[Premium Article] Grand Prix Columbus 2010: Exclusive Future Finals Coverage!

[Smmenen]

Editor's Blurb:


Monday, May 24th - Stephen Menendian has been to the future. Specifically, he’s flashed forward to the final Legacy match of Grand Prix: Columbus 2010! In an excellent and fun article, Stephen presents a play-by-play recap of the Legacy final, which promises thrills and spills galore!

Yes: I did make the repeated error of thinking that Reanimate was an instant. Big brain fart. Beyond that, I hope you enjoy this article.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19378_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Grand_Prix_Columbus_2010_Exclusive_Future_Finals_Coverage.html

[Mark Sun]

Pretty entertaining article, regardless of the minor screw up with Reanimate.

[Smmenen]

Pretty entertaining article, regardless of the minor screw up with Reanimate.

Thanks dude :)

I think that glitch shouldn't take away from the analysis, which is really the important thing.

[morgan_coke]

Copied from my post in the article thread on SCG:


I think Reanimate as an Instant has already been covered, so I'd like to talk about the numerous polls you included in your article.

I thought these were great, they let readers make a decision at a crucial point in the match, show them how others reacted to the same situation, then go on to explain the reasoning behind your reading of the "correct" decision. I thought this was a great addition to the article. Awesome learning tool and a great way to help readers better their game. Seriously, I can't praise the inclusion of these mini polls enough.

The only thing I have to say against it is that when you vote on one of the polls, it takes you out of the article. This really messes with the flow of the reading experience and provides an unpleasant "break" in the narrative. I realize this is more of a tech side thing, but you really need to it changed so that voting in the poll displays the results there in the article, rather than taking you to a whole new page you need to back button from and then re-find your place in the article. At the very least, make the vote results appear in a new tab, rather than moving the current tab to a whole new page.

Otherwise, awesome article, one of the best I've read on here in awhile.

[Forbiddian]

Cool article.

I wonder what the Lands player was looking for.

[mossivo1986]

Cool article.

I wonder what the Lands player was looking for.

I seem to remember some comment about you not having premium, or am I just missing something?

[kusumoto]

Steve certainly is an entertaining story teller. I haven't played many games against Lands and it's interesting to see such a detailed game breakdown.

I must say, I would rather not see Reanimator and Lands take the top two spots at Columbus though.

[Mark Sun]

Steve certainly is an entertaining story teller. I haven't played many games against Lands and it's interesting to see such a detailed game breakdown.

I must say, I would rather not see Reanimator and Lands take the top two spots at Columbus though.

I think the goal was not to only make the breakdown elaborate, but the full details of each turn and the mini-polls allow the reader to get a feel for what the board state is, and the unique perspective of the respective pilots. Not hard to get absorbed into the story as you read.

[Smmenen]

I've been experimenting with the article form this year.

I'm always looking for creative angles to play with articles to draw in readers and to entertain them, and teach them. My goal with this article was to really help explain the Land deck. Although, to be honest, I think we can draw alot of conclusions about the matchup from this game.

1) For example, I can say, that as a general matter, Reanimator needs to Reanimate at least two creatures to beat lands. Very simple why: Maze beats everything except for Inkwell, and Reanimator needs Iona in this match.

2) Secondly, Reanimators first Reanition target is likely going to be Iona, unless they want to go for the turn two Inkwell Gambit. I started to run 10 sample hands, to see how often Lands could deal with a turn two Inkwell, and I stopped because in four of the first five hands (without mulliganing), Lands could set up either : 1) Glacial Chasm Recursion w/ LfTL, 2) Ensnaring Bridge, 3) Wasteland/Ghost Quarter + Tabernacle before dying, 4) if you run T. Crypt, that stop it.

3) That Reanimator pilots probably run too few basic lands, and that if the Lands pilot runs either : 1) Crucible (because of Ghost Quarter + Tabernacle), 2) Tormod's Crypt, or 3) Smokestack, the Reanimator pilot is going to have alot or problems game 1. Bojuka Bog is much weaker than those options.

There are other conclusions that can be drawn, as well. But I'll let you figure them out.

The next match I'll probably play with is Counterbalance (or Merfolk, or maybe even New Horizons or UW Tempo) vs. ANT, and it will probably be written in a fantasy style.

[mchainmail]

2) Secondly, Reanimators first Reanition target is likely going to be Iona, unless they want to go for the turn two Inkwell Gambit. I started to run 10 sample hands, to see how often Lands could deal with a turn two Inkwell, and I stopped because in four of the first five hands (without mulliganing), Lands could set up either : 1) Glacial Chasm Recursion w/ LfTL, 2) Ensnaring Bridge, 3) Wasteland/Ghost Quarter + Tabernacle before dying, 4) if you run T. Crypt, that stop it.

Maindeck Zuran Orb also makes Chasm recursion a lot easier to get going without an exploration / bond, although you're not running it.

[dahcmai]

I liked the way the whole article was written in the present tense as if it was happening now. Kind of a refreshing article in a way. I'd laugh if that's how it turned out.

[Smmenen]

Maindeck Zuran Orb also makes Chasm recursion a lot easier to get going without an exploration / bond, although you're not running it.

Recurring Chasm costs no life. So you don't need Zuran Orb to do it indefinitely.

[Cthuloo]

Recurring Chasm costs no life. So you don't need Zuran Orb to do it indefinitely.


Maindeck Zuran Orb also makes Chasm recursion a lot easier to get going without an exploration / bond, although you're not running it.

If you don't have exploration or manabond down, you can still recur chasm a turn every two, paying the upkeep once and saccing it to the orb to gain life back.

[Aggro_zombies]

The next match I'll probably play with is Counterbalance (or Merfolk, or maybe even New Horizons or UW Tempo) vs. ANT, and it will probably be written in a fantasy style.
This could be interesting, but those decks all handle the combo matchup very differently, even though most of the tools they're using to address it are the same.

The article format was interesting, but the polls were kind of distracting. They break the flow of the narrative, even if they're supposed to be instructive. After voting you're left with "Where was I again?" moments while you get back into the article.

EDIT: It may be more interesting to look at the Zoo vs. ANT matchup. Zoo actually has a lot of decisions to make that allow it to put ANT in a very awkward do-or-die position. Also, regardless of what deck faces off against combo, the build you choose for the latter will be very important in determining its resiliency and options in whatever matchup you write about.

[cjva]

I'll just cut and paste my comment from scg forum.

"I tend to like your articles, and believe that you writing here, together with a chosen few is the reason to pay for premium.

With that said, this was probably the worst article i read that you produced, ever. The instant reanimate was a lol-factor, but my biggest problem with the article is the whole thing. A made up final between two named players... It's just meeh."

[Smmenen]

I'll just cut and paste my comment from scg forum.

"I tend to like your articles, and believe that you writing here, together with a chosen few is the reason to pay for premium.

With that said, this was probably the worst article i read that you produced, ever. The instant reanimate was a lol-factor, but my biggest problem with the article is the whole thing. A made up final between two named players... It's just meeh."

but the biggest problem was... the whole thing? A final made up between two named plays is meh?

The fictive part was simply a framing device, and is pretty much irrelevant to the content of the article.

[cjva]

Well, don't take my opinion to harsh (Im not telling you to stop doing experiments in your writing). The fictive part of the article was what i disliked. It's just very personal opinion. (just like Fantasy vs Chiclit. I rather read Marian Keys then Tolkien, but i can truly say that Tolkien is the better of the two).

Everybody likes different things, and I guess the issue won't be anything more then that. Reason why I posted my negative opinion was the part where you said that you have been experimenting, and when doing such thing negative feedback can also be constructive.