As somebody who loves Mentor, I'm going to remain sceptical until I hear about some results. I don't think 8Rack is the deck that can support it. I've tried to make Mentor work in Modern ever since it was printed (most recently - last Saturday) but it's power level is just too high for the format (aka Modern can't support that card). I theorise that Mentor is only good in formats where Cabal Therapy is legal. But don't be afraid to try it, I'll be anxiously awaiting test results.
Now that's a very pick-and-chose finish. Mentor hasn't shown up in the winning list of any major Modern event (that I'm aware of) and what you're presenting is a result from February 2015, just a month after the card was printed and everybody was trying it everywhere that has white remotely near it. Not to mention he hasn't run that card in Modern since then (set the filters to - Player: Ichikawa Yuuki, Format: Modern, Level: All ticked and Maind deck: Monastery Mentor).
You can't draw the conclusion that Mentor was the reason for his finish based on that data. In fact, if you search only for Mentor in Modern, you will see 21 results, of which only 8 are for 2016, only two of those are first place and they are for MTGO leagues. I think based on this data I can certainly say it doesn't work well in the format despite my huge desire for the opposite.
Fun fact, there are more decks with better finishes that involve The Rack than there are involving Mentor and that's saying something.
I don't really agree with that logic. Using that logic means a lot of the cards we run are pretty bad
That's very true, unfortunately. The only reason we do run them is because they have "discard" in their text box and that has a lot of synergy with the way the deck tries to win the game.
8Rack and very few other decks are in a unique position to drive the game to a state where he isn't a bad card. For most the majority of strategies and decks "that logic" very much applies and without those specific circumstances, in a vacuum, Asylum Visitor is just a worse and unreliable Dark Confidant.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that like AV 8RACK might give a home to MM in a way that other decks can't. We are one of the very few modern decks that run low/no creatures and have access to beneficial synergies for MM like Raven's Crime loops.
Just some suggestions which i think like some have already mentioned.
1)Feature memory lapse stock build and Tom Ross's build as mains
2)Should remove the section which is biased against smallpox and pack rat. Pack Rat was the card that won me a number of games when i removed a removal from the start and produced rats all the way.
Why is it so awful? A symmetrical effect that destroys your own lands and discards your own cards is not that good in a deck that doesn't "break the symmetry" and 8Rack certainly isn't one. The fact that there is an entire deck in the face of Loam Pox designed to abuse Smallpox and fails to be anywhere near tournament playable should say enough. Despite this, we can look at how the card actually performs. The people who like it say it's not meant to be played on Turn 2 and instead later, when it "acts as removal and discard in one". This is simply untrue. Other than the fact that we don't want to be playing sorcery speed removal, the way it works is just not good. Would you be playing Geth's Verdict by itself? Highly doubtful and if you would, you shouldn't. Would you pay two mana and discard a card for a Raven's Crime? I hope you wouldn't. Would you at all destroy one of your own lands to kill a creature and discard a card when you can play an additional one and let Liliana of the Veil do the same? No way.
Is this a primer or an opinion piece? A primer needs to be neutral and objective, not opiniated and forceful. The author can even be critical of certain cards but be very clear on what construes his opinion and what's objective fact - that for example, the card he is bashing is a performing one, even if he _thinks_ it is bad. There are even factual inaccuracies in the argument: " A symmetrical effect that destroys your own lands and discards your own cards is not that good in a deck that doesn't "break the symmetry" and 8Rack certainly isn't one." Smallpox is almost never going to be symmetrical because 8rack hardly runs any creatures. It puts both players back on lands but 8rack has a tiny, microscopic curve. It discards both players but 8rack wants both players hellbent.
This is the strangest primer I've ever read on these forums, and not in a good way. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it shouldn't be propagated inside the main body of a primer.
Content aside, props to esperino for the effort and work done. As for the immediate hate you received, well, that will happen when you pass your opinion off as a primer! I hope this presentable primer can have more objective information inside it eventually.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Why is it so awful? A symmetrical effect that destroys your own lands and discards your own cards is not that good in a deck that doesn't "break the symmetry" and 8Rack certainly isn't one. The fact that there is an entire deck in the face of Loam Pox designed to abuse Smallpox and fails to be anywhere near tournament playable should say enough. Despite this, we can look at how the card actually performs. The people who like it say it's not meant to be played on Turn 2 and instead later, when it "acts as removal and discard in one". This is simply untrue. Other than the fact that we don't want to be playing sorcery speed removal, the way it works is just not good. Would you be playing Geth's Verdict by itself? Highly doubtful and if you would, you shouldn't. Would you pay two mana and discard a card for a Raven's Crime? I hope you wouldn't. Would you at all destroy one of your own lands to kill a creature and discard a card when you can play an additional one and let Liliana of the Veil do the same? No way.
