|
On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 11:25 Shotcoder wrote:
Why would you want a 6/5 flyer that doesn't impact the board immediately when you can play Gary at 5? Like maybe as a 1 of in MonoB but what do you cut?
Nightveil, Demon, Pack rat, Pain seer, and Gary are just good enough and the rest of the deck gains you cards or denys the opponent cards or removes them.
The problem with her is when you compare her to the usual 5 drop finishers even though she's at 6. Obzedat needs instant speed removal, Blood Baron has a really small pool of cards that answer it and Gary impacts the game immediately. The way MonoB Midrange plays she will require you to untap a lot before she gets value because she gets answered by a lot of things compared to the other finishers and comes down a turn later. I dunno. I don't want to run too many Gary. I don't doubt his strength but I don't think he fits my style of playing for value. Rather he just wins games fast if the enemy life is low and loses them fast if the enemy life is high since other 5s have more lasting impact. I don't think it's an interesting card and I want to be different so I'd only run one gary. I also only have one rat so far and don't intend to get more yet. I don't have any pain seers yet but I should (want to) get 1 to try it out. I like nightveil more now but mostly vs another part black deck. Also I no longer own any D: Obzedat is part white so I don't think I can pay for him unless I run dual colors. I also don't own him. Blood Baron I don't own either. I might splash some white hybrid lands for him if I had a few of him but as it stands I don't own him. I'd also need more hybrid lands soon and I might not play him unless it were against a white or black deck. I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. I might go play with some school clubs too and some store events. When I played her in duels of the planeswalkers 2014, Necropolis Regent was a very scary win con. I guess she's too slow vs people though like you say.
4 Gary isn't too much, He doesn't just win the game if they're at low health, he also doesn't just lose them if they're at high health. He enables your deck to function passed the early and mid game. His life drain is exactly what the deck wants because it uses it's life total to generate it's advantage with thoughtseize, connections and sometimes read the bones. He is part of the engine, not just a win condition.
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not.
|
United States24734 Posts
On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD.
It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now...
That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks.
On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not.
Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards.
|
On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards.
Typically in a competitive manner, "wanting to be different" is "attacking the meta game from a different angle". Which is where decks like UW devotion and BW midrange evolved from their mono colored counter parts(also see Jund Monsters vs RG Monsters).
Another example of this is Travis Woo and how he Brews different versions of Living End. He has played the deck so many times he knows what cards you can tweak to change it in an direction and how to interact better in different metas(see his Resto version, vs Blood Moon vs, the normal version). That's typically how you evaluate decks and cards. When looking at Gary and the 6 drop there really isnt a comparison. One grinds the game out the way the deck wants to play by grinding resources constantly in your favor while the other is a windmill slam "win more"
|
It's not even that. Not to discourage casual players, but if you are just playing with friends, why are you asking about clearly casual cards?
I say this because Woo and Woods clearly build competitive decks with "fun" (it really isn't, it's just different) interactions, but their goals do not align with casual play goals.
It's one thing to say man my friend has this deck with these cards and I just can't beat it, help please, but it's another to say man what do you think of this card for casual games. Like the former makes more sense (at least to me) as a plausible question in the casual arena but the latter is just like umm why does it matter if you are just dinner room tabling the games anyways.
It's okay that you want to play Reagent over Gary, but I am having a hard time understanding the point of your original question when one card is clearly superior to the other, there's no play style choice here unless you just want to take inferior lines to be different. However, if you are casual, the motivation and purpose of the question posed in the first place makes very little sense to me and based on the response others as well.
Edit:
I think the biggest difference between Woo/Woods versus more casual players who try out different jank decks is that they never really deviate from their ultimate goal to win, as much as Woo says he's playing for fun, he really isn't. You don't get upset over a game that you are playing for fun when you lose. Woods is very much the same way, they're both looking for other cards/interactions and then judging to see if it can sink or swim in a competitive environment, that's fine. They're both examples of not people who are outside of the meta, but people who are right in the thick of it. However, their audiences never realize that for the most part.
|
On March 28 2014 13:09 Judicator wrote:
It's not even that. Not to discourage casual players, but if you are just playing with friends, why are you asking about clearly casual cards?
