Comments on: The Standard Report

By: Sadimem

Sadimem — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:12:46 +0000

In reply to michael lanigan. That wasn't a knock at you by the way Michael. Didn't read the article. =D

By: michael lanigan

michael lanigan — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:42:26 +0000

In reply to @Chosler88. I appreciate the support!

By: @Chosler88

@Chosler88 — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:53:13 +0000

In reply to Sadimem. Lol, I comment on like two articles a week at most, and only the ones that I actually like. No company line here.

By: Sadimem

Sadimem — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:26:10 +0000

In reply to @Chosler88.

I wonder if the saved version of that for Ctrl + C purposes is:

"Good article, like _______ but mostly the ______."

It's all good though. Toe that company line sir!

By: Sadimem

Sadimem — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:26:10 +0000

In reply to @Chosler88.

I wonder if the saved version of that for Ctrl + C purposes is:

"Good article, like _______ but mostly the ______."

It's all good though. Toe that company line sir!

By: mike lanigan

mike lanigan — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:38:54 +0000

In this deck and almost all decks in standard galvanic blast is exactly the same as shock. In fact I usually play some number of both just to throw off my opponents.

By: @adamzak

@adamzak — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:25 +0000

In reply to pipdickenz. Is Galvanic Blast not "strictly better" or at worst, equal to shock?

By: pipdickenz

pipdickenz — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:26:19 +0000

those u/w aggro lists are horrible and not a good representation of the archtype at all and the u/r fish deck should be -2 galvanic blast +2 shock. In future articles you should try to write about things that havent already been written about a week ago or about new ideas or insights.

By: @Chosler88

@Chosler88 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:20:22 +0000

Good article, like the pictures but mostly the good analysis.