Is this a primer or an opinion piece? A primer needs to be neutral and objective, not opiniated and forceful. The author can even be critical of certain cards but be very clear on what construes his opinion and what's objective fact - that for example, the card he is bashing is a performing one, even if he _thinks_ it is bad. There are even factual inaccuracies in the argument: " A symmetrical effect that destroys your own lands and discards your own cards is not that good in a deck that doesn't "break the symmetry" and 8Rack certainly isn't one." Smallpox is almost never going to be symmetrical because 8rack hardly runs any creatures. It puts both players back on lands but 8rack has a tiny, microscopic curve. It discards both players but 8rack wants both players hellbent.
This is the strangest primer I've ever read on these forums, and not in a good way. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it shouldn't be propagated inside the main body of a primer.
Content aside, props to esperino for the effort and work done. As for the immediate hate you received, well, that will happen when you pass your opinion off as a primer! I hope this presentable primer can have more objective information inside it eventually.
Going to have to agree with this, BUT in Nik's defense some of the content was supposed to be a placeholder...
I really enjoy how everybody skipped over the part where I tell people to play Smallpox so I'm going to put it here:
"Despite appearing on another list, this is one of the most discussed and fan-favourite cards, so I include it here as well. It can be good. It can even be great. Smallpox is a card with a lot of value packed in for the small price of BB. Cautious use and proper resource management can leave opponent's staggered without a chance for recovery. One of the things it does exceptionally well is combating the three-coloured decks which need their mana so so badly. Other decks that fall prey to this spell are ones that rely on a small amount of big creatures, which is what most midrange strategies attempt to do. While often times hindering the 8Rack player just as much as the opponent, this deck's ability to operate on a very low mana curve and often in a hellbent status helps it break the symmetry in some cases. This is further amplified by the fact that a lot of builds don't run any creatures at all. Another thing that makes Smallpox really strong in some situations is when an opponent gets screwed with their draw. While it's not a good habit to rely on chance for your card to really shine, it's a reality of Magic and when it does happen, Smallpox can win the game on the spot."
If you don't read the whole thing and only pick and chose what you dislike, I can't take your complaints seriously. You say primers should be objective? That's exactly what this is. I have already explained how Smallpox can be a great option, but I also have the obligation to explain to new players who are not yet familiar with the deck that it's not necessarily always the case and warn them of the dangers of playing what's essentially a pretty bad card. 8Rack is full of those, especially if you look at a deck like Tom Ross' with things like Funeral Charm in there. It obviously works, but should somebody who has never played the deck before be running it? I don't think so.
In a perfect world a Primer might be objective. But Magic is a game of perception, there are not that many "hard truths" or things that are ultimately true. When the current world champion and the previous one disagree on whether or not you keep Thoughtseize against Burn, which is more true? You think Smallpox is good and you want "opinion-free" content, but you don't even consider that more competitive players who look at the card and think it's ***** can see the "objective" presentation and say "well this is biased as all hell, where are all the downsides listed?". I've given both perspectives, which is the very definition of objectivity. This is the last time I address comments like these but you guys feel free to keep posting them on a daily basis, I like the traffic this brings to the thread.
That's the thing you see. You're so devoid of objectiveness in your primer that even while describing the card at its best you can't avoid caveats like "While often times hindering the 8Rack player" or "While it's not a good habit to rely on chance for your card to really shine".
That's not the job of the primer to say so. The primer lays out the pros and cons of the card like _some_ of your post did. And even then if this chapter was all you had said regarding smallpox, maybe nobody'd have batted an eyelid. But further down in your primer we see this:
How to not build a deck
In this segment I am going to introduce a short list of really bad cards that historically many players have tried to make work:
Smallpox. This is the crown jewel in our list of bad cards and certainly the most polarising and hotly debated options for the history of 8Rack.
And then you say this to me now?
You say primers should be objective? That's exactly what this is.
Do I need to go into detail as to why you're getting this feedback on a daily basis, which you have infuriatingly dismissed as "traffic"? You've said this is the last time you address such feedback. That's really sad. That's the last hope this "primer" of being a primer instead of an opinion piece. I'll be referring any new players to Rob's old thread instead of this for when they need an objective summary of the deck.
