Genesis Wave seems like a good replacement for Regal Force , especially if you cast it for the same cost. Only downside I guess is that you couldn't Chord of Calling for it.
Genesis Wave seems like a good replacement for Regal Force , especially if you cast it for the same cost. Only downside I guess is that you couldn't Chord of Calling
so 7 nettle sentinels? this deck would be great in a ptq. I mean who doesnt love a DQ....any idea what those extra 3 should actually be?
My instinct was "Birchlore Rangers ", but realized they're too old school for Modern when I looked on Gatherer. Wasn't there a very similar card printed in Lorwyn block (or somewhere near there) that let you get any color mana too, or am I remembering a card that doesn't exist?
My instinct was " Birchlore Rangers ", but realized they're too old school for Modern when I looked on Gatherer. Wasn't there a very similar card printed in Lorwyn block (or somewhere near there) that let you get an
I would guess it's actually 3 more copies of summoner's pact. In his analysis of the Jund matchup post-sideboard, Jacob talked of cutting summoner's pacts, plural, even though there's only one in the decklist.
I would guess it's actually 3 more copies of summoner's pact. In his analysis of the Jund matchup post-sideboard, Jacob talked of cutting summoner's pacts, plural, even though there's only one in the decklist.
The errors in this article made it unreadable. 7 of one card, and a reference to multiple pacts make it impossible to know what deck I am supposed to be reading about. It is a real shame that this week started with an article about the editing staff and then the editing staff put this up. Can you please hire an editor that knows the rules of Magic deck construction? This is embarrasing.
The errors in this article made it unreadable. 7 of one card, and a reference to multiple pacts make it impossible to know what deck I am supposed to be reading about. It is a real shame that this week started with an article about the editing staff
The errors in this article made it unreadable. 7 of one card, and a reference to multiple pacts make it impossible to know what deck I am supposed to be reading about. It is a real shame that this week started with an article about the editing staff and then the editing staff put this up. Can you please hire an editor that knows the rules of Magic deck construction? This is embarrasing.
Chill out man, everyone makes mistakes every now and then. I feel like you yourself might have made an error or two in life. It happens.
I would be interested to know what those 3 slots were supposed to be for sure though. As someone who wants to play modern but is on a decided budget I would love to have this deck as an option. In the meantime I'll just have to make a best guess and do some testing :D
Chill out man, everyone makes mistakes every now and then. I feel like you yourself might have made an error or two in life. It happens.I would be interested to know what those 3 slots were supposed to be for sure though. As someone who wants to play
The errors in this article made it unreadable. 7 of one card, and a reference to multiple pacts make it impossible to know what deck I am supposed to be reading about. It is a real shame that this week started with an article about the editing staff and then the editing staff put this up. Can you please hire an editor that knows the rules of Magic deck construction? This is embarrasing.
I must agree with Zomghax when he says the deck is unplayable in modern, especially with the ban of Glimpse of Nature and Green Sun Zenith. Chord of Calling is (in my opinion) too much expensive to the format (GGG) and Summoners Pact is a good card to use when you are playing with Glimpse + Birchlore Rangers + Grapeshot/Devil's Play/Red Sun Zenith/Banefire to finish the match. The green pact delays the game at the beginning and is a hard drawback to work around at the modern metagame.
(Off topic) Seven copies of Neetle Sentinel was just absurd. So please editors!
I must agree with Zomghax when he says the deck is unplayable in modern, especially with the ban of Glimpse of Nature and Green Sun Zenith. Chord of Calling is (in my opinion) too much expensive to the format (GGG) and Summoners Pact is a good card t
I was forced to ship back a hand with no land, but kept a very nice six: Forest, Brushland, Arbor Elf, Chord of Calling, Devoted Druid, Elvish Archdruid, and Llanowar Elves.
I sure wish my 6 card draws after a mulligan included 7 cards..
I sure wish my 6 card draws after a mulligan included 7 cards..
My guess is that the 3 Nettle Sentinels is supposed to be 3 Essence Warden, but I could be wrong. That card would make a lot of sense in the deck though. It would be more convincing if there had been any mention of Essence Warden in the article, but there wasn't so I don't know for sure...Just my guess.
My guess is that the 3 Nettle Sentinels is supposed to be 3 Essence Warden, but I could be wrong. That card would make a lot of sense in the deck though. It would be more convincing if there had been any mention of Essence Warden in the article, but
The extra nettle sentinels could be Essence Wardens or even Copperhorn Scouts, untapping all your dudes is pretty good and it combos with Ezuri. Neither were mentioned in the article, though so idk. I'm sure Jacob will let us know. And don't trip people, these things happen in even the most storied of print media outlets.
I'm glad no one is whining about the rares though. So often JvL posts a deck that is much cheaper than the average deck in that format and the response from people on this forum is "THAT NOT BUDGET budget is the $20.57 I have left from my allowance y u suk so bad get a new writer waaaaaaah." so kudos ppl and keep up the good work JvL.
The extra nettle sentinels could be Essence Wardens or even Copperhorn Scouts, untapping all your dudes is pretty good and it combos with Ezuri. Neither were mentioned in the article, though so idk. I'm sure Jacob will let us know. And don't trip peo
The extra nettle sentinels could be Essence Wardens or even Copperhorn Scouts, untapping all your dudes is pretty good and it combos with Ezuri. Neither were mentioned in the article, though so idk. I'm sure Jacob will let us know. And don't trip people, these things happen in even the most storied of print media outlets. I'm glad no one is whining about the rares though. So often JvL posts a deck that is much cheaper than the average deck in that format and the response from people on this forum is "THAT NOT BUDGET budget is the $20.57 I have left from my allowance y u suk so bad get a new writer waaaaaaah." so kudos ppl and keep up the good work JvL.
