I am feeling feisty lately. Maybe it is just sleep deprivation.
I do listen and take the comments into account, but I do approach them with caution.
Brain is self-centered and scheming; Pinky is good-natured but feebleminded. In each episode, Brain devises a new plan to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure, usually due to Pinky's idiocy, the impossibility of Brain's plan, Brain's own arrogance, or just circumstances beyond their control.
Please notice the bolding.
What was that you were saying about the tone of the article?
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
I've watched more than a few games wondering why players aren't targeting the strongest player at the table.
The Pinky and the Brain reference was alluding to the fact most games are out of ones control no matter what devices are employed. Sometimes you just win or lose and there is no real rationale for it.
I was thinking of couple of random ideas for articles and I had an idea about making an article about ideas that I wished other writers would talk about. It occurred to me, why not let the community get involved instead of thinking of my own list? Therefore, I want article ideas that you in the community would like to read or watch (videos). It can be anything. The sky is the limit. It could be something you want Wizards or other sites like starcity or gathering, mananation or etc. that you want them to cover. It can be about formats, Magic life, or whatever.
What I will do is try to compile a list and post an article/summary of all the ideas some time in the future on this site. There is no deadline here. Eventually, as all posts do, it will disappear into the abyss due to inactivity. Once the activity has wained, I will start diving into it.
Here is what I want. A title and a short paragraph of why it is important to you or the community. It can be a series of questions or remarks. When I post the article, I simply want it to be more than just a set of titles.
With this in mind, I will have to write some fine print. I don't guarantee every idea will be posted and to use exact word for word descriptions. There may be multiple ideas that are similar and I will have to combine or merge them. I will very much try to keep the spirit of the posting intact. I may try to clarify or clean up some descriptions or titles. I reserve all blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, make your voice heard and hopefully many of the Magic writers out there will hear what you have to say or want.
Just an example:
Title: The Aging Population of Magic Players.
I wonder how the aging population of players will affect the game in the future. As the game continues and grow, we will continue to acquire older and older pros. What effect do these older players have on the game? Do the accumulation of older players make it difficult for younger players to get onto the Pro Tour? Is there an even distribution of young versus older players on the tour? Do older players have an unfair advantage due to their experience? Do we need to be conscious of this or is it pretty irrelevant?
I realize this is an experiment and I am curious as to how this will evolve.
Just following the bread crumbs, but I wanted to propose this idea because I'm not a big vorthos. It seems we have a little disagreement, but interesting conversation nonetheless. It is why I do like the forums. It is always an education especially when it comes to the storyline.
A tie between Utopia Tree and Urza's Rage . They were the first rares that I opened from the booster packs my wife gave while in the hospital. It doesn't hurt they have some great artwork. They will always have a soft spot in my heart.
In regards to A. niger, I didn't want to keep piling on the heap of fun facts. I could spend all day doing that. A fungus I probably could have mentioned.
Interesting thought on Ghave. I never thought of him as a slime mold, but there is some validitiy to the idea. Although, slime molds technically aren't a fungus. They are ameobae or other organisms.
I will admit scanning through the Magic card lexicon that I totally missed Mycosynth Lattice. Good eye.
Let' try tackling this in another way. You are talking about playing good Magic and we are talking about playing good decks. A film professor once told me in order to appreciate good movies you have to watch a lot of bad movies. Forest Gump good movie. The Death Bed, the Bed that Kills is a horrible campy movie.
Take life gain. One could argue it is changing the state of the game. Well, sure. Everything changes the state of the game to some degree. So, what happens if I filled my deck with nothing, and I mean nothing, but life gain. Eventually, I will lose. There is no winning strategy. I am doing a lot of things. Maybe even drawing a couple cards off Survival Cache, but I am not really doing anything.
It is one of the reason I think some players love their Fungus decks especially Fungus Commander decks. New players love them because they are constantly doing something during their upkeep. Their doing stuff. That means they are winning right? My point isn't those decks can't be good in the Commander format. The act of doing something doesn't actually mean you are doing something productive.
It is one of the reason I think casual players love decks with Doubling Season. They are making tokens and putting counters on everything. They are doing stuff man. I play Akroma's Vengeance. They recover and start doing more stuff. They are playing Magic man. This is where it is at. I play and activate Oblivion Stone.
We can look at people playing bad Magic by not attacking. They are afraid of the boogeyman might jump out at them so they don't attack. Sure, they are playing creatures. They are doing stuff and then they get hit by a Wrath of God or the opponent just combo's out and kills them.
A common fault in some new players building decks is they often take out woefully understocked in graveyard, enchantment or artifact hate. There is nothing in their deck. The entire decks is ineffective. They can't do anything cause of their opponent's Humility in play. They have no enchantment destruction.
I bring up durdling to say hey, is your deck or whatever actually doing what it needs to be doing or are you just running around in circles/going the long way to get there?
There are many times there is no one right answer. We humans create ideas, definitions and categories to better understand things. Many science students come into college believing science and evolution are done. In reality, we actually know so little about many, many things. Students get frustrated when they ask their professor something and all they get is a shoulder shrug and no answer.
Durdle is something to think about. It's maybe not perfect and neither is any scientific study. New graduate students love to pick apart their peers papers or presentations. No study is perfect. We have two options. We can continue to pick apart the study or... appreciate what it has to offer. The data is flawed, but the experimental design is great and shows promise. The experiment was flawed, but the logic and possiblities are very promising.
