| Author |
Message |
Rate this article!
| 5 (Best) |
| [ 1 ] 9% |
| |
| 4 |
| [ 8 ] 72% |
| |
| 3 |
| [ 1 ] 9% |
| |
| 2 |
| [ 1 ] 9% |
| |
| 1 (Worst) |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
Total Votes : 11 |
|
| AdultLink |
![]() Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 253
Location: Hyrule
|
AdultLink wrote:
And.. yeah, who did vote three. I’m not ticked off or anything, but for whoever voted 3, what did you think should have been better or what did you not like about the article?
Uh... weird... cool! Hey, I’m not quite sure how that ’3’ vote got changed to a ’4’ but, however it happened... uh, thanks!  Maybe someone meant to vote 4 but voted three and later requested it be changed? *scratches head*. Well, cool beans, I won’t complain. Thanks, lol!
One thing I wish I could change is the annoyingness of having the link to the card ’wounded’ when I didn’t want it to be linked, heh, I can’t think of a way around that. Saying ’exerted’ minion isn’t politically correct. |
| Haves/Wants |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AnxiousChieftain |
![]() Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3947
Location: Maryland
|
| Good article. I’m not sure whether to vote a 4 or a 5. I’ll think over it tomorrow, and vote then. My head hurts too much at the moment to think much. |
| MODS RULE. - lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| hblika |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 287
Location: Norway
|
OK, I admit the idea of this article is pretty good idea, but it just doesn’t make much sense... Cards like Arwen, Queen of Elves and Men, Asfaloth, Elven Steed and Hadafang should have been in your example in the first place.
Unfortunately for this article the most important cards you upgrade hasn’t anything to do with The Hunters at all. Besides, since Elven Bow is a reprint, you can use the bows from FotR or TT, and still have a deck that is legal in standard.
And imagine what this article could have been... If you had started with a(very) good expanded elven archery deck, and upgraded it to a equally good standard format deck, this would probably have been a very good read. But instead you chose to start with a really poor archery deck, and "upgraded" it to an almost equally poor standard deck...
Some other poster here couldn’t understand someone would rate this a 3. I rated it even less than that...  |
| I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AdultLink |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 253
Location: Hyrule
|
I don’t think you read or understood a lot of what I said in my article hblika. A lot of your questions were explained in the article.
Quote:
Cards like Arwen, Queen of Elves and Men, Asfaloth, Elven Steed and Hadafang should have been in your example in the first place.
Arwen and Asfaloth definately could have been in the first example. I wanted to shaw an example of how a novice player might have possibly upgraded the Towers Legolas Started Deck that he bought, which focuses largely on the Lorien Swordsman. However, Hadafang could not be in. I clearly stated that the deck was pre-War of the Ring
Quote:
Unfortunately for this article the most important cards you upgrade hasn’t anything to do with The Hunters at all.
The article wasn’t about Hunters Cards at all. It was about the change to Standard format when Hunters is out. It was about an elf deck.
Quote:
And imagine what this article could have been... If you had started with a(very) good expanded elven archery deck, and upgraded it to a equally good standard format deck, this would probably have been a very good read. But instead you chose to start with a really poor archery deck, and "upgraded" it to an almost equally poor standard deck...
Wow! Ok, first of all, I didn’t write it that way. Note the article’s name: "Upgrading to Standard". If I had made a super-awesome expanded deck and then made it Standard Legal that would have been "Downgrading to Standard". Also, the decks were totally not about archery anyway, which I thought was pretty obvious. They were about winning skirmishes. And if you think either of those decks were poor, I don’t know what you’re thinking. They might have not been championship-caliber, but they both could definately hold their own against most shadows.
Quote:
Some other poster here couldn’t understand someone would rate this a 3. I rated it even less than that... Razz
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, hblika, as well as your own vote. Thankfully you’re the only one so far that thought this article was a below-average article. |
| Haves/Wants |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bilbo, Retired Adventurer |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 54
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
|
hblika wrote:
Some other poster here couldn’t understand someone would rate this a 3. I rated it even less than that...
As I understood by now this article writing wasn’t supposed to be about making the ultimate decks.And what do you know what would be the best deck.Maybe his meta is something different and this was his idea of a fun deck.You can make Elf decks in variety ways and many are more fun than powerful.
AdultLinks writing is exemplary from the grammar and syntax point of view.Beside from that you are grading him too low because you think he is not God of Lotr-playing and in your opinion doesn’t have insight to all secerets of the game.That’s just not something to consider as so important that you give him 2.Especially because this is a contest and you should be consistent. Therefore you should be equally strict to other articles and vote 1-2 for them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hblika |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 287
Location: Norway
|
Quote:
I clearly stated that the deck was pre-War of the Ring
That one I missed, and for that I apologize.
Quote:
The article wasn’t about Hunters Cards at all. It was about the change to Standard format when Hunters is out. It was about an elf deck.
Well, you could have fooled me! Read your introduction a few times more... Raving on about how good Hunters is (I agree on that)
Quote:
They might have not been championship-caliber, but they both could definately hold their own against most shadows.
"Oh, so true", and "Yeah, right". |
| I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| hblika |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 287
Location: Norway
|
Bilbo, Retired Adventurer wrote: Especially because this is a contest and you should be consistent.
Since this is a contest, it’s even more important to read each article with a critical eye
Bilbo, Retired Adventurer wrote: Therefore you should be equally strict to other articles and vote 1-2 for them.
Believe me, I will hand out the 1 and 2’s when they’re due.
As a small sidenote, for a person evidently obsessed with spelling and grammar, you should try to check your own writing once in a while. It sort of strikes down your argument about good grammar and syntax as an argument for a good rating, when it looks like you don’t have a clue on what you are talking about. |
| I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| hblika |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 287
Location: Norway
|
AdultLink wrote: Fast forward in time for a bit, and you end up with the release of Hunters and the banning of cards from sets 1-6 in Standard Format. Dang.
When writing an article about making decks legal for standard format, it’s probably a good thing to give the reader the impression that you actually know what the standard format is (or rather, what it was before Hunters). Because the quote above indicates otherwise 
Remember the golden rule about article writing: Check your facts!
(I’m making this rule up, of course, but it still applies.) |
| I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I'm thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bilbo, Retired Adventurer |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 54
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
|
hblika wrote:
As a small sidenote, for a person evidently obsessed with spelling and grammar, you should try to check your own writing once in a while. It sort of strikes down your argument about good grammar and syntax as an argument for a good rating, when it looks like you don’t have a clue on what you are talking about.
I am not obsessed with spelling and grammar,especially because English is not my first language.I only emphasize th emportance of style,like is it written close enough to a good article like in newspapers,like is it going around the bush too much or not,is it clever,interesting and so on...Have I made myself clear now?
And I haven’t seen 2 on another article that we all graded 3.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AdultLink |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:08 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 253
Location: Hyrule
|
Think what you like, hblika. You are entitled to your own opinion.
For myself, I want no more part in it. I’m not going to get in any stupid argument.
I have already replied to your criticism and that is enough.
I have nothing more to say to you. |
| Haves/Wants |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum index » Lord of the Rings TCG » LOTR TCG Strategy Article Contest
