Anything But: A Casual Challenge

Posted on December 13, 2012 by JustSin

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Anything But: A Casual Challenge”.

 

  1. I’m glad you decided to keep/redo “Competitive Corner”!

    I REALLY like the “Weekly Spotlight”! Kudos! I’ve been thinking about and planning on doing something along the same lines, but haven’t put the wheels on yet.. Of course, now it’s gonna seem like a “rip off copycat” thing when I do put it up, but I don’t care. It’s a good, informative feature.

    Re: RDW > I don’t know about Pauper, but I see Burn as a subset of R(x)DW:
    1) Burn – Mono R, few creatures (I use 12 as the dividing line)
    2) Sligh – Mono R, lots of creatures (Goblins is it’s own archetype)
    3) Bump – B splash for Bump in the Night
    4) Vex Bomb – Burn or Sligh w/Vexing Devil
    5) Vex Bomb Bump – Bump w/Vexing Devil
    6) Jund Bump – Bump w/Deathrite Shaman, may have G splash as well

    I realize that many of these subsets do not apply to Pauper; I was just using them as examples of different varieties of “RDW”

  3. That last deck you played was a Standard Pauper WW deck. The card selection was very normal for that archetype. Although the deck is strong, playing 8-post against a deck like that is like bringing a cannon to a knife fight.

  4. @ Blippy: thanks! I thought it might be a nice way to go beyond the limited information Wizards is providing… w/ regards to RDW/Burn I was unsure of making a change there at first as well because of the fact that Pauper doesn’t really have a “RDW” deck as defined above and Burn is kind of the only thing.. ultimately decided that the reclassification at the least would be easier to understand for an unfamiliar player

    @ Blockfan: yes I do post on MTGS forums (though the Pauper section is quite dead)

    @ jaminv: ah! that might explain it, I don’t play Std Pauper at all so I was unaware thanks for the note!

  5. Really liked the Spotlight segment as well as the video that went with it. You’re good at doing this! It gives you the feeling that some of this actually matters.

    The matchup table for the event is quite interesting. In particular, it’s noteworthy that infect lost to storm 1:3 and storm lost to mono white 1:4. I mean, maybe not in opposite-world.

  8. thanks all for the responses! looking forward to continue developing the competitive section and enjoyed doing the commentary so hopefully further matches will show up that are worth talking about