Cheers and good luck with your opinion piece.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
@MarcWizard Yea, some of that is valid argumentation. I've thought about changing the wording on the "pros" section. And yes, perhaps the other segment won't be called "how not to build a deck" and something more in the line of "cards new players (or players in general) should avoid", but the content is going to stay there. Because it has to. There is a reason the deck hasn't seen nearly as much success as it should have (take a look at Lantern Control for instance, that deck traces it's origins to the original 8Rack thread but was developed by players who aren't so close-minded and don't stick to the same cards for over 4 years). You can refer people to the original thread if you'd like and you can keep playing the same bad cards over and over again, but that doesn't mean the entire strategy should stagnate because a couple of the more experienced players can't imagine 8Rack being not mono-black or playing without their precious little Smallpox.
@MarcWizard Yea, some of that is valid argumentation. I've thought about changing the wording on the "pros" section. And yes, perhaps the other segment won't be called "how not to build a deck" and something more in the line of "cards new players (or players in general) should avoid", but the content is going to stay there. Because it has to. There is a reason the deck hasn't seen nearly as much success as it should have (take a look at Lantern Control for instance, that deck traces it's origins to the original 8Rack thread but was developed by players who aren't so close-minded and don't stick to the same cards for over 4 years). You can refer people to the original thread if you'd like and you can keep playing the same bad cards over and over again, but that doesn't mean the entire strategy should stagnate because a couple of the more experienced players can't imagine 8Rack being not mono-black or playing without their precious little Smallpox.
I had you pegged as bull-headed but perhaps I was being rash as well. Let's start over as friendlies.
Smallpox is by no means the cure-all, the wunderchild, and certainly there are times you wish it were another card. The same can be said for Cryptic Command in Grixis, Chord of Calling in elves, Thoughtcast in Affinity. All these cards are staple to some and maybeboard to others.
There are times the meta will be kind to these cards, others that do not favor, and sometimes they are just the most powerful thing. I believe Ross has recently demonstrated that in a fast meta, smallpox can and will steal wins by punishing 18 land decks trying to win off of a few low costed creatures.
You do not, by any means, need to sell smallpox, heavens no, nobody is asking you to do that. That would be hypocritical of me and anyone else complaining about the primer. What we take issue with is that the opposite is happening here - you're bashing the card because you dislike it a lot. (which is sticking to polite words) That's really fine because I don't really like Chord of Calling in elves (I run Lead the Stampede in its stead) but if I wrote a primer, I wouldn't (and shouldn't) peg it as a bad card.
I _can_ state the reasons I wouldn't run it (in a meta of mass removal, you will often lack the mass of creatures to convoke, card advantage wins better than toolbox in attrition battles etc etc) but I shouldn't be saying things like "awful", "history of players struggling to post results with" because firstly, the card can and does shine in the right hands and meta and secondly, it has proven results. The same can be said of smallpox.
I'll summarize. I don't think there should be a section with "bad cards you shouldn't play" or "how not to build a deck", as you have already noted in your last post. At worst, you could call it the "Maybeboard" or "Controversial cards to consider". Because ultimately, a primer should expose a player, new or experienced, to first, the performing variants aka netdecks aka spike lists, and then the variants, without fear or favor. And factually speaking, certain smallpox lists would be netdecked or spike lists, in no small part due to Tom Ross.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
You can refer people to the original thread if you'd like and you can keep playing the same bad cards over and over again, but that doesn't mean the entire strategy should stagnate because a couple of the more experienced players can't imagine 8Rack being not mono-black or playing without their precious little Smallpox.
wow
that cannot be more wrong
dont think anyone is attacking the splashed versions, people are negative on you because you are biased and negative against them first
i dont like splashed versions, but i want to see them on the primer and dont want the primer to talk bad about them even if i dont like them. they are a work in progress and arent as fine tuned as the mono black version because of lack of play, but if people try and make them better and have success thats great and i want to hear
you on the other hand keep talking bad about the smallpox version, call it bad, call it inconsistent, and dismis its success as luck spikes. i think that you arent as practice with the card as you think you are and cant understand why other people like it when it gives bad results to you
Because ultimately, a primer should expose a player, new or experienced, to first, the performing variants aka netdecks aka spike lists, and then the variants, without fear or favor. And factually speaking, certain smallpox lists would be netdecked or spike lists, in no small part due to Tom Ross.
