Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Cute vs storm triggers.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Should have said "with damage" but yeah, fuck Misstep.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Kills Jace after a +2 in mono-red. That alone is pretty much new territory.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

While you can try to go for this off LED, you're stone dead to a Force of Will so it feels awfully risky.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Basically ask yourself: in what matchups would you rather draw Shatter this turn than anything else in your deck?

If so, now you can.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Legacy would mean a ban, which would be wild. The format would look very different without free counters on the offense. Thalia stock would go up too.

I like this the more I think about it. It's not just a functional reprint, there's a real choice here in terms of which card is better for different formats.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

The added exile clause is a nice bonus given the sheer power level of individual cards. Dunno if that'll matter for much, but it's there.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Yeah this is strong. The passive can win the game alone and the -2 with restricted artifacts is lolz.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

I'm trying to find the MTG Arena angle that's almost certainly behind this, but I'm coming up blank so far.

posted in Vintage Community read more

I wouldn't put too much stock in WotC's methodology unless they actually reveal it. My suspicion is there is a lot more sampling error than any of us think. Any quantitative analysis is about minimizing sources of error, and focusing solely in win% won't do that.

For one thing, you would need identical lists. Comparing archetypes is going to inject error and complexity that is pretty difficult to correct. This is the same reason why things like tracking surveys use identical questions for years and years. Changing even the phrasing can lead to different results and makes the data incomparable.

It's fine provided the results acknowledge limitations and sources of error, but people tend to like making bold statements off data that won't generalize where they want it applied. Honestly, that's where subjectivity comes into play. No one should want a truly data driven format. Subjective experience matters and is measured quite differently from win rate.

WotC should be spending time measuring things like satisfaction with a given format, whether we're talking about Vintage or Standard. They could develop a validated tracking metric and collect data weekly, bi-monthly, whatever, and measure self-report satisfaction with a given format over time. It would help them an awful lot when it comes to delivering sets that are optimized for what people want to play. Their current market research does not impress me.

This is a long winded way of saying win% is a heuristic, not a complete picture.