<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PTQ Kyoto Tournament Report in San Antonio, TX</title>
	<atom:link href="http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-kyoto-report-san-antonio/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-kyoto-report-san-antonio/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 19:29:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dee</title>
		<link>http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-kyoto-report-san-antonio/comment-page-1/#comment-537</link>
		<dc:creator>Dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-san-antonio-shards-of-alara-sealed/#comment-537</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I have nothing against Blightning.  It&#039;s wrecked me a couple of times.  I just think it&#039;s very inconsistent.  It&#039;s either really good or subpar in my experience.  

Really good if you can hit two great cards, but subpar if you just hit a couple of lands.

I don&#039;t like too much variance, so I try not to play it.  I&#039;d rather have a more consistent card.  However, if I had to play it, because of a lack of playables in my chosen colors, I wouldn&#039;t feel too bad.  It&#039;s definitely playable and not a bad card.

Also, I think it&#039;s a good strategy in Shards sealed to play a lot of creatures (15 or more), so my spell count is pretty low.  This means Blightning usually gets cut because I&#039;d rather play removal, card draw, and Giant Growths for my spells rather than Blightning.  Those spells seem more consistent than Blightning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I have nothing against Blightning.  It&#8217;s wrecked me a couple of times.  I just think it&#8217;s very inconsistent.  It&#8217;s either really good or subpar in my experience.  </p>
<p>Really good if you can hit two great cards, but subpar if you just hit a couple of lands.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t like too much variance, so I try not to play it.  I&#8217;d rather have a more consistent card.  However, if I had to play it, because of a lack of playables in my chosen colors, I wouldn&#8217;t feel too bad.  It&#8217;s definitely playable and not a bad card.</p>
<p>Also, I think it&#8217;s a good strategy in Shards sealed to play a lot of creatures (15 or more), so my spell count is pretty low.  This means Blightning usually gets cut because I&#8217;d rather play removal, card draw, and Giant Growths for my spells rather than Blightning.  Those spells seem more consistent than Blightning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dyre42</title>
		<link>http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-kyoto-report-san-antonio/comment-page-1/#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>Dyre42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicgameplan.com/blog/ptq-san-antonio-shards-of-alara-sealed/#comment-534</guid>
		<description>I agree with you on Drumhunter and GotG but you might be wrong on Blightning. It works into the card advantage scheme provided by the previously mentioned two cards and supplements your creature removal abilities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you on Drumhunter and GotG but you might be wrong on Blightning. It works into the card advantage scheme provided by the previously mentioned two cards and supplements your creature removal abilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

