The Color Wheel and Legacy: Feedback on a series I'm writing?

[metamet]

Hey everyone.

I've lurked for a while and finally threw up an account a little while ago, but I'm the Legacy editor for QuietSpeculation.com. I've been working on an introductory series to Legacy as a format recently, creating a color-by-color dissection of Legacy for players who are wanting to start playing but are intimated by the sheer volume of cards available.

So far we've published two articles. One was a couple weeks ago before GP Providence and the other went up this morning:

The Color Wheel and Legacy: Intro & Green

The Color Wheel and Legacy: White

Still left to cover: Black, Red, Blue, Artifacts, Lands & Planeswalkers.

I'd love to hear some feedback on the series. It is definitely targeted towards those who are looking to get into Legacy as I found that there really wasn't much out there in terms of easily weening someone into such a deep format, but I feel it can serve as a nice refreshment for current players and those stuck in a familiar meta.

Is there anything I've missed that should be included? Any comments on the quality of writing and organization of information?

Any feedback would be welcome.

On a sidenote: Are there any subjects regarding Legacy that everyone would like to see more written on or about? There isn't a ton of Legacy content being published out there on a consistent basis and I'm really hoping to change that on our end. If you have an idea or request, please don't be shy with letting me know.

Thank you!

[evanmartyr]

I think they're decent articles, but people tend to play colors for specific cards or to fill specific roles. For example, if your deck wants consistent acceleration, artifacts, non-basic lands, or green can help you out, while the other colors really can't. If your deck wants burst-ey acceleration, look to black and red, and sometimes green.

I personally prefer primer articles that are focused more towards deckbuilders than a fresh contender trying to puzzle out what deck his opponent is playing by his first turn land drop, so you may have gone more in that direction.

The last section, green decks, is a good one. Concise, to the point, easy to understand. The "list of decks that may include Tarmogoyf" isn't terribly helpful, but whatever. Dude's everywhere. The section at the beginning of the white article, with the lists of what white likes to do, is good, but it's really broad. I'd focus more on what roles white can fill in deckbuilding (ie, tutoring, defense/protection, creature removal, utility creatures) and leave it at that, with examples being fairly self-descriptive. A trap I fell into when I was younger and playing the game was assumed that if a white card did something, that's what white liked to do. Armageddon meant land destruction, when it's really a true exception to nearly all the cards in the game. A small section with cards that are unique and in the color would be convenient (for white, I'd say Armageddon/Ravages of War would lead the charge). There are so many little themes and sub-themes in each color that detailing each one gets complicated and confusing, and being too concise leaves out these glaringly powerful cards that might be considered when constructing a deck or sideboard.

Keep in mind, this is me attempting to be really critical, and more about writing style than content.

[Malchar]

Looks like a number of the card tags are messed up in the article. Specifically in the green section, which is what I am currently reading. Also, it's really not necessary to list all the duals and fetch that can make white mana. Maybe do a different section talking specifically about duals? That said, it does make sense to list stuff like flagstones, karakas, and horizon canopy in the white section.

[Shawn]

Brrrooooooooooooooooo,

Well done articles like these are super helpful for those looking for a starting point into a format. I would not have listed a few cards like Oust or Knight of the White Orchid, but that's more of a nitpick than a complaint.


(btw, are you going to KC?)

[metamet]

@evanmartyr

Thanks for the feedback! And I agree with you that I did go off in a different direction, focusing more on understanding the meta and other decks rather than deck building. I think one can take one subject and cross reference it, figuring things out a bit that way. But you’re right that the focus isn’t fully on deck building, which is a valuable subject.

I think I was attempting to take a subject of such huge possibilities and ways to classify things and make some sense of it, which is I think why some of the classifications are pretty broad. What I was really trying to do there was essentially show off exactly HOW prevalent Goyf really is, splashed into every possible deck at times. hah.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

@ Malchar

Yeah, the [card name]blahblah[/card] tags are messed up now. Anyone using that plugin is experiencing that, too.  Since I wrote the Green article before the plugin got all messy, I haven’t gone back and rewritten everything. I’m hoping that’ll be fixed soon. I was aware of it while writing the White one, though, which is why there aren’t any clever tag names. haha.

I plan on doing an article on Lands (with Planewalkers talked about, too, for the sake of there being so few in Legacy).

What I was thinking about when including those in the article was that it would be a nifty resource for someone new to Legacy to reference. Perhaps it’s a little too elementary, but the names of all the white fetches and duals is a type of knowledge that only comes from time and exposure. I was hoping that having them all in one location would be helpful for someone studying for a new format.

Do you feel it takes away from the flow of the article, though? Because I don’t want to include any/too many things that could trip the reader up.

(note: I didn’t include that in the Green article, as I hadn’t considered it at that time. I am, however, considering going back and adding a section on it. thoughts? it’d be preferred to keep things consistent.)

Thank you for your feedback.

@Shawn

Brooooski! Thanks for taking the middle seat in the back of the van all the way to and back from Providence!  You’re the best.

Oust and Knight are definitely minor cards, so I can understand that nitpick. I have seen them pop up here and there *on occasion*, Knight more than Oust, but perhaps they don’t deserve a spot on the list. I suppose a line needs to be drawn somewhere when considering how complete an article should be, eh?

And that is really what I wanted to accomplish it, being a great starting place for someone looking to get into (or get back into) Legacy. Do you have any thoughts on what else to perhaps include?

Thanks buddy! Miss you. I don’t know if I’m going to KC… got a ride in the works?