<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Testing: One, Two, Three (A 100 Card Singleton Experience)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/</link>
	<description>The prime source for Magic the Gathering strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:21:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis R. Chance</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis R. Chance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe I&#039;m just lucky, but normally RDW and Gobbos is a marginal hurdle at best for me.  Admittedly, I have been burnt asunder on a few public occasions, but on the whole I think it simply comes down to knowing how to play the match (duh...).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I&#8217;m just lucky, but normally RDW and Gobbos is a marginal hurdle at best for me.  Admittedly, I have been burnt asunder on a few public occasions, but on the whole I think it simply comes down to knowing how to play the match (duh&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kha</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-238</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kha]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pretty much agree on your assessment of elves in the current meta, but then not playing gobbo&#039;s or a deck that stomps the little red folk is probably a mistake also.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty much agree on your assessment of elves in the current meta, but then not playing gobbo&#8217;s or a deck that stomps the little red folk is probably a mistake also.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis R. Chance</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis R. Chance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quick aside: For Rec-Sur, esp with Oath of Ghouls, Faerie Macabre just seems unbelievably powerful and a total oversight on my sad behalf.  I failed you again, Little Man!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quick aside: For Rec-Sur, esp with Oath of Ghouls, Faerie Macabre just seems unbelievably powerful and a total oversight on my sad behalf.  I failed you again, Little Man!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis R. Chance</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-221</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis R. Chance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To say that Vigor would be realistically coming down turn 11, based on mana and the presumption that the burn player would be sniping mana-men (the least consequential in contrast to the Lords and more synergystic duders in the deck) seems a might bit pessimistic.  I was more implying that it works nice with Natty Order, as well as the decks ability to just fart out tons of mana (which usually it just stops being able to abuse by virtue of emptying its hand).

Long story short, I don&#039;t think Elves is a contender for a Tier One in 100CS, period.  It&#039;s like Goobos, but in reverse.  Where Gobbos has explosive synergy, it simply doesn;t need it.  Elves most definitely THRIVES upon this synergy.  Topdecking burn and cannon fodder men is different than mana producers and the like.  I have long said GW is just more solid, albeit less in the synergy department.  

What makes decks great in this format is cards that have an overall deck synergy, but can also stand alone.  while a deck can&#039;t be made entirely of cards like this, you can come pretty darn close.  Elves works the opposite on this philosophy, making it prone to horrifically random draws, blank top decks, and fragile combo disrupted byt the one thing all decks pack: creature removal.

So if you play Elves, win fast!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To say that Vigor would be realistically coming down turn 11, based on mana and the presumption that the burn player would be sniping mana-men (the least consequential in contrast to the Lords and more synergystic duders in the deck) seems a might bit pessimistic.  I was more implying that it works nice with Natty Order, as well as the decks ability to just fart out tons of mana (which usually it just stops being able to abuse by virtue of emptying its hand).</p>
<p>Long story short, I don&#8217;t think Elves is a contender for a Tier One in 100CS, period.  It&#8217;s like Goobos, but in reverse.  Where Gobbos has explosive synergy, it simply doesn;t need it.  Elves most definitely THRIVES upon this synergy.  Topdecking burn and cannon fodder men is different than mana producers and the like.  I have long said GW is just more solid, albeit less in the synergy department.  </p>
<p>What makes decks great in this format is cards that have an overall deck synergy, but can also stand alone.  while a deck can&#8217;t be made entirely of cards like this, you can come pretty darn close.  Elves works the opposite on this philosophy, making it prone to horrifically random draws, blank top decks, and fragile combo disrupted byt the one thing all decks pack: creature removal.</p>
<p>So if you play Elves, win fast!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kha</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-219</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kha]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I dislike the fragility of the current mana base, one of the things i originally aimed to be was nearly immune to blood moon and miners. I think its important enough that i wouldn&#039;t even consider a deck that had massive vunerability to these effects.

If i was to build elves today i would aim heavily at the red decks, if you can&#039;t find a way to have a hugely positive matchup there scrap it and find something that does. No point playing a deck that just top 8&#039;s your likely to face red at least in the top8 so prepare for it (or play it with something to wreck the mirror match).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dislike the fragility of the current mana base, one of the things i originally aimed to be was nearly immune to blood moon and miners. I think its important enough that i wouldn&#8217;t even consider a deck that had massive vunerability to these effects.</p>
<p>If i was to build elves today i would aim heavily at the red decks, if you can&#8217;t find a way to have a hugely positive matchup there scrap it and find something that does. No point playing a deck that just top 8&#8242;s your likely to face red at least in the top8 so prepare for it (or play it with something to wreck the mirror match).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kha</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-218</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kha]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The format was basically
(in order of importance)
RDW
GW Aggro (sometimes splashing red)
5 colour greed
UG tempo
U based control (RBU, UW and mono blue)
some reanimator and other random stuff.

when i was playing alot. Not drastically different to today, but obviously their are some changes (like the RDW decks leaning more towards &quot;repeatable&quot; burn (creatures) now). The biggest difference is the comparitive paucity of forests in your average opponents list now, forestwalking was borderline broken at the time.

