[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Emerging Decks

[Nihil Credo]

We kinda forgot what with Wizards killing Magic (again) and Vintage (again) on the same day*, but it's Monday and there's a new SCG Legacy column (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15962.html) up. It's by Christopher Coppola, aka Machinus, aka that-banned-guy-who-still-has-my-crappy-online-tourney-prizes, and it manages to say absolutely nothing important whatsoever, while describing as "under the radar" a deck that has recently been outperforming Threshold (http://sololegacy.blogspot.com/2008/06/legacy-tier-decks-junio-2008.html).



* Sarcasm.

[Nightmare]

This article said a whole lot of nothing. Lots of lists, which people seem to like, but very little discussion on any specifics within said lists. I mean, I'd love to critique, but there simply isn't much to this one.

[Bryant Cook]

I was in it. I like it.

[mujadaddy]

I was in it. I like it.
Heh. But you'd have to admit that the article's quality* was below that of about 50% of the [Deck] threads here, no?


*ie, analysis and 'deep thoughts.'

[BreathWeapon]

Terrible, "here's some deck lists, here's some inane thoughts about those deck lists."

[mujadaddy]

Terrible, "here's some deck lists, here's an inane thought, maybe two, about those deck lists."Fixed that for you.

[xsockmonkeyx]

This article said a whole lot of nothing.

[Isamaru]

Please tell me he doesn't get paid to write these.

[Jak]

Please tell me he doesn't get paid to write these.

Write? Or copy + paste lists?

[zefhek]

i like that crusher with a cannon on the second link

[Mental]

I always find Machinus's writing to be cluttered and filled with unneccessary words that make it excrutiating to read. Hope he's working on that.

[Artowis]

This article was garbage, but congratulations for having a filler article despite not even writing every week. A rarity nowadays.

[Jak]

I always find Machinus's writing to be cluttered and filled with unneccessary words that make it excrutiating to read. Hope he's working on that.

I agree completely. You are trying to get new players into Legacy. This means teenagers. Why use the word "caricature", when you can just use "picture". You seem to think that using $10 words will make the article more entertaining, sadly it was not entertaining at all.

[Pinder]

Yeah, this article was a little skim when it came to content.

On the plus side, though, even though everyone here at MTS has known about these 'under the radar' decks for roughly forever, there might be a lot of people out there who don't know what sort of viable non-Thresh options they have available to them. So while this article elicits nothing more than a huge yawn from the regular Legacy crowd, it does give a nice (if rather cut and dry) list of decks to try for people who aren't familiar with the format.

In short, the article was basically 'here's a few decks that work in Legacy'
Our reaction: Duh.
Newcomer's reaction: Huh...

[Mayk0l]

Currently, the diversity and complexity of Legacy is arguably greater than it has ever been, and these simplistic models are even less useful. There is no accurate description of the format that revolves around a small number of decks. As I have explained many times before, the tools used to analyze other formats fail in Legacy due to the depth of the card pool and the competitive viability this gives many different archetypes.

I can read this six times and still miss the point. It's not that I'm missing the intellect here, but more that I'm missing the patience to have to read something that could have been (should have been) so much easier to read.
I try to force myself through the fancy blabla (I wonder how long he has sat with dictionary in hand to write this.. 'Picture.. picture.. Hmm, what could be a more farsought, fancy synonym?') only to find a bunch of decklists. Turns out there's not real point in the fancy blabla whatsoever.

Sounds like politics.

[Brehn]

On the plus side, though, even though everyone here at MTS has known about these 'under the radar' decks for roughly forever, there might be a lot of people out there who don't know what sort of viable non-Thresh options they have available to them. So while this article elicits nothing more than a huge yawn from the regular Legacy crowd, it does give a nice (if rather cut and dry) list of decks to try for people who aren't familiar with the format.


Probably true


while describing as "under the radar" a deck that has recently been outperforming Threshold.

Well. How long has it been since we could read "Ichorid - Nobody plays that and it never wins" in some Tempo Thresh primer? Time to wake up.

[MattH]

I agree completely. You are trying to get new players into Legacy. This means teenagers. Why use the word "caricature", when you can just use "picture". You seem to think that using $10 words will make the article more entertaining, sadly it was not entertaining at all.

I obviously don't have any real love for Machinus, but this argument is bunk. Fancy words can be used inexpertly, true, but that has way more to do with the author than any inherent weakness of the verbiage itself.

The diction isn't what made this article weak. It's Chris' awkward & sophomoric style and the paucity of insight.

[Jak]

I obviously don't have any real love for Machinus, but this argument is bunk. Fancy words can be used inexpertly, true, but that has way more to do with the author than any inherent weakness of the verbiage itself.

The diction isn't what made this article weak. It's Chris' awkward & sophomoric style and the paucity of insight.

What I am saying is that I would rather have an article with a lot of thought and insight put into it instead of this. You have to realize that not everyone is going to know what some of those words mean. Most don't want to go to dictionary.com.

[hi-val]

paucity of insight.

Yessssssss


(I've lately been preternaturally predisposed to picking prime preposterous P-words in peculiarly positioned prose)

[Amon Amarth]

Yessssssss


(I've lately been preternaturally predisposed to picking prime preposterous P-words in peculiarly positioned prose)

Alliteration much?

Also, I thought the article was meh. It had lists, which get me hard, obv. There just wasn't much on each deck, it was lacking in the content department. C-

[MattH]

What I am saying is that I would rather have an article with a lot of thought and insight put into it instead of this. You have to realize that not everyone is going to know what some of those words mean. Most don't want to go to dictionary.com.

Right, but what I'm saying is that it's not an either/or, and in fact, advanced "thought and insight" usually makes an article MORE likely to use advanced diction. The trouble comes when people confuse the trappings of insight (the language) with insight itself.


Yessssssss
(I've lately been preternaturally predisposed to picking prime preposterous P-words in peculiarly positioned prose)
Pedant.