At the Gathering: Best of Lucky (Part 1)

[Teflon_Jeff]

This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, At the Gathering: Best of Lucky (Part 1). We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.

[Griever9977]

Great article sir. I really enjoyed it. Just a quick suggestion. In the last sentence, you said ad, I'm sure you meant and.:-p As for what I'd play.....I'd play a no-rare red deck wins. Blood Knights are tech in no rare. Cause I'm sure a lot of people will be playing Kithkin as the deck runs so few rares to begin with.

[Teflon_Jeff]

Originally Posted by Griever9977

Great article sir. I really enjoyed it. Just a quick suggestion. In the last sentence, you said ad, I'm sure you meant and.:-p As for what I'd play.....I'd play a no-rare red deck wins. Blood Knights are tech in no rare. Cause I'm sure a lot of people will be playing Kithkin as the deck runs so few rares to begin with.

Yeah, I was hoping I'd have some time after work tonight to do one last run through on editing. Ah well, Que Sera Sera.

Mono-red is one of the two I'm tesing. The other is a combo deck, which is running about 50-50 pre-board.

[Big Jim]

The "play to win" idea is one that trips me up sometimes too.

Hmm...in a no-rare tournament, I'd probably play elf-ball. I know you said elves were out, but I just like it. Firespout makes me sad though.

[bateleur]

If you were playing in a Standard No-Rares tournament, what would you play, and why?

G/R Good Stuff. Because Firespout seems ridiculous in this format. (Plus you still get to run Redcap and Finks, both of which are innately strong.)

[Mabus7]

Good article.

For no rare u/B manniquin control might work with corrupt, tendrils of corruption shriekmaw, mannequin, mull drifter, murderous red cap, careful consideration,errant ephemoron, rune snag all falling in at uncommon or lower

[TeknoLink]

Jeff, did you use my ideas in making this article? Anyhow, it doesn't matter if you did or not, you made clear what I wanted to make clear. Good job.

[froffenhoffer]

I think one point you may have missed in your play to win part is that to win in limited (mostly, but this does sometimes apply in constructed) you have to attack at some point. I often see people get to a semi-stable board position in limited, when they are definitely on the back foot. However, there opponents cant kill them, so they hold their evasive men back "just in case", and hence they are entirely denying themselves a chance of winning because they are not actually killing the opponent, even if they have stabilized.

[Teflon_Jeff]

Originally Posted by TeknoLink

Jeff, did you use my ideas in making this article? Anyhow, it doesn't matter if you did or not, you made clear what I wanted to make clear. Good job.

No, actually I was initially inspired by a book on video games, of all things. O course, you have to change a lot of the ideas, but just reminding people of ways they ar holfoing back themselves was the start.

I wanted to incorporate parts of the "fearless self-invenory" that swept SCG earlier, but never managed to find a way to do so. Perhaps in part two.

[Feuerdrache]

Reminds me of Scrubland. I like the first bit about luck. You drove it home better than I did.

These kind of articles need to be read. Good to see somebody's keeping up on them. I didn't have the stamina at the time to continue my planned series, but hopefully you will.

[Antknee42]

The Fearless Magical Inventory, by Sam Stod -

http://samstod.com/?cat=4

Scroll down a little to see the entry.

-AA

[shadowhunter483]

Ah Jeff you never cease to brighten my day. I enjoyed your point on how luck isn't a true factor in a game loss and red does suck. As to the standard no rares tournament, I would go R/G warriors. Bramblewood paragons with tattermunge maniac and a variety of other powerful dudes + burn.

[Chronmaster]

Hey, great article. It put a nice, precise focal point on key factors to winning at Magic. Simple, but oh so effective.