the major issue i have w/ this deck is how color intensive the pieces in it are.
double blue for counterbalance... double black for hexmage... and dark depths does not tap for mana unless you miser an urborg.
My 12 Post Videos - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...Q65OWRL5my7utn
Originally Posted by Bardo
what are you talking about? The first article i linked was free. after 3 months all premium articles are free. i am going to link to articles that have relevant data. that's like saying: don't look at the encyclopedia because it costs $5 to buy a copy.
there is a difference between being legal and being used. early adopters, long tail and all that.
Well, looking at decklists, they were used.
it's mitigated in a number of ones.
first, you have 8 brainstorm effects + 4 top8s, so your ability to manipulate your deck to find colored mana is very high.
secondly, as i said, this is not a combo deck. you aren't trying to use hexmage + DD to combo out early on unlses you are facing an aggro deck. you don't even want to play dd until the mid-to-late game.
third, counterbalance is playable off of almost any land in the deck except the 1 swamp, the urborg and dds. so your goal is to try to ste up counterbalance and no really worry about winning with hexmage. getting hexmage into play by turn 5-6 isn't really that hard, though.
yes, but not to the same degree as they were in the next tournament, where Dreadstill dissipated. zoo was on the upswing, and didn't peak until the next event, right?
This discussion leads right into my article that should go up on Monday... if this thread is still going at that point, I'll post a link.
Anyway, Stephen's right on this one. Zoo definitely hadn't reached a saturation point in that earlier event. The metagame shifts that have attacked Dreadstill's viability took some time to develop. The wheels of Legacy turn faster than those of Vintage, but they're still slow compared to Block/Standard/Extended.
The other two are not. And by your own arguement, the first article, which is free, is the least relavent, since it was printed at a time when dreadstill was good.
If someone asks a question, and you respond by saying look at page 1123 in the encyclopedia, when they might not have that encyclopedia, is not really helpful. If you dont want to write out a full response, at least copy a relevant paragraph and then link the article.
Steve, if you don't want to be repeating points you made in the article, then don't talk about it until it's free. No one is forcing you to wade into comment threads. If people have wrong ideas about your list because they aren't Premium, let them be wrong, and worry about correcting their mistakes three months later.
Yeah and then Combo will pray on Zoo until it dies back down, and then CB Top strategies will gain strength again. I think I've heard this before...
I had the opportunity (and finally got some time) to create a massive Legacy grid from the last SCG $5k. I put together a spreadsheet that showed every single match result by archetype from the entire tournament.
The results were very illuminating, and I'll publish them in two weeks (next monday is the complete legacy checklist).
But one of the interesting things was that although Ad Nauseam destroyed Zoo decks, it was awful against Merfolk and Counterbalance decks. That's why there was only 1 Ad Nauseam deck in the top 32, despite being one of the most popular decks in the tournament (although one placed 33rd and 34th place, and another at 43rd). Ad nauseam decks sure did well against Zoo, but got totally pwned by anything with blue!
This is not the first time you've done that--you know that. About your last comment, I would never try to prove a point by suggesting someone buy a book and read it.
Of course I will reference an article, article, whatever, whether I've written or not, if there is some substantive point has been argued before or some important statistic I'm citing. I don't pay mind to whether it's free or not. If the citation proves/supports a point, that's what matters.
For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.
The claim I was making was that Dreadstill was declining. I cited some articles to prove it. The fact that 2 of those 3 articles are premium is no different than if I cited a journal that required a subscription to read. I even linked some graphs that show my point.
Look, I understand the frustration that some of this information has to be paid to be seen, but let's no blow this out of proportion. Citing premium articles in support of some fact is not that big of a deal. It's common practice in all fields everywhere. I hear you that it is annoying to you that I'm citing something that isn't readily accessible, but I assure you its not a 'debating technique.' Some information, whether it's magic or not, will be cited and isn't always free on the internet. For example, I might cite a book chapter that someone has written that isn't available in many libraries or on google books. That doesn't make my point invalid or my argument somehow malicious.
I agree w/steve!
Your point is valid. However, soliciting an argument and citing with a pay-to-use source is probably not going to be effective. Do you at least see how this is the case?
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
This is neither new nor interesting information.
Except now it is has real statistics to back it up. That is important.
LOL
It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.
"Part of me belives that Barrin taught me meditation simply to shut me up."
-Ertai, wizard adept
http://solidarityprimer.proboards85.com/index.cgi
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote