GBS

[Jason Waddell]

It was "Kafka on the Shore", and I enjoyed it quite a lot. Murakami has a great way for writing dialogue and narration from "unintelligent" characters.

"After Dark" was a strange and light read, and "Wind-Up Bird Chronicles" is what I would consider to be quintessential Murakami.

I'm currently 800 pages into 1Q84 (out of 1300), and I don't know if it's worth a recommendation yet. It's another one of his books that has two parallel protagonists who are connected somehow. I see how they're connected now, but the two protagonists still haven't met yet. It's also rather slow, so your enjoyment will depend on how much you like endless Murakami prose. By contrast I've read books (e.g. Wool) that were very fast-paced, but had me literally skipping pages because the writing was so bland.

 

[tomchaps]

I was fairly underimpressed by 1Q84, I have to say. It sets itself up so well, and the payoff is simply... well, I'll let you finish it without giving away the surprise ending with the zombies and NASCAR and the zeppelins.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I'm in Book 3 now, and it's starting to feel more work-like to trudge through it. I am, however, happy to see the introduction of a third perspective character, who happens to have one of the best visual descriptions ever:

"It was not just that he had terrible style: he also gave the impression that he was deliberately desecrating the very idea of wearing clothes."

 

[Jason Waddell]

I was fairly underimpressed by 1Q84, I have to say. It sets itself up so well, and the payoff is simply... well, I'll let you finish it without giving away the surprise ending with the zombies and NASCAR and the zeppelins.

To be fair, I don't really know of any other way it could have ended. But Book 3 was very slow with lots of needless exposition. Considering I had read 900 pages before Book 3 even started, maybe anything would have felt slow. It seemed though, that the writing in Book 3 was repetitive and written with less craft than the other two books. Except for the part where Murakami spends like a page and a half describing an erection.

 

[CML]

great literary erections: A Confederacy of Dunces, Portnoy's Complaint

in murakami, the guy gets a little hard very early on in Hard-Boiled Wonderland

 

[Jason Waddell]

Well, that's kind of his wheelhouse. Murakami talks about erections more than Hank Moody.

 

[CML]

"... and i couldn't get it up" -- charles bukowski's narrator at the end of factotum(?) speaking for everyone's experiences at strip clubs (or reading a sweet book that leaves you cold)

 

[Jason Waddell]

So this latest article I wrote is a Webster style draft report. The document is 20 pages long. I'm sorry Mr. Editor!

 

[Chris Taylor]

Wait, we have an editor? Or are you silently talking to andrew?

 

[Jason Waddell]

Wait, we have an editor? Or are you silently talking to andrew?

That's the one. It's for CFB, not RipLab. I'm not sure we really have the infrastructure to even run an article like that at the moment. Well, we do, but it would be with mouseover card tags instead of the nice looking CFB card pictures. For a draft article that makes a pretty big difference.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Good call. My sympathies to the man, that many images is a lot of work (As I'm finding out re-editing my cube)

 

[Jason Waddell]

Well, the images pop up automatically. For example, I just include:

Pack 1 pick 1:
[card]
Wheel of Fortune
Nest Invader
Spikeshot Elder
Rancor
Umezawa's Jitte
Coalition Relic
Scalding Tarn
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed
Grafted Wargear
Chandra, the Firebrand
Bloodghast
Phyrexian Revoker
Blood Artist
Angel of Serenity
Bloodgift Demon
[\card]

 

[CML]

webster is legit

 

[CML]

so i was just having another stupid pointless fb argument about cube when it occurred to me -- i have NO IDEA how a power cube works, and i was wondering if anyone here has tried to design one based on the stuff we've got here. i guess it might be a contradiction in terms due to hatred of 'power maximization' and non-interactive games etc. but then maybe by breaking singleton and supporting certain archetypes we could make something of it w/r/t 'fun maximization.'

