[Article] Recurring Nightmares - Introductions and Columbus Review

[swoop]

What the hell, IF ITS NOT BROKEN DON'T FIX IT!!

oh.. wait,

Nice article. I love legacy. And please post future articles here, I'm too lazy to get introduced with yet another web site

[Bryant Cook]

Nice article. I love legacy. And please post future articles here, I'm too lazy to get introduced with yet another web site

He gets paid to write for them. He doesn't get paid writing for here.

[dan who?]

Congrat's on the gig! I really enjoyed the article and your writing style. I actually read through the whole thing because it was funny, interesting, and useful all at the same time. Hopefully you hammer out all the details with CF so I can look forward to reading more of your work.

[Jason]

I'm disappointed. Nightmare didn't tell me I was a bad player.

;__;

He sort of did...unless you're name is Bryant Cook. Then you are amazing. But we all know Bryant is amazing.

Excellent article, Nightmare! Unfortunately I was unable to attend the GP this year, so I received no Jace v Chandra Fact or Fiction love from you like I did in a previous article of yours. Next time, Nightmare... Next time.

[Brushwagg]

Then you are amazing. But we all know Bryant is amazing.

Bryant's ego doesn't need anymore pumping up. He does that enough by himself.

[swoop]

He gets paid to write for them. He doesn't get paid writing for here.

Oh sorry, forgot putting a link is such a hard work.

Hugs and Kisses amazing dude :*

[Nidd]

Oh sorry, forgot putting a link is such a hard work.

Hugs and Kisses amazing dude :*

THE ARTICLE IS ALREADY LINKED DO YOU WANT A GLOWING SIGN OR WHAT

derpderp.

[Jeff Kruchkow]

Still, I’m convinced the card Doomsday is terrible,

The DDFT players are going to have a fit lol

[Nightmare]

So when are you going to give us a decklist that you would never play and write an article around it. When are you going to play extended with no practice and then bash it for being stupid. Also, how about some cards to ban and a reminder that legacy players are stupid based on pro so and so's experience from 1 tournament. I also miss the immature and arrogant tone. Your message will be much easier to scrutinize and won't create nearly the level of controversy it seems that people look for now a days!

You should take a look at my SCG article archives. They pretty much hit all of those details... oh well.

Not bad. You have obvious biases (as does everyone) but you reflectively and openly call yourself out on those, which is a good thing.
So, is this a weekly thing indefinitely?

I'm pretty open about my bias toward blue decks, but I have been known to pilot other things on a rare occasion. I played mono White Stax before it was any good, and I played TES a few times as well. I will play other things in other formats, but I'd rather be stopping you than attacking. I'll try to keep that bias out of the column as much as possible going forward, but it may bleed through. And yes, this should be a weekly thing - hence the "Recurring" part.

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I felt like the T8 was a bit of a disappointment. I don't feel like it's a good representation of the format. As Nightmare said, the decks that made T8 all represented interesting tweaks on mainstream builds (except the Survival which was a complete dark horse) but I felt like most of them were suboptimal. Sneak is just a bad deck, Nelson's Junk deck was running some suboptimal cards, etc. I feel like there was a lot of lucksacking going on.

I agree that the top 8 is largely non-representational of the tier 1 field. However, with a counter-top deck, a Landstill style control deck, a survival aggro deck, and a combo deck, along with some "cheat a fattie into play" deck, I think it represents the metagame pretty well. The fact that there are so many random decks performing is a bonus in this format that doesn't really exist anywhere else.

The DDFT players are going to have a fit lol

I think at this point, they're all well aware that I hate their favorite card. But that's my bias showing through, and I think we can drop that line of discussion.

Thanks a bunch for the positive response guys! It really helps me out to have your support - it's a tough gig when the entire internet magic community is critiquing you. It's intimidating, for sure. I appreciate the compliments, and hope you enjoy the articles to come!

[Nihil Credo]

What are the main differences between writing for SCG and writing for CF (that you are at liberty to divulge)?

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm pretty open about my bias toward blue decks, but I have been known to pilot other things on a rare occasion. I played mono White Stax before it was any good, and I played TES a few times as well. I will play other things in other formats, but I'd rather be stopping you than attacking. I'll try to keep that bias out of the column as much as possible going forward, but it may bleed through.

Wait, Stax is good?

In all seriousness, though, I don't think you should try to hard to prevent your biases from showing through in your writing. Articles that try too hard to not have any bias tend to be pretty bland and forgettable, but overdoing it leads to the sort of totally awesome articles we've had for most the year (Berklid, etc). Some people prefer one or the other type of article, but I think being up-front about your biases and being willing to say, "I hate this deck and would never play it because [...], but setting that aside, this deck is actually fine because [...]" will win you a lot of fans.

Everyone is biased. The issue is whether or not you're willing to admit it, and whether or not you're willing to still make quality analyses.

I agree that the top 8 is largely non-representational of the tier 1 field. However, with a counter-top deck, a Landstill style control deck, a survival aggro deck, and a combo deck, along with some "cheat a fattie into play" deck, I think it represents the metagame pretty well. The fact that there are so many random decks performing is a bonus in this format that doesn't really exist anywhere else.

Yes, but the question is, how many of those decks performed because they're good, and how many performed because people had no idea what they were?

For example, the Doomsday build is particularly interesting because the default Doomsday builds to date have combined Storm combo with Emrakul backup. The one in the top 8 had no such plan, instead focusing entirely on staying alive in order to set up the Emrakul kill (or Shared Fate "kill"). This seems unwise to me because there are almost no decks in the format capable of effectively answering both the storm and Emrakul plans, and since the deck is slightly slower, you should have a good idea of what to go for by the time you're able to win. Furthermore, having two very different game plans makes sideboarding a nightmare for some decks, because anti-storm measures don't answer Emrakul, and the cards that do aren't very common (ORing, Karakas, Edicts) and don't address the storm kill. Going all-in on Emrakul like that deck did seems like it won't work out in the long run.

Sneak Attack is pretty terrible, as you said.

The Counterbalance deck is interesting, and shows once again that Counterbalance is more of a philosophy than a deck. We now have aggro-combo (NO varieties), combo-control (Thopters), and straight control (the Martell T8 list). I think a lot of people discounted or forgot about Nassif CB, and it seems like more people will focus on it in the future now that it's proven itself to be still alive. Also, there's at least one article to be had in figuring out which CB build to choose and tune for a given meta.

Good work, but in the future, I think people would like your articles more if you went out of your way to insult your readers' playskill.