I'd like to think that's what I'm doing. That's why his list is at the front. Personally? I think the card is bad. But I'm not going to argue with results, that would be ludicrous. The card is in almost every well-performing list, even though this stems primarily from the fact that other non-pox lists simply aren't being even tried in tournaments. If you don't play something, even if it was better, then naturally it wouldn't have results. Now, clearly Smallpox does enough for the deck to help it win. But I argue that Tom Ross' results stem primarily from being the incredibly good player that he is and secondly from the 75 he brought.
Personally, I would also postulate that if he were to bring another version he would've done better, but I can't say that's true without proof now, can I? Clearly, "smallpox can and will steal wins by punishing 18 land decks trying to win off of a few low costed creatures" was a correct approach for that tournament. Was it the only correct one? I doubt it but it might be true. And it most certainly comes down to metagame trends whether one build performs better than the rest.
Not replying to anyone in particular: this article by Ross on SCG premium but apparently viewable to me (maybe because its a year old) talks in length about match ups and yes, smallpox.
One of the things I find very peculiar is how people (mostly those following Rob, but not only them) don't care about their removal package and to this day don't play Dismember as their removal of choice. It really seems so hypocritical to justify one card (that I won't name here) with "Tom Ross has the most successful finish to date with it so it's really good" and then keep playing bad removal like Victim of Night or Go for the Throat or whatever. Shouldn't Rom Ross' list have convinced you to play 4 Dismember at this point? Why does that apply to Smallother cards but not for the removal package?
And thanks for digging up the article, I wanted to put it in the Primer and had lost my link. Then I didn't bother looking it up because I said whatever, it's a little bit old, but taking another look at it, it's good content to have available so I'll put it there.
@MarcWizard Yea, some of that is valid argumentation. I've thought about changing the wording on the "pros" section. And yes, perhaps the other segment won't be called "how not to build a deck" and something more in the line of "cards new players (or players in general) should avoid", but the content is going to stay there. Because it has to. There is a reason the deck hasn't seen nearly as much success as it should have (take a look at Lantern Control for instance, that deck traces it's origins to the original 8Rack thread but was developed by players who aren't so close-minded and don't stick to the same cards for over 4 years). You can refer people to the original thread if you'd like and you can keep playing the same bad cards over and over again, but that doesn't mean the entire strategy should stagnate because a couple of the more experienced players can't imagine 8Rack being not mono-black or playing without their precious little Smallpox.
Awesome, please do that. I think a lot of people will be happier if you make that change. You should rename it "Cards I don't like personally"
One of the things I find very peculiar is how people (mostly those following Rob, but not only them) don't care about their removal package and to this day don't play Dismember as their removal of choice. It really seems so hypocritical to justify one card (that I won't name here) with "Tom Ross has the most successful finish to date with it so it's really good" and then keep playing bad removal like Victim of Night or Go for the Throat or whatever. Shouldn't Rom Ross' list have convinced you to play 4 Dismember at this point? Why does that apply to Smallother cards but not for the removal package?
And thanks for digging up the article, I wanted to put it in the Primer and had lost my link. Then I didn't bother looking it up because I said whatever, it's a little bit old, but taking another look at it, it's good content to have available so I'll put it there.
There you go calling cards bad in general. Go for the Throat is not bad, neither is victim. I have been playing long enough to distinguish good from bad from marginal. Both of these cards are good, solid OPTIONS.
I feel like you don't understand what unclear optimization means to MTG as a fundamental mechanic.
Lots of talking in this thread, some fine arguments, some bi***ing. We all want to play and make this deck as good as we can, so why don't we just agree to disagree?
If you'd like to play a controversial card, be my guest! It's your fun.
Anyway I was hoping for some advice with the sideboard for a deck with a red splash. Now I just got my Funeral Charms so it's been slightly tuned to fit those cards.
Questions;
Anger or Pyroclasm? In a unknown meta, which is better?
Should I put the last two charms in the sideboard?
Which cards ought to be in the sideboard for a Br list?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=9179&d=252730&f=MO
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
You can't draw the conclusion that Mentor was the reason for his finish based on that data. In fact, if you search only for Mentor in Modern, you will see 21 results, of which only 8 are for 2016, only two of those are first place and they are for MTGO leagues. I think based on this data I can certainly say it doesn't work well in the format despite my huge desire for the opposite.
Fun fact, there are more decks with better finishes that involve The Rack than there are involving Mentor and that's saying something.
Anyway, MM may not be great in here and if it isn't i'll just go back to Rack Rats or Gideon.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
That's very true, unfortunately. The only reason we do run them is because they have "discard" in their text box and that has a lot of synergy with the way the deck tries to win the game.
