Anthony:”Okay Bob, I’m going to Disenchant your Icy Manipulator.”
Bob:”Oh No You Don’t! (Bob liked to shout a lot) In response to that, I tap your Plains!”
Me:”Bob, you can’t Icy a land to stop him from casting a spell.”
Bob: (taking offense)”Who the hell says I can’t?”
Jeff:”Bob, we’ve been over this a million times. Removing the source of an effect doesn’t remove the effect itself.”
Bob:”I’m not removing anything, I’m just tapping it.”
I think I’ve been pretty clear all along in this experiment that I never intended the deck to be played in tournaments. That said, several people have been inspired to bring either my version or their own cog deck to FNM or even Pro Tour Qualifiers. Crazy. Even crazier, some of the results have been encouraging, and enough people have e-mailed me asking my thoughts concerning a sideboard that it feels unavoidable to chime in on the topic.
Today’s double dose of guest writer action answers the question: When you get tired of the game, how do you make it fun again?
I had to take a little revenge, because people were actually telling me how lucky I was that I had this great team to carry me to my PT win. This stung a lot, so I was set on posting a very good result at the next tournament. Too bad for all the other Dutchies, the next tournament was Dutch Nationals. I had two weeks to test for it after I got back from Seattle, so I started as soon as possible. Testing didn’t quite go as well as I had hoped, so in order to find a good deck, all I had to do was talk to the Master.
The goal of this article is quite ambitious: in the middle of the Block Constructed season, with multiple Grand Prix behind us, I’m going to argue that there is a viable (possibly tier one) rogue deck available for Block. It’s a control deck with tremendous utility and a ton of play decisions that has game against all of the most popular decks and favorable matchups against most.
Greetings, and welcome to our new weekly debate series, where the Bleiweiss and I take on one of Magic’s more pressing issues: Selecting 9th Edition.
And so we are blessed with Viashino Cutthroat versus Viashino Sandstalker. Ted will try to tell you that the Sandstalker is better. He’ll tell you that the Standstalker has seen play in bad Red decks from 1997, and that a couple of people did badly with Sandstalker at States this year. I’ll tell you this: 100% of the decks that have lost in the past three years of Type Two have lacked one crucial ingredient. This ingredient is Viashino Cutthroat. Plenty of decks with the Sandstalker have taken game loss after game loss, but not a single Cutthroat can be attributed to a losing deck in Standard for a long, long time!
So last week John wrote about the theory and build of what he feels is the optimal version of Tooth and Nail. This week he took it for a spin in the real world, and came oh so close to qualification.
It’s weird looking at just how quickly sets were released back in the day. Back in 1994, there were seven sets released in twelve months! Imagine if sets were released faster than every other month in the modern era – people would have quit the game in droves due to their inability to keep up with the cards!
I like my deck names to be short and catchy. Some examples of my decks from the past include Wood, Limey.dec, White Noise, The Marksman, Gray Sligh, and She-Hulk. I tell you this because I want you to come up with my deck name for me. That’s right: I am going to do no independent thinking of my own whatsoever. This experiment has generated a nice community vibe in the Forums, and it’s about time I take advantage of that vibe.
Tell me what you think my deck’s name should be.
Tournaments are rarely won by the player who had the cleverest deck. The reason rogue victories are so memorable is that they are uncommon and unexpected. We remember the Decree Deck, the Solution, Scrounger TurboLand, and so on because we expect victories in their breakout environments from other choices. Most of the time, tournaments are won by the luckiest players making the fewest mistakes, playing the best tuned versions of consistent archetype decks. But how do players select which decks, specifically, that they will bring?
Each June, I’ve taken to taking a step back and just assessing where I am, in column form. The column meter is now at 140, and this annual retreat into a written fortress of solitude has become very valuable. Though perhaps I find myself in the mood for something more mellow in 2004.
The problem with banding is that hardly anyone understands what it does. And since Rule of Law is designed to give people understanding of the rules, it only makes sense that I at least try to tackle banding (and its ugly stepsister,”bands with other”).
Recently, there have been a few different decks to catch my attention, trying to pass themselves off as new archetypes despite being just slightly different from already existing or well-known decks. So today, I’m going to pull a JP Meyer and tell everyone that they’re wrong, and I’m right. (JP quotes sprinkled in to make sure you at least”heh” a couple of times.)
