Cook’s Kitchen – NELC (07/14/12): First Place

[Bryant Cook]

Report (http://www.jupitergamesonline.com/2012/51447/cooks-kitchen-nelc-071412-first-place)

Warning: Not with The EPIC Storm.

[socialite]

Nice. Agree about "Pimping" if anything I find people who spend that amount of money on a particular deck probably means they are more secure with that list and most likely a superior player in that context.

Lunch break while nice is a little superfluous, suck it up and snack it up.

[Tammit67]

The list you posted is insane.

[alderon666]

Traitor!

[Telperion]

"If you come to the event with UW Miracles or lands, you probably didn’t deserve to eat that day anyway. "

Agreed! Congrats, but you need to come back to the dark side.

[Michael Keller]

So what is going on with Jupiter's attendance situation for the NELC events?

[KevinTrudeau]

As always, nice report, and a pretty decent list as well. I think you made a mistake in Forcing Merman's Æther Vial in game one of your top eight match; it's usually just never correct, although because he led off with Mutavault, it could suggest that he only had 0-1 blue source(s) in hand (and no Daze obviously, unless he was/is a master) at the time, so the whole "screwing him off of mana" line because of your in-hand Wasteland is still viable, making the play not completely un-meritorious. But yeah, Forcing Vial with a seven-card opener already feels shitty; with a five card opener, it feels like clopening every day somehow for a week. It's just something you have to accept as an in-game property at that point. Save your Force for the Force on your Bolt targeting Lord of Atlantis.

[Bryant Cook]

As always, nice report, and a pretty decent list as well. I think you made a mistake in Forcing Merman's Æther Vial in game one of your top eight match; it's usually just never correct, although because he led off with Mutavault, it could suggest that he only had 0-1 blue source(s) in hand (and no Daze obviously, unless he was/is a master) at the time, so the whole "screwing him off of mana" line because of your in-hand Wasteland is still viable, making the play not completely un-meritorious. But yeah, Forcing Vial with a seven-card opener already feels shitty; with a five card opener, it feels like clopening every day somehow for a week. It's just something you have to accept as an in-game property at that point. Save your Force for the Force on your Bolt targeting Lord of Atlantis.

In hind sight, I guess so. But I'd probably try it again. The Force comes considerably worse after Aether Vial resolves. Forcing their Force means that you were already in a losing position. Where if they don't have lands and/or another vial you could win the game.

[thefringthing]

Good report. Lots of interesting content in addition to the actual recap.

Your reaction to Jon's claims about "pimping" (what an awful term) were totally reasonable. I'm not really a foils guy but I think Jon was being a bit over the top.

I really appreciate it when events have a lunch break (props to Kyle Ryc and the Canadian Magic Tour) since I tend to write off the entire day of the event (i.e. I never assume there will be time to do anything after) and being hungry while playing is the worst.

[Michael Keller]

I play with foils or older variations of cards all the time because I like making my deck look nice, and nothing more really. Foils are really only a psyche-out tactic for weaker-minded players. A white-bordered Brainstorm does the exact same thing functionally as a Japanese Foil Brainstorm. Personal empowerment and some confidence comes from having a deck that looks really nice, but that really isn't what's important. What's important is how you play the game from an interactive standpoint, not an aesthetic standpoint.

You could fully restore the body of a 1964 (1/2) Mustang, but if the engine inside of it runs like shit, it isn't worth driving. I think you're in the minority about this Bryant. Strong, competent players could care less if a card or deck is fully pimped out in a serious tournament setting. It's a nice confidence booster, but nothing else really.

[Kich867]

I play with foils or older variations of cards all the time because I like making my deck look nice, and nothing more really. Foils are really only a psyche-out tactic for weaker-minded players. A white-bordered Brainstorm does the exact same thing functionally as a Japanese Foil Brainstorm. Personal empowerment and some confidence comes from having a deck that looks really nice, but that really isn't what's important. What's important is how you play the game from an interactive standpoint, not an aesthetic standpoint.

You could fully restore the body of a 1964 (1/2) Mustang, but if the engine inside of it runs like shit, it isn't worth driving. I think you're in the minority about this Bryant. Strong, competent players could care less if a card or deck is fully pimped out in a serious tournament setting. It's a nice confidence booster, but nothing else really.

The idea that someone can only be a good player by not pimping your deck seems naive. I would say he's in the majority, where set / foil choices have irrefutably and inarguably no impact on player skill since that's an impossible leap to make.

I have this foil korean 7th edition mountain, if I ever need a basic mountain in any deck I'm playing, it's the first one I go to. This doesn't make me a bad player, it makes me a person with preferences. I'm not going to play better for choosing it, I just like it because it looks cool.

... :confused: I guess I'm confused as to how my foils are intended to psyche out the opponent and have anything at all to do with the game, and not my own preference of cards that I own and enjoy using.

