Community

Yeah, that does not really prove Rock is bad at all. In his pt example, if he had been playing a better rock deck, BG Elves, he woudnt have lost to lolCrypticCommanddrawlulz. GW Midrange=/=BG Rock.

Rock decks are, and will always be a force to be reckoned with since their matchups are usually all 50/50 or better post-board.

The only comment I really have for his argument that rock decks are bad, is that for a very long time in extended The Rock was a very very strong deck, and became even stronger when blue was splashed for Gifts and tog.

I myself used to run UGb MadRock that I took to repeated 1st place finishes at my FNM. I placed 1st for 5 weeks in a row before being hated out and having to adjust the build of my deck severely. If they're tuned for your metagame then they are very very very strong decks. That said I personally believe that midrange and Rock are two completely different deck types and that they should not be lumped together.

Midrange = aggressive mid-late game deck with early game stops
Rock = Control deck that uses mid-late game creatures to put the nail in the coffin on the opponent.

The article had some good points to it, but I feel that the two decks in question are different archetypes and function very differently from one another.

razorborne wrote:

I can't read this until the site learns how to make apostrophes.

If that prevents you from reading an intelligent and thought-out article, I'm sorry for you.

+1 Makaro that is a good assessment.

I think his assessment of the style is being misinterpreted... I also thinking MTG-Fan gave a terrible false implication to the article by titling the thread with a specific deck. Fan boys, get in here...

The assessment that midrange is bad because it tries to do too much is a fine one to make. In a diverse metagame like the extended field boasts, it's a terrible game plan in general. Dedication is very useful to decks when they're looking to battle against the board. That's not to say midrange doesn't have a place, though. Some midrange decks stepped into aggro-filled metagames and ripped the place apart. Ghazi-Glare comes straight to mind.

My conclusion to the article: It's a decent approach with valid points that aren't always applicable to the game. Fan did pick the appropriate forum to post it in, though because Extended is arguably the most diverse constructed format in competitive magic—the exact format that midrange falters in.

Makaro, though, I have gripes with your post. First, did you even read the article? Your post seems like it completely justifies the 3rd sentence in my post; you showed up and defended the hell out of the Rock without touching base on the article or its points at all. You also made up numbers, even admitting to it. How the two posters above me let that go with just "+1..." and "I agree..." are beyond me, especially since I respect mntwinsfan and didn't expect it out of him.

Your conclusion is fine, but your paths to it are, at the very best, shaky. Since when is the Rock the only deck capable of running hand disruption? I ran Aggro Loam and it ran plenty of hand-based hate in cabal therapy, duress, thoughtseize, and raven crime. That's some potency, but you seem to miss it.

My conclusion to Makaro's post: You have a decent point to make that the Rock was a bad choice for MTG-Fan's attacks, but justify it with shaky logic, pick-and-choose topics, and slipperly slopes.