Remeber suggestions were only that, i put a ton of work into my later lists (first one was pretty bad) digging out random tech (bathe in light and elvish skysweeper are my favorites, but there were many others) to gain % points here and there. 

The deck definately rewarded familiarity back then more so than any other deck i have ever played, theres alot of non obvious intereactions that should be considered when devising your gameplans on a turn by turn basis, this makes it a hard deck to just pick up and pilot and is also probably why most people complain that the decks massively inconsistant/weak etc.
If your just trying to throw out dudes fast as you can and beat face then your missing alot of the power that the elf synergies bring to the table.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The format was basically<br />
(in order of importance)<br />
RDW<br />
GW Aggro (sometimes splashing red)<br />
5 colour greed<br />
UG tempo<br />
U based control (RBU, UW and mono blue)<br />
some reanimator and other random stuff.</p>
<p>when i was playing alot. Not drastically different to today, but obviously their are some changes (like the RDW decks leaning more towards &#8220;repeatable&#8221; burn (creatures) now). The biggest difference is the comparitive paucity of forests in your average opponents list now, forestwalking was borderline broken at the time.</p>
<p>Remeber suggestions were only that, i put a ton of work into my later lists (first one was pretty bad) digging out random tech (bathe in light and elvish skysweeper are my favorites, but there were many others) to gain % points here and there. </p>
<p>The deck definately rewarded familiarity back then more so than any other deck i have ever played, theres alot of non obvious intereactions that should be considered when devising your gameplans on a turn by turn basis, this makes it a hard deck to just pick up and pilot and is also probably why most people complain that the decks massively inconsistant/weak etc.<br />
If your just trying to throw out dudes fast as you can and beat face then your missing alot of the power that the elf synergies bring to the table.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisKool</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/testing-one-two-three-a-100-card-singleton-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-217</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ChrisKool]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=3985#comment-217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The meta has shifted away from Naya-style decks.  I think you had your success then?

I thought [card]Oath of Ghouls[/card] would be better than [card]Oversold Cemetery[/card] because you start getting your guys back almost immediately.

[card]Senseis Divining Top[/card]-  remember that enemy triads can play nine (!) fetch lands.

[card]Birchlore Rangers[/card]- the fact that he needed a pal meant I was losing out on a nice attacker or he was standing around, wishing he had a friend to cook me a rainbow mana pie.

If I were to rebuild Elves!, I would look into GW with a lot of basics.  The power of Black made the deck act very clunky.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The meta has shifted away from Naya-style decks.  I think you had your success then?</p>
<p>I thought <a href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/wp-content/plugins/mtgo-wp-mtg-helper/mtg_helper_cardfinder.php?find=Oath+of+Ghouls&width=223&height=310" class="jTip" name="Oath of Ghouls">Oath of Ghouls</a> would be better than <a href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/wp-content/plugins/mtgo-wp-mtg-helper/mtg_helper_cardfinder.php?find=Oversold+Cemetery&width=223&height=310" class="jTip" name="Oversold Cemetery">Oversold Cemetery</a> because you start getting your guys back almost immediately.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/wp-content/plugins/mtgo-wp-mtg-helper/mtg_helper_cardfinder.php?find=Senseis+Divining+Top&width=223&height=310" class="jTip" name="Senseis Divining Top">Senseis Divining Top</a>-  remember that enemy triads can play nine (!) fetch lands.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/wp-content/plugins/mtgo-wp-mtg-helper/mtg_helper_cardfinder.php?find=Birchlore+Rangers&width=223&height=310" class="jTip" name="Birchlore Rangers">Birchlore Rangers</a>- the fact that he needed a pal meant I was losing out on a nice attacker or he was standing around, wishing he had a friend to cook me a rainbow mana pie.</p>
<p>If I were to rebuild Elves!, I would look into GW with a lot of basics.  The power of Black made the deck act very clunky.<img src='http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Oath of Ghouls&options=' style='display:none;width:1px;height:1px;' /><img src='http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Oversold Cemetery&options=' style='display:none;width:1px;height:1px;' /><img src='http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Senseis Divining Top&options=' style='display:none;width:1px;height:1px;' /><img src='http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Birchlore Rangers&options=' style='display:none;width:1px;height:1px;' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
