Articles

With the Sydney Regional coming up at March, I have been scouring the net to try and find a good deck to play that does not require too many of the expensive cards. After paying for a Big Day Out ticket, I really cannot afford cards like Call of the Herd, Shadowmage Infiltrator or Urza's Rage.

One of the most annoying things I find while going through Internet articles for decks is the number of bad articles I encounter. From Flametongue Kavus that costs 2R to cast to dodgy deck lists, it makes me wonder have any of these writers ever played Magic at a tournament level before? Though I am not the best tech article writer in the world, but I can still tell a bad deck from good ones. In an attempt to make my deck research easier and improve the overall qualities of Magic articles, I have listed some of the worst mistakes an article writer can make in their articles hoping that these mistakes will not be repeated in the future.

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Spelling and grammar mistakes are among the most unforgivable mistakes an article writer can make. Though it is common for people to forget how to spell a word or structure a sentence properly if you are writing on paper, yet with an inbuilt spelling and grammar check in MS Word, there is no reason why you should not use it to edit your article. I know that it is sometimes a pain to use the spell/grammar check in Words because the name of Magic cards usually show up as a mistake, but it is better then showing the Online Magic Community that you are a moron.

Would someone stop to think about the children?

Another frustrating feature about bad articles is their dodgy deck lists. I know that not all of us are creative enough to come up a groundbreaking rogue deck and I applaud the efforts people put in to come up with original deck ideas. However, many of the decks I see posted online have never been tested in a tournament environment or they would know that it does not work.

In fact, it seems to me that the creators of those decks have no idea what the meta-game is and there appears to be a lack of understanding in the difference between a good card and a bad card. Using Rites of Refusal over Memory Lapse is just wrong, and Pouncing Kavu above Skizzik is retarded unless you have a good explanation. I am not saying that you should not try to make use of the less used cards, all I am saying is that at least have the decency to go top 8 with the deck in a major tournament before posting it online. If it is a fun deck, then state it specifically at the beginning of the article so people will know not to bring your deck to the Nationals. Before you post your supposedly broken deck, please stop and think about the potential kid who believes in you, bought all the cards for your deck, only to get smashed in a tournament.

Being Gary Wise

Before, I continue let me just say that I'm a huge fan of Gary Wise's articles and held his draft strategies in the highest regards. If you do not know who Gary Wise is, he is the man who writes that card-by-card analysis on Sideboard. Having hundreds of cards to evaluate at a time, Mr. Wise sometimes has the tendency to read off the card and come to obvious conclusions. Therefore, people who state the obvious in their articles are dubbed as 'being Gary Wise' by various Magic Web sites such as Misetings and Team Academy.

It is most frustrating to see people telling others what they already know by simply reading the card, as I feel it is an insult to my limited intellect to think that I am blind enough not to notice it. Yes, I know that Flametongue Kavu is only good against decks with creatures and yes; I know that control decks are weak at the moment except for the ones that win. I also know that Fact or Fiction gives you card advantage and Spellbane Centaurs are good against Blue decks because it give all your creatures protection from Blue spells and abilities. Now how about coming up with something original for a change instead of being a rip off artist?

Now an example!

Theory Behind Magic: Is Magic a game of Luck?

Personally, I hate it whenever someone says that I am just lucky or that they are just unlucky when they lose a game. Sure, unlike Chess, Magic has factors where good luck can win you the game (Gary Wise). Factors such as top decking a key card, and your opponent having to mulligan (why use 2 different sentences?). The question is, did luck win you every game in a tournament?

Rather then luck (rather?), I would like to think of Magic more as a game of percentages and calculations (A surprise when the game is created by a mathematician). Instead of depending on luck to give you good card draws, you will maximize your chances of drawing certain cards by including 4 in your deck (Gary Wise). If you just had a mulligan, then do a table shuffle to ensure that your lands are not piled up together (that's not true, unless you stack your deck, there is still the off chance your lands would stick together). Whatever the reason, there is always a way to get around it if you have a good deck (get around what? China Town?).

This may sound all good and merry in constructed format, but what about in a draft? Has it ever happened (occur is a better word) to you that you seem to be opening crap cards and being passed more crap cards (not unless you're a crap player)? What can you do in such a situation (bring your own Beast Attacks?)? Should you make a phone call to God (hope it is not a 0055 number)? Well if you were in such a situation, you were probably drafting the same colour(s) as the person sitting next to you (No way! Gary Wise again). Your choice of drafting the same colour(s) has decreased your chances of being passed good cards in that colour(s) (GW, I'm too lazy typing out the whole word every time).

What if the opponents you play have a Predator Flagship and a Troubled Healer in his/her deck (concede?)? First of all, what are the chances of them drawing their bombs (better then those who have no bombs)? There are always cards to deal with both those cards (Unlike an Iridescent Angel). You may want to consider your options before throwing your hands up and saying "His deck is too good for me to beat." (Who says that?) I have seen people lose with an insane deck, which included 4 Blastoderms and a Blinding Angel. (I think that was me).

Even if they have the bomb cards and manage to draw them every game, it still takes skill to hold you off and beat you down before those bombs come out. I remember playing Dan Turner in one of the drafts once in Games Paradise. He pulled a Rupture, which he only had 1 in the deck on me 2 games in a row, killing me with it, both games, the turn before I could kill him (why so many commas?). Sure I was upset at the time and probably started screaming like 6 year-old kid when I lost (thank god I don't do that anymore), but if you read further, he out-played me in both games. Firstly, he managed to put me within the Rupture range and secondly, he managed to keep himself out of it. To top it off, he had the right creature to Rupture just enough to kill me. There is definitely more to it then just drawing the Rupture. (Yes, he also had to open the Rapture AND play with it, now we know how to draft, huzzah!)

I am not saying that luck is none existent in the game of Magic (because that would be a lie), but for an uncontrollable factor, you should not spend so much time thinking about it. If you are drawing too many lands most of the time, maybe you should cut down on lands instead of complaining about having bad draws (Ya think?). If luck is so important, then why do the same players keep winning in tournaments? Is it because they are lucky all the time? I think not!

Minga Wong

Though it shames me much to re-read this article now, but I must admit it is a lot of fun criticizing it. Too bad it does not include a dodgy deck list so I could use it as the perfect example of what a bad article is like. Hopefully doing research online would be easier from now on.