Some Magic-League’s Decks stronger than Pro Tour’s decks?

artificer · Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 66

Given that on MWS there is no limitation on the cards you can get and use it is reasonably to think that sometimes the decks u find here are stronger that the ones used on RL tournaments like the Pro Tour? For example the deck that Charles Gindy used to win the pro tour Hollywood don’t looks that amazing compared to decks I have seen here.

ransom3 · Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 156

I don't think there is a limitation to the cards people get on the Pro Tour. You can get any card, it just might cost you a lot of money.

If you're going to play on the PRO TOUR, there should no question on whether you're going to spend it.

Plus, on the Pro Tour, players spend a lot of time developing their decks and their games. On M-L, anyone can play.

CHRONICBL · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 47

i got a good laugh from this. ml > the pro tour! LOL

TugaChampion · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 369

yes obv. I'm was better than that random Finkel... lol

CMA-Flippi · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:40 am Post subject:

I dont think the played decks are that different.
On the PT, you have a field of only good or strong decks.

On ML, the testing platform, the difference between the best and the worst deck is much higher.

Therefore, it might be possible that one deck on magic-league is even stronger, compared to the PT decks, but in general, i think the power level is a bit lower. On the PT noone plays decks whose potential is unkown, on here, i bet alot do that (and in the end, produce decks like P420.5n)

DaveK · Joined: 26 Nov 2007 Posts: 40

ckfnpku · Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Posts: 14

Imo, when you look through the decklists from the last pt, most lists don't strike me as all that tight. The decks of the top pros that you see in feature matches and such are top notch (that's why they are at the top) but the decks of the field in general are not that impressive.

Sample bad list:

60 cards

2 Desert
2 Faerie Conclave
2 Island
2 Mutavault
4 River of Tears
4 Sunken Ruins
4 Swamp
4 Underground River
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 lands

4 Epochrasite
4 Riftwing Cloudskate
3 Shadowmage Infiltrator
2 Shriekmaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 creatures 4 Ancestral Vision
4 Bitterblossom
3 Damnation
2 Loxodon Warhammer
4 Mindstab
4 Terror

Does this thing even have one good matchup?

coolcreep · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 321

kfcman · Joined: 16 Sep 2006 Posts: 665

TugaChampion · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 369

Ok Mindstab surely looks bad but the rest of the deck is not that bad. I mean a random bitterblossom turn 2 wins games sometimes.

And right now there are so many choices, so many tier 2 cards, that it's really hard to have a perfect list.

ckfnpku · Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Posts: 14

I may have sounded overly critical. "Most lists not that impressive" is a bit too strong a statement. I just meant to say that the decks on the tour are for the most part "nothing special", meaning they are close to the common netdecks. And for any given archetype there will be lots of different builds, some of which turn out to be better, making the others seem "bad" by comparison. For example, there were one or two merfolk lists running rune snag over sage's dousing, which imo is just not optimal.

gypsy · Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Posts: 862

so because you saw a few bad lists in the coverage means that m-l > the pt? did those lists make money or day 2? your statement is very flawed, depending where you live qualifying for the pt might be easy. some people just play sub optimal lists. if everyone was playing the best version of a deck everyone would be playing the exact same 75 cards

metzel_usa · Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 107

are you fucking serious?

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 800

I would be amazed if some decks that are ml based are not better than PT decks but proportinally PT easily beats ml.

SaCu · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 4

IMO what ML has of different is that, here we can try all kinds of cards when testing. That is why the decklists are so different.

SaCu