 

[Jason Waddell]

My theory is that in a powered cube you need to break singleton even more to get a balanced environment, and that maybe you should aim for a vintagey draft format.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Hey, if you like vintage...

 

[CML]

how about vintage in the mold of brian demars' recent article? http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26163_On-Vintage.html

i strongly agree with the vintage statement. as repellent as i find max mccall's public persona http://www.starcitygames.com/articl...---Vintage-Rotisserie-Draft-Extravaganza.html is also well worth the read imo

 

[Jason Waddell]

My biggest issue with powered cubes is not that they are doing powerful things, but that they capture so little of the interaction that actual Vintage games have. I once saw a Vintage decklist that was completely singleton, save for 4 Force of Will. There are some cards that you just really need multiple copies of to keep the balance of threats and answers to ensure interactivity.

 

[CML]

oh yeah, vintage highlander control.

no doubt most cubes err on the side of questions > answers. you can see the violent backlash in the modo cube where they cover up their excrementitious design with 3948673498 sweepers or what have you. this doesn't mean that control is bad -- what i'm saying is basically that "answers" have a shallow power curve in cube while "questions" range quite violently in power, from jackal pup to JTMS -- it means that control gets to only play the good "questions" while aggro makes do with carnophage and friends and wonders why it's losing.

i'm blabbin with an old college friend who's a super-casual player about limited formats and i'm trying to explain why DGR is frustrating, it seems absurd that people play this game a lot (much less DESIGN it) without thinking of it in the same terms we do.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Random note, yesterday a player put together a Birthing Pod + JTMS deck. Brainstorm, put two on top, shuffle them away with pod. Every turn. It was pretty awesome. He finished one game by doing 49 damage in one turn with a combination of weird pod activations.

 

[CML]

come to think of it: the restricted list is the same thing as enforcing singleton. i wonder why i didn't realize that before? something uniting cube and edh, unfortunately.

i'm sure jason is right about this: with the way the good decks assemble restricted combos with ease through playsets of Force or thoughtseize (?) or mana drain i think we'd need to make it swing towards answers very violently. this would also give creature decks a chance, as force is dog doo against a bunch of little dudes. it'd look like demars' vision for the format, ideally (and if you get nothing else from my last rambling posts READ THE DEMARS ARTICLE.)

anyway the rotisserie draft report (not that max mccall could ever write a disparaging word about himself) probably illustrates a number of problems with singletonning it if you wanna check it out more deeply.

edit: is your crew enjoying the mind sculptor? pics of that deck or it didnt happen

 

[Jason Waddell]

People love JTMS here. I'll see if I can scrape that list together, but I only kept the undefeated lists in tact from last night's draft (my sweet 4C deck, and my teammate's GW beatdown deck). I haven't shuffled yet so his deck is possibly all in once piece, but I won't know where the sideboard ends and the maindeck begins.

Also, Brian DeMars is my favorite writer on SCG, and I read everything he says about Vintage, even though I don't play the format. I'll take a read later on.

EDIT: By which I mean I sided Daze into my deck against the Pod deck in Game 3 on the draw, despite playing both Shardless Agent and Bloodbraid Elf, and blew him out of the water by playing T2 Goyf off of a Forest and a Watery Grave, and Dazed his T3 Pod to make my Goyf a 4/5 (thanks for the artifact). That's why the pod deck was not undefeated.

 

[Jason Waddell]

From the DeMars article:

One thing I have always taken offense to is that by stating my thoughts I open myself to a lot of criticism by individuals who share a preference for a different kind of game than I do. I recognize that there are a lot of people who have different ideas about what constitutes a fun Magic tournament experience from what I or anyone else might like.

I have been called everything from a whiner to a Vintage traitor, and it does sting a little bit. It has always been my goal to use my position as a Vintage writer to promote, popularize, and serve the Vintage format to the best of my ability.

I love the Vintage format and always have, and that is why I continue to write about it, test it, learn about it, think about it, try to run tournaments for it when I can, play it casually with friends (despite having no tournament support in my area), etc.