I say this because Woo and Woods clearly build competitive decks with "fun" (it really isn't, it's just different) interactions, but their goals do not align with casual play goals.
It's one thing to say man my friend has this deck with these cards and I just can't beat it, help please, but it's another to say man what do you think of this card for casual games. Like the former makes more sense (at least to me) as a plausible question in the casual arena but the latter is just like umm why does it matter if you are just dinner room tabling the games anyways.
It's okay that you want to play Reagent over Gary, but I am having a hard time understanding the point of your original question when one card is clearly superior to the other, there's no play style choice here unless you just want to take inferior lines to be different. However, if you are casual, the motivation and purpose of the question posed in the first place makes very little sense to me and based on the response others as well.
Edit:
I think the biggest difference between Woo/Woods versus more casual players who try out different jank decks is that they never really deviate from their ultimate goal to win, as much as Woo says he's playing for fun, he really isn't. You don't get upset over a game that you are playing for fun when you lose. Woods is very much the same way, they're both looking for other cards/interactions and then judging to see if it can sink or swim in a competitive environment, that's fine. They're both examples of not people who are outside of the meta, but people who are right in the thick of it. However, their audiences never realize that for the most part.
I agree, and the reason they are so successful is because most of the time they understand the meta so well they understand how to attack it from this outside source and by that I mean a slightly awkward angle people arent expecting.. Look at that "dredge" deck in standard that Ari Lax Top 16's with. That was a Conley Brew about a month ago. His Wolf Run Black? also a masterpiece, why? because at the time people weren't playing go for the throat because of tempered steel, they were playing doom blade, which made playing Grave Titan over Inferno Titan huge.
|
On March 28 2014 13:50 Shotcoder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 13:09 Judicator wrote:
It's not even that. Not to discourage casual players, but if you are just playing with friends, why are you asking about clearly casual cards?
I say this because Woo and Woods clearly build competitive decks with "fun" (it really isn't, it's just different) interactions, but their goals do not align with casual play goals.
It's one thing to say man my friend has this deck with these cards and I just can't beat it, help please, but it's another to say man what do you think of this card for casual games. Like the former makes more sense (at least to me) as a plausible question in the casual arena but the latter is just like umm why does it matter if you are just dinner room tabling the games anyways.
It's okay that you want to play Reagent over Gary, but I am having a hard time understanding the point of your original question when one card is clearly superior to the other, there's no play style choice here unless you just want to take inferior lines to be different. However, if you are casual, the motivation and purpose of the question posed in the first place makes very little sense to me and based on the response others as well.
Edit:
I think the biggest difference between Woo/Woods versus more casual players who try out different jank decks is that they never really deviate from their ultimate goal to win, as much as Woo says he's playing for fun, he really isn't. You don't get upset over a game that you are playing for fun when you lose. Woods is very much the same way, they're both looking for other cards/interactions and then judging to see if it can sink or swim in a competitive environment, that's fine. They're both examples of not people who are outside of the meta, but people who are right in the thick of it. However, their audiences never realize that for the most part. I agree, and the reason they are so successful is because most of the time they understand the meta so well they understand how to attack it from this outside source and by that I mean a slightly awkward angle people arent expecting.. Look at that "dredge" deck in standard that Ari Lax Top 16's with. That was a Conley Brew about a month ago. His Wolf Run Black? also a masterpiece, why? because at the time people weren't playing go for the throat because of tempered steel, they were playing doom blade, which made playing Grave Titan over Inferno Titan huge.
Actually, the reason why they are "successful" (if you can call it that) is because they try a lot of different things. Most people in Magic aren't too innovative; they'll stick to what works and just make small tweaks. Guys like Conley and Woo will throw out 20 new ideas per week, and maybe 1% of them will be competitive. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but it's more trial and error than any kind of brilliant metagame sense.
|
On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards.