[Michael Keller]

The idea that someone can only be a good player by not pimping your deck seems naive. I would say he's in the majority, where set / foil choices have irrefutably and inarguably no impact on player skill since that's an impossible leap to make.

That's absurd. I have a completely pimped out LED Dredge deck and I in no way am saying that you can't have a pimped out deck and not be a good player. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Against a competent, skilled opponent, it has little (if any) bearing on the outcome of the match - a point it looks like you already reiterated back to me for some reason.


I have this foil korean 7th edition mountain, if I ever need a basic mountain in any deck I'm playing, it's the first one I go to. This doesn't make me a bad player, it makes me a person with preferences. I'm not going to play better for choosing it, I just like it because it looks cool.

Did you even read what I wrote? I never said playing with a different version of a card makes you a "bad" player; I said playing with a less expensive version of the same card makes no difference in the outcome of the match if the opponent plays at a high level.


... :confused: I guess I'm confused as to how my foils are intended to psyche out the opponent and have anything at all to do with the game, and not my own preference of cards that I own and enjoy using.

This whole digression only has to do with what significance foils or special versions of cards have to do with the outcome of a game in said person's favor. I believe it has none against a skilled and competent opponent. Imposing your will on someone only works when that player has a weak competitive demeanor. It has no effect on someone with equal or more talent who was only able to piece a powerful deck together using less expensive versions of cards they are playing (i.e. a Fifth Edition Brainstorm versus a Japanese Foil MM Brainstorm - the exact same card).

I won't be hypocritical; I enjoy my foils and older versions of cards I play, but I'm also humble enough in the face of my competition to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are just as skilled with an aesthetically cheaper deck than they are with a deck sporting all Japanese Foils, Alpha/Beta Duals, etc.

[Kich867]

That's absurd. I have a completely pimped out LED Dredge deck and I in no way am saying that you can't have a pimped out deck and not be a good player. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Against a competent, skilled opponent, it has little (if any) bearing on the outcome of the match - a point it looks like you already reiterated back to me for some reason.



Did you even read what I wrote? I never said playing with a different version of a card makes you a "bad" player; I said playing with a less expensive version of the same card makes no difference in the outcome of the match if the opponent plays at a high level.



This whole digression only has to do with what significance foils or special versions of cards have to do with the outcome of a game in said person's favor. I believe it has none against a skilled and competent opponent. Imposing your will on someone only works when that player has a weak competitive demeanor. It has no effect on someone with equal or more talent who was only able to piece a powerful deck together using less expensive versions of cards they are playing (i.e. a Fifth Edition Brainstorm versus a Japanese Foil MM Brainstorm - the exact same card).

I won't be hypocritical; I enjoy my foils and older versions of cards I play, but I'm also humble enough in the face of my competition to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are just as skilled with an aesthetically cheaper deck than they are with a deck sporting all Japanese Foils, Alpha/Beta Duals, etc.

I read some of those sentences as an implication that you the player were weaker for choosing those cards, particularly referencing bryant as being in the minority when his opinion was that card preference is simply card preference. The way you phrased it said you disagreed with that stance, but you aren't disagreeing with it, so that whole thing looks pretty confusing now.

[Michael Keller]

I read some of those sentences as an implication that you the player were weaker for choosing those cards, particularly referencing bryant as being in the minority when his opinion was that card preference is simply card preference. The way you phrased it said you disagreed with that stance, but you aren't disagreeing with it, so that whole thing looks pretty confusing now.

I think it's more than just preference, and that's my point.

Here is the quote from the article that Bryant touched upon:


“There isn’t much more satisfying than beating a dude with a foiled-out deck. My W/U Delver opponent from last Friday had all of the cards foiled, including foil Unhinged Islands. When he offered his deck to me to cut and I picked it up to shuffle it, he gave a quick, PLEASE-DON’T-RIFFLE-SHUFFLE yelp, which I’ll admit was immensely satisfying.

One of the things I really wanted to figure out with this column is why people go for an aesthetic look to their decks at all in a competitive setting, and what I’ve come up with is that you reach a point that it has less to do with wanting your deck to be aesthetically pleasing and more about just being insecure. It’s the same reason “bling” is a word in our lexicon—it’s all about people desperate to appear rich.”

Actually, he's not really in the wrong here. While I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy in its entirety, I do believe that some players have an insecurity as far as aesthetics are concerned in deck-building. And this is my point. I think that it comes down to the fact that unless a deck is completely tricked out, some players won't play it in a competitive environment due to the insecurity of not being able to play with the exact same deck with less expensive versions of cards included because they want a feeling of social or interactive empowerment - not a visually pleasing deck for the sake of having a visually pleasing deck.

People want to feel important - it's not a bad thing.

I guess it's a fine line between preference and paranoia, but it in no way has any real significant technical outcome of a game when two skilled players are involved nor should it 'mask' experience with said deck just because the deck is incredibly expensive.