|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 3:49PM
#21
|
|
|
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.
Game 2 vs Jund - what's that art?
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. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 4:17PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
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?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 5:58PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2011
|
Solution to non-interaction with combo decks: Beast Within  . Simple, as long as you're willing to deal with the 3/3.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 10:22AM
#24
|
|
|
Solution to non-interaction with combo decks: Beast Within . Simple, as long as you're willing to deal with the 3/3.
or: Bramblecrush
anyway, its a shame of the errors but **** happens so no big deal,
i like the deck and it looks cheap and fun
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:38PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2011
|
Solution to non-interaction with combo decks: Beast Within . Simple, as long as you're willing to deal with the 3/3.
or: Bramblecrush
Bramblecrush is sorcery, costs one more mana.
|
|
|