My approach to durdle was asking: are you spinning your wheels? Does the metagame require your deck to be more interactive with the opponent or does it need to be faster? If you lost the game, did you actually do anything?
Feel free to discuss.
I agree it is easy to overload on tap lands. More and more, I am taking comes into play tapped lands out of my decks and replacing them with basics or better lands. Some amount of tapped lands are okay, but drawing too many just slows you down so much in so many games that you tend to get blown out. I've gotten more reliant on signets and the like. Sure, they get blown up at times, but they at least allow you to get stuff on the table and going.
I'm not saying durdle is inherently bad. I do think it is easy fall into the trap of thinking you are doing something to progress your game forward when you are not. I think though if you skip a turn tutoring or setting up something, it better be pretty powerful. Otherwise, decks like Jund are just going to have a field day with your deck and thank you for an easy win.
It is something to be conscious of... It isn't necessarily bad. It can be when people spin their wheels to make a mediocre play. Whenever you aren't interacting with an opponent, you are giving them a free turn. It is like telling the player that is piloting splinter twin "hey, go ahead with your combo. I'm not going to be interacting with you so have at it. Maybe I will combo off before you. Otherwise. Good game."
I am happy you enjoyed the article. I thought the topic was appropriate considering it is the New Year.
Thanks for reading!
I did find it interesting how the Fat Pack can have negative consequences from the buyer later such as yourself. I'm sure even "feeling" like you are being taken or dupped can't be a good thing. Anyway, it is an aspect of your response that I found really interesting.
I guess time has muddled my memory as you are correct. Unfortunately, we did lose the invitational so I guess the default would be the world champion.
In regards to the other reposnses:
Of all the suggestions, the spellbook is what gets people the most excited. Some people like or are okay with the other suggestions. The spellbook really, really excites Magic fans. I think it is mostly has to do with the whole flavor of the idea and it just makes sense or should I say it is very grokkable.
I was looking forward to the responses and we seem to have an interesting variety.
This I find interesting. One of the biggest complaints from players is the environment growing stale; especially nowadays with Magic Online. I get the sense many don't like the proposal because it creates too many changes. I thought when writing the article that a high rotation would be a good thing cause it would keep the format "fresh". Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Many good points in the comments by the way.
I hear yeah. I am making a mental note on the reaction to this article, but I am not going to apologize for trying something new. I am also taking your comments lightly because this article was in the que for over a month. There was plenty of time for you to make any critiques then instead of waiting for it to go public and then jumping on the band wagon. It could be my paranoia, but I find it tacky.
I also sometimes take the comment section with a grain of salt. Just because the comments are for the majority negative, doesn't mean it is a full representation of the reading population. Also, just because the majority of people say something doesn't mean some people didn't enjoy it. I don't like Woody Allen movies. It doesn't mean Woody Allen should stop making them cause a few people don't like them.
Besides, this is the Internet. Comment sections tend not to draw people who love rainbows and sunshine. It is the Internet.
Anecdotal, but the first posting to an article always dictates the tone of the comment section. If the first post is very negative, the trend will continue. If the first few posts are positive, the trend usually continues. It has not surprised me how this has progressed.
I usually don't go back and forth like this to stoke the fire, but I am feeling feisty lately. Maybe it is just sleep deprivation.
I do listen and take the comments into account, but I do approach them with caution.
Brain is self-centered and scheming; Pinky is good-natured but feebleminded. In each episode, Brain devises a new plan to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure, usually due to Pinky's idiocy, the impossibility of Brain's plan, Brain's own arrogance, or just circumstances beyond their control.
Please notice the bolding.
What was that you were saying about the tone of the article?
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
I've watched more than a few games wondering why players aren't targeting the strongest player at the table.
The Pinky and the Brain reference was alluding to the fact most games are out of ones control no matter what devices are employed. Sometimes you just win or lose and there is no real rationale for it.
Thanks for reading.
What I will do is try to compile a list and post an article/summary of all the ideas some time in the future on this site. There is no deadline here. Eventually, as all posts do, it will disappear into the abyss due to inactivity. Once the activity has wained, I will start diving into it.
Here is what I want. A title and a short paragraph of why it is important to you or the community. It can be a series of questions or remarks. When I post the article, I simply want it to be more than just a set of titles.
With this in mind, I will have to write some fine print. I don't guarantee every idea will be posted and to use exact word for word descriptions. There may be multiple ideas that are similar and I will have to combine or merge them. I will very much try to keep the spirit of the posting intact. I may try to clarify or clean up some descriptions or titles. I reserve all blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, make your voice heard and hopefully many of the Magic writers out there will hear what you have to say or want.
Just an example:
Title: The Aging Population of Magic Players.
I wonder how the aging population of players will affect the game in the future. As the game continues and grow, we will continue to acquire older and older pros. What effect do these older players have on the game? Do the accumulation of older players make it difficult for younger players to get onto the Pro Tour? Is there an even distribution of young versus older players on the tour? Do older players have an unfair advantage due to their experience? Do we need to be conscious of this or is it pretty irrelevant?
I realize this is an experiment and I am curious as to how this will evolve.
Thanks,
Meyou
Just following the bread crumbs, but I wanted to propose this idea because I'm not a big vorthos. It seems we have a little disagreement, but interesting conversation nonetheless. It is why I do like the forums. It is always an education especially when it comes to the storyline.
Thanks for the insight.