I'm just going by my history of playing MtGO. Sometimes, I never draw a 5th land by the time I'm dead. Sometimes, I'm already winning by the time I draw my 5th land, which makes it basically a bad card, where it would be better to draw a combat trick. And sometimes, by the time I draw my 5th land, we're already at parity, in which case, I'm in topdeck mode. Either when dead, winning, or topdecking, land is not what I want to draw.Duckay wrote:Why could you only reliably count on 4 mana ever? That confuses me. Also the 2/2 that you get from Skywise Teachings is a little better than a bear, as it also has flying. (Before you ask, yes, the flying is relevant because they can block creatures that perhaps you otherwise couldn't, and can attack into a board that sometimes you otherwise can't.)
Look, Memo, I understand the inclination to defend the choices you made. However, I have to ask. When you posted the pools and asked what you were doing wrong, did you want us to give advice, or did you just want us to pat you on the back? Because we can offer advice but that doesn't mean anything unless you're willing to listen and take it on board.
I mean, yeah, many games I do eventually get more than 4 mana, sure. But I don't want to rely on waiting for a land to cast a hand full of 3 or 4 5-drops. My deck shouldn't be built around the high-drops. It's only ever been a rare game where I've never gotten to 4. Like 95% of my games, I can get to 4 pretty easily. I can't say that about 5 or more.
OK, flying bears... That's a little bit better.
And regarding what I'm doing... No, I don't want you to pat me on the back. I don't need it, because I'm terrible clearly, and that would just be patronizing. I want to improve. That's why I posted the decks and asked for help. I am totally willing to listen to anything I understand. This is why I'm explaining my logic regarding why I did what I did. I want my decisions critiqued, but I need to understand where I went wrong.
But what I'm hearing is "Oh you should do this, this, and this, instead of that, that, and that." That doesn't help me. I'm sick of hearing people say things like "Lens of Clarity is trash." or "Fog is a bad card." without explaining either why that is the case.
There has been good advice I understand, such as:
That works. I understand that. I thank you for it. You didn't just say "You should've gone with 2 colors" and leave it at that. You explained that I didn't have fixing to help me cast stuff, and I can work that into my stream of logic in the future.Duckay wrote:Maybe you would have been better off sticking to 2 colors, or only a small splash, because with no dual lands in DTK
On the other hand, there's advice like:
This doesn't help me know why I should remove those specific cards, or why I should add in those other cards. I can surmise that I remove the first four because they're the black cards, but why not also remove Reach? You've tried to start explaining the Scribe, and we can work on that, and I understand SBS, but Sidisi's Faithful? It blocks, but I've been told that cards similar to it, like Guardians of Meletis are not "good blockers." The exploit makes you sac something to bounce? You don't get your thing back, and they do. That doesn't seem good to me.MowDownJoe wrote:Out goes Hand, Coat, Glee, and Awakening. In goes Scribe, Sidisi's Faithful, Sight Beyond Sight, and... Temporal Trespass?