|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 4:17PM
#51
|
|
|
Seems like people are overreacting to me.
JVL never implied his testing was in MTGO. He has even mentioned going to somebody's house to test his decks sometimes.
If he likes to do his brewing/testing on actual cards, it's very easy to miss the fact that any given card is unavailable in any given format. Same goes for the person he played with. Sure, both of them (and Trick) should have checked beforehand, etc., etc. JVL and Trick got burned and I think they'll be more careful next time.
JVL mentioned at the beginning of his stint as BoaB writer that he did not like the $30 limit, and he had his reasons. Then he mentioned it again in another article. The editors are okay with this, and I'm guessing some readers (myself included) are okay with it too.
Each author will give each column his or her own spin. If you don't like a certain columnist, that's okay, and mentioning it here is a step in the right direction. But expecting every author to do things exactly like his predecessor is kind of silly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 5:01PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
This is outrageous.
I thought you really tested your decks on MOL, but since ponder is banned, seems pretty clear now you dont.
Iam feeling cheated, you articles are a fraud, your decks are bad, and you are a terrible professional.
I remember you put a firespout on a alara-zendikar standard deck once, so this is not the first time you do this kind of terrible mistake.
I wish we could have Ben Bleweiss back too...
I recind my defense of JVL and his near-Modern deck. This is an unacceptable mistake. I have been tollerant of his errors before, defending him too. Such an obvious oversight is bothersome.
There is no way he tests online. MTGO would've stopped him in his tracks. This means he playtests in on paper (if at all). That leads me to believe games are A) staged; B) use posted decklists; C) have an opponent unfamiliar with their deck; and D) Are more of an after thought.
Time for BoaB to find a new spell writer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 5:08PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2003
|
Seems like people are overreacting to me.
JVL never implied his testing was in MTGO. He has even mentioned going to somebody's house to test his decks sometimes.
If he likes to do his brewing/testing on actual cards, it's very easy to miss the fact that any given card is unavailable in any given format. Same goes for the person he played with. Sure, both of them (and Trick) should have checked beforehand, etc., etc. JVL and Trick got burned and I think they'll be more careful next time.
JVL mentioned at the beginning of his stint as BoaB writer that he did not like the $30 limit, and he had his reasons. Then he mentioned it again in another article. The editors are okay with this, and I'm guessing some readers (myself included) are okay with it too.
Each author will give each column his or her own spin. If you don't like a certain columnist, that's okay, and mentioning it here is a step in the right direction. But expecting every author to do things exactly like his predecessor is kind of silly.
I agree with half your points. I draw the budget line at $50. Building a $30 deck nowadays is hard. Making it competative is laughable. I only took issue with his $100-$200 "budget" decks. His spin is fine too.
I have never actually played a Modern game. I play strictly casual. BUT, I knew Ponder  is off limits. It annoys me because it is one of the few good, cheap card drawing spells. I can't see how such a mistake could be made by someone putting more effort or care into their articles.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 5:56PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
Before making accusations, you guys might want to remember that BoaB is no longer an MTGO-specific column. Pieces of cardboard don't check for format legality every time you try to shuffle them.
^This. I don't even bother checking the Ban lists. I ONLY use hardcopy cards; I would NEVER pay for a commodity that can be lost with a couple of corrupted files. Does it make it harder to playtest? Duh, yes. Do I feel more secure? Duh, yes!
Your collection isn't stored as files on your computer. (Or any single computer.) If it was then hacked and lost collections would happen. Digital cards are stored in Wizard's database, and not just in one place. They haven't had any data loss yet and I don't think they ever will. (Although people have been banned.)
By comparison, paper cards are vulnerable to theft, spilled liquids, poor storage, and shuffling. Or if you're really careless, being left behind at the card store. (And then stolen.) Sure, your digital collection will vanish if the service ever ends. But if the service ever ends it will be the end of paper magic, too, and most paper cards will be worthless. Many cards are already worthless despite Legacy and EDH. Digital cards are cheaper and offer convenience.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 8:40PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
I for one have been enjoying JVLs columns every week. I like the systematic way he explains card choices and the way he explains his games in depth. The direction he took building on a budget by removing the 30 ticket limit made it way more interesting and fun. This is the guy who invented pyromancer's ascension people! So he had an off week, cut him some slack.  As seen in last weeks article, JVL does not necessarily play in MTGO. The system would not have allowed him to play his deck in standard. This means he either playtests them with physical cards or invents scenarios in his mind. Frankly, I don't care if they're made up as long as they are INTERESTING. I read BoaB not because i want to imitate the decks he makes but to see interesting deck ideas with cards i normally wouldn't use or even think of using. I hope they keep him as a writer. For this particular fiasco i would put SOME of the blame on his editor for 1) not seeing that ponder was in the decklist and 2) not communicating with JVL regarding his deck construction and plans regarding future articles. JVL needs to tighten things up though and i hope he does.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 8:43PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2011
|
Well I was coming to mention that Ponder is banned in Modern but I see that horse, while dead, is extremely bruised in the ribs.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 11:11PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2010
|
$50. I take an Event Deck, I upgrade it.
