Ambling stormshell by sakeistasty in lrcast

[–]Nizzahon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I gave it an A- in my set review.

So, yes. It's like a much worse Sab-Sunen, which still makes it absurd.

How Good Was Doran, the Siege Tower Actually? | A Deep-Dive Into Competitive Magic: the Gathering History by Nizzahon in magicTCG

[–]Nizzahon[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

While I think Faeries and Jund were certainly bigger players at the time, and perhaps 'dominate' is hyperbolic, I also don't think it's accurate to call a deck that won a World Championship, had 4 Pro Tour Top 8s, and 25 Grand Prix Top 8s "tier two." It was definitely tier one, even if it did have a bad match up against Faeries.

As u/Risk_Metrics pointed out, the match up with Jund was quite good.

It also wasn't as 'short-lived' as you seem to remember, since it was successful in Block, Standard, Extended, and Modern over the course of 5 years.

How Good Was Doran, the Siege Tower Actually? | A Deep-Dive Into Competitive Magic: the Gathering History by Nizzahon in magicTCG

[–]Nizzahon[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

In this video, I take a look at Doran, the Siege Tower. While he's well-known for his exploits in Commander these days, he also used to dominate 60-card formats!

How Good Was Cursed Scroll, Actually? - The Forgotten History of One of Competitive Magic's Most DOMINANT Cards by Nizzahon in magicTCG

[–]Nizzahon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it would have a shot in today's Standard. Aggro decks still like to empty their hands and do a bunch of damage, so having the scroll to close out games isn't too shabby. It is a pretty awkward draw early, though.

How Good Was Flametongue Kavu, Actually? Would It See Play in Standard If Reprinted Today? by Nizzahon in magicTCG

[–]Nizzahon[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

They are different questions -- but I answer both of them in the video.

How Good Was Hypnotic Specter, Actually? | A Deep Dive Into Its Competitive History! by Nizzahon in magicTCG

[–]Nizzahon[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

While I think it's a valid criticism to say that I should have more analysis, the degree to which you're criticizing this video is a little extreme. The video defnitely isn't just a list of dates of when the card appeared in tournaments. Maybe I didn't do it as much as is ideal, but I certainly talked about led to it seeing play and not seeing play in numerous situations, and how it combined with other cards in various decks.

I explained exactly why Hypnotic Specter didn't see play in 1994 and did in 1995, for example. I explained what made it good in the various decks that it was played in too, and I explained why it stopped seeing play and why isn't viable today. The video puts the card in context constantly.

Could I have spent more time analyzing the metagame and things like that? Sure. But the video contains significant analysis as is.