It also frustrates me that in my opinion the format is only a fraction of what it could be had things been handled differently in the past.
I think that almost every decision that has been made with how to run, promote, and foster Vintage as a format has been fumbled, mismanaged, or done poorly, which is all but a nail in the coffin for a format that already has everything going against it.

You could replace "Vintage" with "Cube" and it would pretty accurately reflect the opinions of a certain Magic writer I know.

 

[CML]

i wonder what it'd be like to do a cube team-draft? 5-pack 60-card was so good

edit: oh yeah the demars thing is great. of course i like him due to my healthy narcissism. i like all people due to my healthy narcissism. you guys are great. you help me be more awesome. i hope i help you be more awesome.

TO WIT: heres a nice chat transcription from this afternoon that shows how smart people think about cube stupidly (what the fuck is a 'boros archetype'??) i hope its readable

---

David Miller
your cube is so sketchy, where's the balance among archetypes?











1:53pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
hm?



not sure what you mean but you can play anything




the gold cards kinda hold it together












1:53pm


David Miller
but theres like abillion rakdo cards, and only 2 simic cards












1:53pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
ahh you mean color balance?




well its not precise but theres a few more mono-U cards




green has more gold cards in GR GW GB etc




i dont think precise color balance is important




but like you can play bant midrange as well as jund midrange even if rakdos has a ton of cards and simic doesn't




also you get to draft non-fixing lands btwn packs




per jason's idea on CFB












1:56pm


David Miller
precise color balance is not what's important, but archetype balance, certain cards in your list are only good in 1 deck, whereas cards good in multiple decks arent compensated for












1:56pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
hmm, like?




im sure its true




though i think its more true in other cubes and its something i try to fight












1:57pm


David Miller
so i feel that you're trying to focus on certain cards as opposed to certain decks




and, why 405 cards?












1:57pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
right, i want the decks to be different every time, or broader categories at least




360 wasnt enough and 450 was too many 




so take for example goblin guide which is in every cube, it only fits in a single archetype there












1:58pm


David Miller
bits in 3 archetyypes, but ok












1:58pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
hm?












1:58pm


David Miller
fits in 3 archetypes, but ok












1:58pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
i think you might be using archetype differently than me




you mean like boros and mono-red are different archetypes?












1:59pm


David Miller
yes for sure




boros is almost always midrange/aggro, whereeas monored is straight aggro




and jund/naya midrange love goblin guide




3 archetypes












2:00pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
ah ok




anyway with a lot of fixing he suddenly goes in a bunch of archetypes in mine




the fixing holds it all together




he'll go in jund zoo, naya zoo, boros, the odd mono-red or what have you




similarly the reanimator theme can be a subset of what your deck does or it can be its main angle of attack




i try to include versatile cards that lots of decks are interested in (you know, the 'poison principle' or the futility of trying to support storm in non-powered)












2:02pm


David Miller
yeah poison and master transumter themes just don't work.




but anyways, just wanted to let you know that mine is powered, and swords are DOPE




ttyl Chris












2:03pm


Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent
HAHA yeah




they're good aggro cards, but in non-power cube i feel the best way to solve the aggro issue is a lot of fixing and a low curve and ok whatever too much to type. PEACE



miller is kind of a g, but jesus are his followers stupid. mani is afaik little more than a symbol of groupthink that isn't aware of its own mediocrity (which isn't surprising since he's canadian):

Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent Serious reply: you should not have Swords in Cube

new art is sweet though
12 hours ago · Like · 1










Mani Davoudi Why should oyu not have swords in cube?!
12 hours ago · Like · 1










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent i hate bombs and i like interaction. don't you?
12 hours ago · Edited · Like










Jeph Foster Have you ever had an opponent equip a sword on t3 and attack you? You basically can't win.
12 hours ago · Like










Mani Davoudi unless the cube actually has a decent amount of artifact hate, in which case, its not that big of an issue. they're GOOD, but not absurd
12 hours ago · Like · 1