I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual.
|
United States24734 Posts
For the record I'm a big fan of casual magic and probably enjoy it more than competitive lol... too bad I moved away from the area where I was in a game =(
|
On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual.
Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual?
|
On March 28 2014 21:08 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual. Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual?
I just asked about a card and got insulted for over a page. If I asked this in the LoL subforum or in hearthstone I wouldn't get this treatment. Some of you guys are hardcore.
I don't think I'm missing a point.
|
On March 29 2014 03:24 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 21:08 Judicator wrote:On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual. Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual? I just asked about a card and got insulted for over a page. If I asked this in the LoL subforum or in hearthstone I wouldn't get this treatment. Some of you guys are hardcore. I don't think I'm missing a point.
If you traipsed into a LoL champ thread for an AD carry and asked "yo i really like this AP item on this champ is it good?" and then when you were told "No, buy AD items" your response was "well I want to be different and I'm only gold 3 so AP works at my level", you'd get flamed for pages and pages lol.
|
On March 29 2014 03:24 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 21:08 Judicator wrote:On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual. Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual? I just asked about a card and got insulted for over a page. If I asked this in the LoL subforum or in hearthstone I wouldn't get this treatment. Some of you guys are hardcore. I don't think I'm missing a point.
Yes, you are. If you are going to take this little criticism and magnify it like 100 fold, I don't know what to tell you. This is with me on the sidelines too (Shotcoder is much nicer than I am). Like you have to understand that if you drop the what do you think of X card, then we're going to give you the most objective answer possible which is from a competitive point of view. It's not that we're all hardcore cutthroat "did you pass priority?" players (I would argue the opposite), but its the only point of view that actually matters because again, casual is whatever floats your boat so there's little discussion there.
Like if you were going to preface the same question with just playing casually (or combine your first post with your 2nd one), then we would be like sure if you like it go for it, but understand the pros and cons. That would be it.
Just read your posts together in succession and ask yourself what possible answer any of us could have given that would have satisfied you. Then ask yourself how we would have. Finally, ask yourself why does it even matter if I am playing casually with friends?
Edit:
You weren't being insulted, but all of us are kind of questioning the point of your question or rather your motivation for asking that question.
|
On March 29 2014 03:24 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 21:08 Judicator wrote:On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual. Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual? I just asked about a card and got insulted for over a page. If I asked this in the LoL subforum or in hearthstone I wouldn't get this treatment. Some of you guys are hardcore. I don't think I'm missing a point.
You didn't get insulted. You asked about a card, I told you why said card was bad compared to other cards. The discussion went on a tangent because you gave a bad excuse of "I want to be different".
If it's casual play, play the card, you obviously want to. I don't get what my opinion or Judicator's opinion has to do with you playing at a kitchen table. But don't come in here asking about a card and getting butthurt when we give you an answer from a view point you don't agree with
If you think you won't get berated harder in the LoL subforum or an LoL game for that matter you obviously either haven't played the game enough to know the community or just read selectively.
