|
Author |
Message |
Rate this article!
5 (Best) |
[ 6 ] 66% |
|
4 |
[ 2 ] 22% |
|
3 |
[ 1 ] 11% |
|
2 |
[ 0 ] 0% |
|
1 (Worst) |
[ 0 ] 0% |
|
Total Votes : 9 |
|
Felipe Musco |
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
bandfreak9 wrote: Well the reason I like it is because I asked for it. Also it is a good article you have to admit.
But I do have to agree with you, all three articles seem to be card analysis not that thats a bad thing but it does get a little old
Next month will be a deckbuilding/strategy walkthrough, but on a different format, either budget extended or Two-Headed Giant, to break the stasis, specially since for May, I’m writing my regular article on Future Sight, and I don’t want my audience to be bored! ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) |
I don't like YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
bandfreak9 |
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 84
Location: Virginia
|
Not bored with you just missing the old articles that I read through a couple weeks ago like Bioflex is an old one or your rubber field deck both were interesting and new ideas
Its not just you but all of Cobra Cards seems to have become more focused on card choices not unique decks |
|
|
Back to top |
|
omnipotentnoel |
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Location:
|
Nice article. Me not being a budget player i cant really take advantage of what your article has to offer. I would agree with The First that your articles seem to just be "card lists" and not have any emotion or anything really novel to talk about. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Felipe Musco |
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:21 pm |
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
Thanks for the compliment and welcome to the boards!
Sorry, but I don’t think you have read my articles, based on what you’ve just said. But anyway, I beg to differ, but this article does not have "cardlists" (at least not anymore, thanks The First! ), but budget decks that actually would stand a chance in a T2 tournament, without being entirely crushed.
Well, it kinda hurts when you generalize and say "my articles" (meaning all of them) have nothing new or no emotion, since I just got a 5 last month from physcosick, a VERY respectable member and one of the best writers around... Not to mention the article had A TON of new T2 deck ideas. |
Last edited by Felipe Musco on Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:41 am; edited 1 time in totalI don't like YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
c3poquino |
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:27 am |
|
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Location:
|
I’ve become a fan of Felipe Musco’s articles lately, and that actually made me overrate an article by him two months ago. I felt kinda bad for that, so even though I liked his article on Planar Chaos a lot, I ended up not rating it, maybe out of guilt. However, I think this one is quite ok, and I can’t really see why so much complaining. The article has a goal, and it fulfills that goal pretty well, but I agree with The First, that "good card" list was awful, thanks for killing it. I’m not a budget player myself, but my bro’, playing most for fun (and for pissing me off, of course, by teching against my decks), finds budget decks very attractive, specially when they stand a chance against my decks. I do think this article, while not as great as last month’s (but then again, it’s not fair to compare, after all, he’s not running against himself, now is he?), adds something new to some players, meaning that you can build a cool deck without spending 200 bucks like the Standard decks usually cost. Also, while I do not intend to build a budget deck myself, some of the interactions are quite good for limited play, specially Draft, where you can get multiple copies of some cards, and commons and uncommons are what you’ll see the most. Anyway, I think the article is cool, and at least this time I think it doesn’t need a match-up section, after all, it wouldn’t be fair to the budget deck.
Last, I’d like to make a request for my bro’s sake: he wants to see a RB build, those are his favorite colors, and he says he does not see a lot of it ’round here. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Felipe Musco |
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:39 am |
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
Hey, thanks for requesting something, I just PM’ed elf lvr ’cause thigs were a little too calm ’round here! gp for you! I’ll get to work on it as soon as possible, it’ll be probably up by tomorrow, hopefully. |
I don't like YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
Felipe Musco |
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
The First wrote: Why do you (constantly) choose Errant Ephemeron and not Wind Elemental?
I think you meant Air Elemental. Well, I use Ephemeron for a simple reason, the low suspend cost. I don’t intend to actually pay 7 for him, unless I topdeck him late game, but rather keep doing my thing, playing my spells, and squeeze in his suspend cost. That’s why. Hope I answered all of your questions, now.
Oh, yeah, you said something like "where’s the research?" in my article, and I forgot to answer. Dude, going through A TON of cards to fit in the budget (I can’t just select whatever I want), conceiving decks, strategies AND sideboards, etc., does not qualify as research?!? C’mon, cut me some slack, will ya?! This is much more tough than you may think it is!
I just wish the budget players would appreciate it more, but it seems that even bandfreak9 - himself being the reason I started writing this article in the first place - seems to think this is very easy to do, and that it’s not good enough to be an article...
But hey, next month you get a perk, as I said. 2HG AND a fun deck in the same article! Which, by the way, brings me back to: isn’t my idea original? C’mon, I’mletting the crowd, the thoronging masses decide WHAT they want to see here, aside form what I’ve already done, of course. Doesn’t that count for something original? |
I don't like YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
The First |
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:12 pm |
|
|
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 195
Location: Anderlecht, Belgium
|
The First wrote:
This is the third article of the month which actually only presents "card lists". Where is the emotion? The motivation? The thrill of the research? Creativity? Last months article was huge and to the point. I think that most readers learned at least a few things from it. This month the only thing I see are 3 clones, hoping to get a high score because of the "hard work put into it (?)". At least, that is my opinion. I cannot say that either one of those three articles really caught my attention. But elf lvr and bandfreak seem to be optimistic about this one... so it will probably be just me I guess.
I think it is about time that I quote myself before this is getting out of hand.
1st, I want to set straight that I do love FM’s articles in general. I thought that last months article - even though more or less a list of cards - was well written and I agreed with it on most points of view. So I would prefer that the Omnipotent Noel (what can be more omnipotent than The First Evil anyway, except for maybe Buffy and her scooby gang) would think before generalising and including me in his claim to enforce his statement.
The remark above was never meant to target any writer in particular but the meaning was to dare (new) writers to write something else. Something interesting. I do not think that an article has to be either a competitive deck with explanations (mostly "boring" matchups analyses for instance) or a set explained into detail. A nice written piece about 1 card or combo in particlur could be entertaining, could be fun. There are lots of other topics that can be fun. Be interesting, innovate!
The articles this far did not come over as much "fun" to me. I do not, in any way, want to enforce my opinion on anyone. If someone else likes this kind of article, fine by me. Good for him/her.
To FM: I do know that you put a lot of research into this article. I was just generalising and should have better done that in another topic. I do like that this article has lost the card list and is leaning more towards an on demand article which is actually pretty cool. I wanted to do something like it. Something like "make The First write an article about...". I’m not yet sure how to start with it though. I like the way that the readers are involved with most articles posted on the official Magic: The Gathering site.
To FM, part 2: How about a cool aggro version for mono black. Most people who start playing Magic seem to instantly like the "feel and play" of Black. Green and Red are discovered afterwards and then mostly white. Blue is always last (and most tricky imo). At least that is my impression. |
Great minds bleed alike.
Do not copy media. Support creativity. |
|
Back to top |
|
Felipe Musco |
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:36 pm |
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. Working on monoblack aggro as we speak! It’ll be up by tomorrow. |
I don't like YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
bandfreak9 |
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 84
Location: Virginia
|
Felipe I do not think its easy why do you think I asked
If I had been able to get on before now I would would have asked for a decklist but my computer isn’t working right so I’d like you to make a golgari deck
I like your article Felipe. I’d like to know why you thought I thought it was easy? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|