8Rack and very few other decks are in a unique position to drive the game to a state where he isn't a bad card. For most the majority of strategies and decks "that logic" very much applies and without those specific circumstances, in a vacuum, Asylum Visitor is just a worse and unreliable Dark Confidant.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Just some suggestions which i think like some have already mentioned.
1)Feature memory lapse stock build and Tom Ross's build as mains
2)Should remove the section which is biased against smallpox and pack rat. Pack Rat was the card that won me a number of games when i removed a removal from the start and produced rats all the way.
Thanks and keep up the hardwork.
Is this a primer or an opinion piece? A primer needs to be neutral and objective, not opiniated and forceful. The author can even be critical of certain cards but be very clear on what construes his opinion and what's objective fact - that for example, the card he is bashing is a performing one, even if he _thinks_ it is bad. There are even factual inaccuracies in the argument: " A symmetrical effect that destroys your own lands and discards your own cards is not that good in a deck that doesn't "break the symmetry" and 8Rack certainly isn't one." Smallpox is almost never going to be symmetrical because 8rack hardly runs any creatures. It puts both players back on lands but 8rack has a tiny, microscopic curve. It discards both players but 8rack wants both players hellbent.
This is the strangest primer I've ever read on these forums, and not in a good way. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it shouldn't be propagated inside the main body of a primer.
Content aside, props to esperino for the effort and work done. As for the immediate hate you received, well, that will happen when you pass your opinion off as a primer! I hope this presentable primer can have more objective information inside it eventually.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
We need objective, opinion free content.
"Despite appearing on another list, this is one of the most discussed and fan-favourite cards, so I include it here as well. It can be good. It can even be great. Smallpox is a card with a lot of value packed in for the small price of BB. Cautious use and proper resource management can leave opponent's staggered without a chance for recovery. One of the things it does exceptionally well is combating the three-coloured decks which need their mana so so badly. Other decks that fall prey to this spell are ones that rely on a small amount of big creatures, which is what most midrange strategies attempt to do. While often times hindering the 8Rack player just as much as the opponent, this deck's ability to operate on a very low mana curve and often in a hellbent status helps it break the symmetry in some cases. This is further amplified by the fact that a lot of builds don't run any creatures at all. Another thing that makes Smallpox really strong in some situations is when an opponent gets screwed with their draw. While it's not a good habit to rely on chance for your card to really shine, it's a reality of Magic and when it does happen, Smallpox can win the game on the spot."
If you don't read the whole thing and only pick and chose what you dislike, I can't take your complaints seriously. You say primers should be objective? That's exactly what this is. I have already explained how Smallpox can be a great option, but I also have the obligation to explain to new players who are not yet familiar with the deck that it's not necessarily always the case and warn them of the dangers of playing what's essentially a pretty bad card. 8Rack is full of those, especially if you look at a deck like Tom Ross' with things like Funeral Charm in there. It obviously works, but should somebody who has never played the deck before be running it? I don't think so.
In a perfect world a Primer might be objective. But Magic is a game of perception, there are not that many "hard truths" or things that are ultimately true. When the current world champion and the previous one disagree on whether or not you keep Thoughtseize against Burn, which is more true? You think Smallpox is good and you want "opinion-free" content, but you don't even consider that more competitive players who look at the card and think it's ***** can see the "objective" presentation and say "well this is biased as all hell, where are all the downsides listed?". I've given both perspectives, which is the very definition of objectivity. This is the last time I address comments like these but you guys feel free to keep posting them on a daily basis, I like the traffic this brings to the thread.
That's not the job of the primer to say so. The primer lays out the pros and cons of the card like _some_ of your post did. And even then if this chapter was all you had said regarding smallpox, maybe nobody'd have batted an eyelid. But further down in your primer we see this:
And then you say this to me now?
Do I need to go into detail as to why you're getting this feedback on a daily basis, which you have infuriatingly dismissed as "traffic"? You've said this is the last time you address such feedback. That's really sad. That's the last hope this "primer" of being a primer instead of an opinion piece. I'll be referring any new players to Rob's old thread instead of this for when they need an objective summary of the deck.
Cheers and good luck with your opinion piece.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I had you pegged as bull-headed but perhaps I was being rash as well. Let's start over as friendlies.
Smallpox is by no means the cure-all, the wunderchild, and certainly there are times you wish it were another card. The same can be said for Cryptic Command in Grixis, Chord of Calling in elves, Thoughtcast in Affinity. All these cards are staple to some and maybeboard to others.
