I don't imply. If I want to say something, I simply say it. I am not an expert in Vintage, as my lifetime rating is only something like 1650. I am a decent Vintage player, I tear up the local tournaments, but that doesn't mean that I am an expert or that I am credible.
Vroman is credible. If you want to read something that he wrote, or Smmenen, go on over to TMD. They write there. <Shrug>. This site doesn't have to fill every Magic niche. When it tries, and it fails (because it inevitably will, because even Wizards fails at it, and they make this game), it should be pointed out.
I think that Jank Golem wrote a fine article. But I wouldn't use it to accurately predict which cards are going to make an "impact" in Vintage, if only because our definitions differ. I don't think that a card is impacting that format until a deck gets named after it. Porting four-of into an existing archetype is targeted hate, not an "impact". I am not saying, as people assume, that he did a bad job. I am saying that he did not do a perfect job and that the article did not have what I was looking for.
Get over yourselves. Jank Golem is the only one who could have been offended, and even he wasn't. He took it with credulity and pointed out key facts. And he earned my respect for it. The rest of you? You didn't even write it. What's your problem?
Harkius
My purpose of this set review was to cover all cards from Lorwyn that could be played in Vintage. If I was only covering the cards that would get a deck named after them I would not be doing a good and thorough job. In fact you wouldn't have a set review at all because I doubt any cards from Lorwyn will get a deck named after them. In the article I noted and heavily reviewed the cards I thought would make a large impact, Thoughtseize and Thorn of Amethyst. I also reviewed cards that will see a smaller amount of play and cards on the fringe of playability. We must look at all these cards because Vintage gets so few cards every set and it is important to find the impact of all of them. If you do not look at all the playable cards then you are not looking at the entire format and will not be able to fully comprehend it.
What makes an article less credible is it's content not the writer. If you felt the theory behind my cards was incomplete or the conclusions I drew were incorrect then fine. I take offense when you take an Ad Hominem position and discount the validity of the article purely on those grounds. If you look over on TMD I have posted a thread about this article and two of my previous Vintage articles. I have received positive and constructive feedback about my articles from TMD and have been encouraged by several members to continue writing. I still place a huge amount of value in the mtgsalvation community, first for them for giving me a great place to publish my article and secondly as a place to bring new players into the Vintage format and take place in serious discussion.
theres always one that slips under the radar. Ingot Chewer makes it as sideboard tech at SCG top8. for same cost as oxidize in better color, it dodges chalice@1 and thorn amethyst, and removes bridge from below.
My purpose of this set review was to cover all cards from Lorwyn that could be played in Vintage. If I was only covering the cards that would get a deck named after them I would not be doing a good and thorough job. In fact you wouldn't have a set review at all because I doubt any cards from Lorwyn will get a deck named after them. In the article I noted and heavily reviewed the cards I thought would make a large impact, Thoughtseize and Thorn of Amethyst. I also reviewed cards that will see a smaller amount of play and cards on the fringe of playability. We must look at all these cards because Vintage gets so few cards every set and it is important to find the impact of all of them. If you do not look at all the playable cards then you are not looking at the entire format and will not be able to fully comprehend it.
What makes an article less credible is it's content not the writer. If you felt the theory behind my cards was incomplete or the conclusions I drew were incorrect then fine. I take offense when you take an Ad Hominem position and discount the validity of the article purely on those grounds. If you look over on TMD I have posted a thread about this article and two of my previous Vintage articles. I have received positive and constructive feedback about my articles from TMD and have been encouraged by several members to continue writing. I still place a huge amount of value in the mtgsalvation community, first for them for giving me a great place to publish my article and secondly as a place to bring new players into the Vintage format and take place in serious discussion.
unpopular ideas club