The name of the weekly column is "Building on a Budget". Some budgets are tighter than others.
As for editing errors, I've learned to have no mercy. I will never be given any, and I won't let anyone else get away with grotesque errors (not that there's a lot I can do about it, besides stop reading).
The name of the weekly column is "Building on a Budget". Some budgets are tighter than others. As for editing errors, I've learned to have no mercy. I will never be given any, and I won't let anyone else get away with grotesque errors (not that th
The image is named dark.jpeg and in that game a Dark Confidant is mentioned so It was probably supposed to be a picture of a Dark Confidant?
So many mistakes in this article, goes to show that it was probably a last minute submission.
As to what the image actually is, I have no idea. I even tried a google search by image and it didn't wield any results. Which is kind of weird... COULD IT BE THE ART FOR AN UNREALEASED CARD THAT WAS PUT INTO THE ARTICLE BY MISTAKE?!?!?!?! (Or, more likely, the search by image feature doesn't work as well as I expected it to) ~~ Actually disregard that, I did the same kind of search for the Thoughtseize art and it returned a plethora of relevant results... something fishy is going on here!
The image is named dark.jpeg and in that game a Dark Confidant is mentioned so It was probably supposed to be a picture of a Dark Confidant?So many mistakes in this article, goes to show that it was probably a last minute submission. As to what the i
You guys are really dropping the ball here. This is a JvL article, every other post should be a complaint about some detail of the article. Here, let me help you out:
"Wow, how am I ever going to afford this deck. It's $80 and I only get $10 a week. This is soooo not budget man."
"Oh, please. Elves? Seriously? How unoriginal can you get?"
Hm....okay looks like you folks already got the "this deck sucks you need a playset of (insert $$$ card)". So, nice job there.
Ooh, I like this, you found another aspect to complain about. "The editors really suck hard core, look at all the typos". I'm gonna have to remember this one.
To all the other posters on this thread: Shame on you for not complaining enough. We need to utterly demoralize JvL so we can get him fired and replaced as a writer.
Nice article btw. I don't play modern, so it's nice to see some decks I'm not familiar with. Really gets the creative juices flowing. I also like the detailed match reports that let me get an idea of how the deck plays, it's very interesting. And, good job editors for fixing the mistake mentioned earlier, I don't see the 7x Nettle Sentinel any more. ... ... ... ... ... ... Oh wait. Darn It! That wasn't a complaint. I guess I fail at life too.
>:3
You guys are really dropping the ball here. This is a JvL article, every other post should be a complaint about some detail of the article. Here, let me help you out:"Wow, how am I ever going to afford this deck. It's $80 and I only get $10 a week
Okay, so you went to 6 in the first Jund matchup but had 7 cards? Maybe you were on the draw... nope, you drew Ezuri. And why are people talking about 7 Nettle Sentinels? Oh well, it's a cool deck. But in Modern it sucks.
Okay, so you went to 6 in the first Jund matchup but had 7 cards? Maybe you were on the draw... nope, you drew Ezuri. And why are people talking about 7 Nettle Sentinels? Oh well, it's a cool deck. But in Modern it sucks.
Okay, so you went to 6 in the first Jund matchup but had 7 cards? Maybe you were on the draw... nope, you drew Ezuri. And why are people talking about 7 Nettle Sentinels? Oh well, it's a cool deck. But in Modern it sucks.
Originally there was a total of 7 Nettle Sentinels in the list. Looks like it's been fixed.
The image is named dark.jpeg and in that game a Dark Confidant is mentioned so It was probably supposed to be a picture of a Dark Confidant?
So many mistakes in this article, goes to show that it was probably a last minute submission.
As to what the image actually is, I have no idea. I even tried a google search by image and it didn't wield any results. Which is kind of weird... COULD IT BE THE ART FOR AN UNREALEASED CARD THAT WAS PUT INTO THE ARTICLE BY MISTAKE?!?!?!?! (Or, more likely, the search by image feature doesn't work as well as I expected it to) ~~ Actually disregard that, I did the same kind of search for the Thoughtseize art and it returned a plethora of relevant results... something fishy is going on here!
Yeah, it actually is a Dark Confidant.
Originally there was a total of 7 Nettle Sentinels in the list. Looks like it's been fixed.The image is named dark.jpeg and in that game a Dark Confidant is mentioned so It was probably supposed to be a picture of a Dark Confidant?So many mistakes in
The errors in this article made it unreadable. 7 of one card, and a reference to multiple pacts make it impossible to know what deck I am supposed to be reading about. It is a real shame that this week started with an article about the editing staff and then the editing staff put this up. Can you please hire an editor that knows the rules of Magic deck construction? This is embarrasing.
I had no trouble reading the article. With simple errors like these, its not that big of a deal. If your capable of recognising the errors and why they are errors, you should be capable of understanding what was intended.
If you think the job is so easy, try reading the article in reverse. Start with the last word, and work you way backwards, all the way up to the first. Editing isn't that easy. Many grammer mistakes are overlooked when we read them. And if your only looking at spelling and not context, how can you notice these slight errors?
I had no trouble reading the article. With simple errors like these, its not that big of a deal. If your capable of recognising the errors and why they are errors, you should be capable of understanding what was intended.If you think the job is so ea