For fifty bucks, it might be a good idea to just buy two of the same event deck and mash them together.
Haha, it works sometimes, and others not. Like Spiraling Doom benefits from picking up 2 more BPod. But honestly... The other 73 cards don't have a ton of spots... You get a lot of redundancies. So you spend $20 on 2 BPod and... some stuff. Not a good investment of $20.
Based on past mistakes, I think JVL:
1) Notices a new/unpopular deck idea.
2) Basically netdecks the basic ideas and explains it as if he made the choices himself (without explaining alternatives... he doesn't know alternatives; this leads to excuses about budget when the idea turns out to be too expensive.)
3) Tests it by himself late at night (so he makes bad mistakes against himself, and his opponent has just as much knowledge as he does)
4) Sleeps on it for a few days.
5) Hurridly tries to meet the deadline by trying to remember the few games he's played (often doggedly, having to sort of make-up situations that may be true, but memory doesn't serve him correctly).
6) emailemailemailemail
7) Sleep for a few days and think about looking at last week's Daily Tournaments or a few other choice websites with another idea.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 15, 2012 - 1:09AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2003
|
I for one have been enjoying JVLs columns every week. I like the systematic way he explains card choices and the way he explains his games in depth. The direction he took building on a budget by removing the 30 ticket limit made it way more interesting and fun. This is the guy who invented pyromancer's ascension people! So he had an off week, cut him some slack.
In-depth game reports and card choice explanation have been a staple of BoaB for as long as it exists, under any writer. Jacob goes a little more in-depth on the reports, mentioning every single play, but he compensates this by only playing 2-4 games each week. He's about equal on card choice explanation, though I feel that this was done better before because you would actually see the games that forced a particular choice.
The fact that he invented Pyromancer Ascension doesn't give him a get out of jail free card. Every week, we get another deck, and I still barely have an idea how each deck plays. The games he plays he conveniently wins, and we are left without a clue how the deck actually performs within the metagame. He does not discuss sideboarding strategies, budget alternatives, anything that would be in-depth. We've been saying this for ages now, and every once in a while (usually around new set releases where he can't test yet) we get some of this. But it never manages to be more than a one-time trick, and we soon go back to the weekly drudgery.
I have said this before, and I fear I must say it again and again before someone who matters will actually think it: there needs to be more than one column per deck. It's the only way that Jacob can write this column and provide the necessary in-depth analysis of sideboarding, deck matchups and more games.
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 15, 2012 - 8:10AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2009
|
Edit - Kind of funny that this is on the frontpage with the "Get a Job at Wizards" article.
Wondering whether a proofreading, editing, fact-checking, or quality control type job for the website was open was my very first thought.
Or whether such a position will suddenly, Magically appear.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 16, 2012 - 10:38AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2003
|
The problem with JVL is that he just make the worst choices possible:
He always put his decks against established archetypes of current metagame. This mean he is trying to make a normal deck cheaper(and make it worse), or trying to go Rogue. The first option is boring, the second is very very hard. He could solve this by attacking the casual format, going against elves or monoredburn.dec. Easier to come with neat deck ideas when you are not trying to beat titans, swords and huntmasters.
He focus in one deck per week, so he has to do all the hard stuff above, in much less time. He could go for 3-4 weeks developing a deck, or go through many decks, changing the one he talks about each week. But no, he just coughs up a bad rogue deck week after week
He just ignores magic online. Even if he don't like to playtest there, or use the online market to do his choices, he could make the final try in the deck by building and playing 2-3 matches online. It would help to catch these kind of mistakes
To me, BoaB is not a column for the spikes. It has to carter to Timmy-Jhonny audiences. The deck HAS to be cool someway. It's not that it can be just winwinwin. Jacob seems restrained. All the past authors seemed happy and having fun building the deck, or showcasing some odd bulk rare. He appear struggling each week to come up with something. I like his as an author, I really do. I don't know if it's the theme, or just the methods, but could be better.
|
|
|
