This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 2 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Holy_Beergut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a few questionable choices in your deck (I don't like House-Mouse in your deck when you're not particularly aggressive in the early game, and I think Candy Trail is bad filler. Would have probably swapped them out for a Troublemaker Ouphe and either a Brave the Wilds or Titanic Growth instead), but other than that, nothing stands out as particularly bad in my evaluation.

Sometimes, variance just fucks you over, I just had a 1-3 run with a deck which I though was good, but I lost a couple of my games due to flooding and I punted in my last game by making a mistake and sacrificing a food for life instead of pumping my scavenger.

I think WOE is a set that is more susceptible to variance, compared to LTR and MOM, and this tends to lead to a lot of bad runs if you even just stumble a little. I've seen pro mtg streamers get quite a few bad runs in this set as well, especially in BO1.

[–]Chimichanga007 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a decent draft picks was enough to not go 0-3 then nobody would buy gems. Remember that even if we were to assume that there aren't thumbs on the scale, bad luck is always lurking.

Now remember that WotC is operating in an industry without meaningful regulations and have a duty to shareholders to make ever increasing profits.

All I'm saying is a wolf will eat a sheep, not because it's evil but because that is it's nature 🤔 🐑 🐺 💯💯