There are times the meta will be kind to these cards, others that do not favor, and sometimes they are just the most powerful thing. I believe Ross has recently demonstrated that in a fast meta, smallpox can and will steal wins by punishing 18 land decks trying to win off of a few low costed creatures.
You do not, by any means, need to sell smallpox, heavens no, nobody is asking you to do that. That would be hypocritical of me and anyone else complaining about the primer. What we take issue with is that the opposite is happening here - you're bashing the card because you dislike it a lot. (which is sticking to polite words) That's really fine because I don't really like Chord of Calling in elves (I run Lead the Stampede in its stead) but if I wrote a primer, I wouldn't (and shouldn't) peg it as a bad card.
I _can_ state the reasons I wouldn't run it (in a meta of mass removal, you will often lack the mass of creatures to convoke, card advantage wins better than toolbox in attrition battles etc etc) but I shouldn't be saying things like "awful", "history of players struggling to post results with" because firstly, the card can and does shine in the right hands and meta and secondly, it has proven results. The same can be said of smallpox.
I'll summarize. I don't think there should be a section with "bad cards you shouldn't play" or "how not to build a deck", as you have already noted in your last post. At worst, you could call it the "Maybeboard" or "Controversial cards to consider". Because ultimately, a primer should expose a player, new or experienced, to first, the performing variants aka netdecks aka spike lists, and then the variants, without fear or favor. And factually speaking, certain smallpox lists would be netdecked or spike lists, in no small part due to Tom Ross.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
wow
that cannot be more wrong
dont think anyone is attacking the splashed versions, people are negative on you because you are biased and negative against them first
i dont like splashed versions, but i want to see them on the primer and dont want the primer to talk bad about them even if i dont like them. they are a work in progress and arent as fine tuned as the mono black version because of lack of play, but if people try and make them better and have success thats great and i want to hear
you on the other hand keep talking bad about the smallpox version, call it bad, call it inconsistent, and dismis its success as luck spikes. i think that you arent as practice with the card as you think you are and cant understand why other people like it when it gives bad results to you
I'd like to think that's what I'm doing. That's why his list is at the front. Personally? I think the card is bad. But I'm not going to argue with results, that would be ludicrous. The card is in almost every well-performing list, even though this stems primarily from the fact that other non-pox lists simply aren't being even tried in tournaments. If you don't play something, even if it was better, then naturally it wouldn't have results. Now, clearly Smallpox does enough for the deck to help it win. But I argue that Tom Ross' results stem primarily from being the incredibly good player that he is and secondly from the 75 he brought.
Personally, I would also postulate that if he were to bring another version he would've done better, but I can't say that's true without proof now, can I? Clearly, "smallpox can and will steal wins by punishing 18 land decks trying to win off of a few low costed creatures" was a correct approach for that tournament. Was it the only correct one? I doubt it but it might be true. And it most certainly comes down to metagame trends whether one build performs better than the rest.
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/31178_8-Rack-In-Modern.html
It doesn't feel outdated unless you expect mention of newcomer dredge. It was written when origins had just been released.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Smallother cards but not for the removal package?And thanks for digging up the article, I wanted to put it in the Primer and had lost my link. Then I didn't bother looking it up because I said whatever, it's a little bit old, but taking another look at it, it's good content to have available so I'll put it there.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
There you go calling cards bad in general. Go for the Throat is not bad, neither is victim. I have been playing long enough to distinguish good from bad from marginal. Both of these cards are good, solid OPTIONS.
I feel like you don't understand what unclear optimization means to MTG as a fundamental mechanic.
If you'd like to play a controversial card, be my guest! It's your fun.
Anyway I was hoping for some advice with the sideboard for a deck with a red splash. Now I just got my Funeral Charms so it's been slightly tuned to fit those cards.
4 the rack
3 Shrieking Affliction
Sorceries & Instants
4 thoughtseize
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Raven's Crime
4 Wrench Mind
2 Funeral Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Terminate
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Gurmag Angler
1 Grim Lavamancer
Planeswalkers
4 Liliana of the Veil
Lands
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Blood Crypt
1 mountain
1 Dakmor Salvage
3 swamp
3 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1 Graven Cairns
2 Mutavault
1 Rix Maadi, Dungeon Palace
1 Blood moon
4 surgical extraction
2 Anger of the Gods
1 dreadbore
Questions;
Anger or Pyroclasm? In a unknown meta, which is better?
Should I put the last two charms in the sideboard?
Which cards ought to be in the sideboard for a Br list?