David Miller i was on monored, lost game 1 to turn 3 SoFI, then beat Turn 3 SoFI game 2, and lost game 3 to turn 3 SoFI.
12 hours ago · Like










David Miller if i had had artifact hate in my deck it wouldnt have even been close. so yeah i think swords are good, i DID cut all the Shadow from my cube though. swords need to get BBLOCKED
12 hours ago · Like










Mani Davoudi lol, cut all the shadow from your cube, you americans are nuts
12 hours ago · Like · 2










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent the only shadow card worth including is the champ (you can keep priest and monk if again you don't like interaction)
12 hours ago · Like










Jeph Foster temporal isolationnn
12 hours ago · Unlike · 1










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent winner!
12 hours ago · Like










Mani Davoudi I mean, if by interaction you mean white aggro being bad, you might have a point
12 hours ago · Like · 1










David Miller it's an unnecessary throwback to a barbaric time in Magic. Dauthi and Soltari are outdated
12 hours ago · Like










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent there are far better options at WW and 1W especially (you should favor the latter of course)
12 hours ago · Like










David Miller white should NOT have unblockable creatures. and yeah 1W is where i try and be, but a lot of WW is still the nut
12 hours ago · Like










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent some here and there is ok, i just hate protection (shadow is less offensive to me)
12 hours ago · Like










Jeph Foster Tell that to Mirran Crusader
12 hours ago · Like










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent thats why i include silverblade instead
12 hours ago · Like










Mani Davoudi lol, you people sound like you've never cubed with a balanced cube before
12 hours ago · Like · 2










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent ok so SWORDS. maybe they're fun in power cube (i'm not qualified to comment on that one) but in non-power cube nah. you guys are right they're lesser offenders than sol ring, skullclamp, jitte, balance and maybe even recurring nightmare and maze of ith but they're slam first picks that randomly ruin games where the best-case scenario is that someone draws their horrible narrow 1R 2/1 piece of artifact hate. you can't pass them, they're not fun to win with, and they're not fun to lose against. i'm pretty sure most people who profess to like swords haven't tried playing without them and i can confirm it's so much better
12 hours ago · Like










Jeph Foster If you build a deck that can't beat Mirran Crusader, you deserve to lose to Mirran Crusader.
12 hours ago · Like










Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent haha that's so retarded. yep you built BG congrats you lose.
12 hours ago · Like














 

[CML]

Linked a friend to this thread, wrote this:

---

hahaha
the mirran crusader comment is the best
yes it seems like the problem is that people start with decks as their premise and then arrive at cards as their conclusion
in both cube and YMTC


YES
an argument made from conclusion to premise


it's a way of thinking that EDH encourages


yes


"Oh, this'll go great in my Wanker deck!"


well, casual players by definition have abdicated any ability to make judgments
and yet they make them anyway


versus
"This seems like an interesting card, how can I use it?"


david miller's definition of an archetype is the dumbest thing ive ever heard
"it goes in RDW, boros, and naya midrange"
"boros is more of a midrange deck"
what the fuck?
what is a "boros deck"?


hahaha I know right


this person thinks he thinks!
he thinks he has opinions!
he respects himself!
its so awful!


I liked the original archetypes of aggro, control, combo, and midrange better
colors are not a fucking archetype


yeah
or even slightly less broad strokes
like "reanimator"


yep


or "dork-based Gx ramp"


or "delver"
or "tokens"


ahhh thats constructed


well sure


in cube why so narrow
their archetypes are too narrow is the issue
i guess if they wanna draft the same deck over and over again then thats cool
and have the same stupid games


right


or you can play my cube, draft a weird deck that does five different things, not get color-screwed, and have fun


but if you're the type of player who plays one of the same 26 shared decks with the same group of people every time
I can see how that kind of thing might sound acceptable


bingo bango bongo
im gonna c&p this chat to that thread



haha ok