|
On March 29 2014 16:02 Shotcoder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2014 03:24 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 21:08 Judicator wrote:On March 28 2014 14:44 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 28 2014 12:14 micronesia wrote:On March 28 2014 11:50 obesechicken13 wrote:
I know she gets answered by a lot but I'm just playing with friends right now and we all suck XD. It was probably not the best idea to come into a thread which discusses high-level standard metagame and ask for an opinion about adding a card you want to use to a specific type of deck because you figure you can get away with it since you are just playing with friends who suck right now... That is just not the best context for trying to make a case for a card. In this case what you should do is try it and just see how it goes and maybe report back! I think the card is pretty awesome, recognizing it probably doesn't belong in legit decks. On March 28 2014 12:11 Shotcoder wrote:
Edit: Wanting to be different is one of the worst ways to approach deckbuilding. What's wrong with playing optimal cards? I understand if it's cost but with Gary's it's obviously not. Actually both can be perfectly fine depending on your objectives... just... you don't want to try to argue for a card from a 'wanting to be different' perspective in a discussion among people trying to choose optimal cards. I mostly just wanted to see what common opinion for the card was. I wanted to know if it was run at all. I'll take note that you guys aren't very casual. Missing the point. Theres little point in asking about any card in casual play because the purpose is to have fun. You like Reagent? Then play the hell out of it over Gary. Who carrs and why does it matter for casual? I just asked about a card and got insulted for over a page. If I asked this in the LoL subforum or in hearthstone I wouldn't get this treatment. Some of you guys are hardcore. I don't think I'm missing a point. You didn't get insulted. You asked about a card, I told you why said card was bad compared to other cards. The discussion went on a tangent because you gave a bad excuse of "I want to be different". If it's casual play, play the card, you obviously want to. I don't get what my opinion or Judicator's opinion has to do with you playing at a kitchen table. But don't come in here asking about a card and getting butthurt when we give you an answer from a view point you don't agree with If you think you won't get berated harder in the LoL subforum or an LoL game for that matter you obviously either haven't played the game enough to know the community or just read selectively.
You're not the problem. It's this Judicator.
I explain why I'm not running 4 grey merchants and suddenly I'm "stubborn" and on the back foot defending myself from all these questions. Suddenly I'm only not running him because I want to be different even though I said the card wasn't interesting and had little lasting impact.
Suddenly my motivations are under question and I can't ask any question about a card unless it's strictly for tournament play. If I want to ask about a card for playing with friends OR for store games or local clubs, I can't use this thread?
Maybe you should try not to read so selectively. I gave more reasons than just wanting to be different but of course that's the only thing that gets picked out.
I guess the LoL subforum has been known to argue against posters who talked about a weird build too, enough to cause people to get banned. That much is true, I'd just forgotten.
Don't act like all I got was objective critique.
I asked if a card was standard playable. I expected answers like that it was too slow, and got some answers like that it was fine as a one of, was a win more card, and was easy to remove. I was legitimately curious whether the card was already being played with any frequency.
Instead I get answers calling me stubborn and lumping me in a group of people who only play cards to be different as if they're to be looked down upon. What's wrong with wanting to have a unique deck?
Then of course you make comments that I'm picking a card that's strictly inferior to Grey Merchant as if I'm just coming here to troll or that I can't tell that Necropolis Regent is strictly worse than Grey Merchant.
Anyways, I'm sorry for messing up this thread. I'm sure most people here are very reasonable. I don't want to continue this flame war so I'm not making any more responses.
|
United States24734 Posts
Most new people coming into this thread have similar problems to the one you did obesechicken13 lol... don't worry.
My job now requires me to do analysis that is somewhat similar to the type of thought that goes into ideal magic play (granted, the connection is a bit weaker than I'm making it sound). The result is that I have even less mental energy to think about making the most effective standard decks and describing methods for ideal play than I did before!
Still if I get an urge to play some more semi-competitive magic, MTGO is there since I'm not currently connected to a local store... there is one in the general area but not that easy to get to.
|
Went to a modern format GPT today. 16 people showed up, all 16 had different decks. <3 modern diversity. I played Jund, got crushed by Ad Naseum combo in the semifinals, who I beat earlier in the tournament because he accidently drew an extra card after serum visions and got a game loss. My prize was a dark confidant.
|
|
|
You got a Dark Confidant for getting 3rd/4th in a 16-man tourney? Need to move closer to that store ->
|
On April 02 2014 23:08 Terrestrialrage wrote:
You got a Dark Confidant for getting 3rd/4th in a 16-man tourney? Need to move closer to that store ->
|
On April 03 2014 06:01 Varanice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 23:08 Terrestrialrage wrote:
You got a Dark Confidant for getting 3rd/4th in a 16-man tourney? Need to move closer to that store ->
Entry fee was $25, but yea I'm a fan of this LGS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
