ih8regin said: A horizontal 4-match gives up to 7 chances to cascade into a 3 vertical match from above, provided there are gems in position, and also gives a decent chance to drop a 3-match in 7 gems of the top line, independently. Sooooo, I would argue about taking a vertical 3-match without seeing the whole board, and even then, chances are you get screwed either way.
Horadrim said: Now that the element of RNG is included in the equation.... two players in platinum who have the same skills and same card collection... whoever is more lucky (e.g. draws combo cards early in the match, cascades for good amount of mana and able to cast combo cards early in the match, AND a bug-free match) wins the match.
CheeksMagunda said: Small difference in collection loses to skill, large difference gives the win to collection.
Mburn7 said: JohnnyXII said: As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it. I disagree very much with this. My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it. I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently. Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl
JohnnyXII said: As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it.
JohnnyXII said: Mburn7 said: JohnnyXII said: As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it. I disagree very much with this. My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it. I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently. Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl Really because pretty much all legacy events are confirming what i said. Theres no skill involved when greg goes infinite on turn two with bsz, omni, whirl and days undoing, and let's not even mention the failed double LPS checks.
Mburn7 said: JohnnyXII said: Mburn7 said: JohnnyXII said: As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it. I disagree very much with this. My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it. I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently. Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl Really because pretty much all legacy events are confirming what i said. Theres no skill involved when greg goes infinite on turn two with bsz, omni, whirl and days undoing, and let's not even mention the failed double LPS checks. I faced a couple Beacon Bolt loop decks in Hour of Devastation this weekend that I know for a fact will win consistently turn 2-4 when piloted by a competent player that did absolutely nothing and lost in 20 turns.Greg is capable of getting lucky sometimes when his hand is ordered perfectly and he gets a massive cascade, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to pilot a powerful deck consistently. A bunch of monkeys can randomly type out a Shakespeare play, it doesn't make Shakespeare less skilled at writing plays.
Pantagruel said: A player who makes the incorrect choice over whether to play a Razia or an Urza on their turn will win far more games than a player who makes the correct choice over whether to play a Gleaming Overseer or an Ugin's Conjurant.
madwren said:It should be acknowledged that having the skill to identify which cards to use is important, and that a new person who was handed a full collection would have a high learning curve figuring out what decks and planeswalkers to use.