|
ChewyLSB posted:I understand that people get frustrated by Legacy due to card prices and I get that, I really do. What I can't stand is when people, after they decide they can't get into a format, decide that they have to hate the format and start making up poo poo that can deter potential new players from getting into it because they paint the format as something that its not, like a 'Turn 1 Combo Format' or 'The format where you have to play blue and Force of Will', and that is loving frustrating as hell, and I wish people would stop doing that. I didn't build a Modern deck because I "couldn't get into" Legacy. I also play Legacy. Hardcore Legacy players cry about every stereotype for their format while telling everyone how boring and terrible their format of choice is. It's like they really believe that the only legitimate reason to dislike Legacy is because you can't afford it.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Well I'm about ~$260 worth of cards away from the mainboard of the Esper control deck I want to play. drat you shocklands, Mutavault, Sphinx's Revelation, and Thoughtsieze! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Frankly I think they should ban fetchlands in every tournament format, but that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I wish Wasteland was in Modern too, but drat do some of you guys ever get mad about mana denial not being a realistic strategy in Modern. I would love wasteland being in modern, hell even a tech edge without the 4 or more lands restriction would be fine. And yes, I want price of progress and Back to Basics being in modern, hell blue moon is probably my favorite modern deck at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:I didn't build a Modern deck because I "couldn't get into" Legacy. I also play Legacy. Hardcore Legacy players cry about every stereotype for their format while telling everyone how boring and terrible their format of choice is. It's like they really believe that the only legitimate reason to dislike Legacy is because you can't afford it. Turns out they are right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
The Wonder Weapon posted:Frankly I think they should ban fetchlands in every tournament format, but that's neither here nor there. Is it because you have sausage fingers and hate shuffling? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Wait, he's designing a deck that answers threats to his main plan and you're saying that's not interaction? I am merely trying to point out that the he purports to want to play interactive games, and every card in the deck, besides mana, reduces the ability of his opponent to interact, exactly the thing he said he doesn't like about Legacy in the first place, besides it being expensive. jassi007 posted:Yeah, being told that modern is boring is going to cause me or someone else to drop 1-2k on duals, FoW, Wastelands, etc. Or are you in touch with legacy players that will trade modern staples into legacy without some INSANE premium of trade credit? If so PM me, I'm interested in playing legacy at the right price. Oh also, please move your playgroup to my town so I can play the deck that I'll build for a reasonable price. Why not just save any money you win playing Standard or Modern and use it to buy Legacy cards over time? Most stores give extra prizes in store credit over cash, and in a couple months you can have a playable Legacy deck. Also since men are so good in Modern, most of the good creatures are good in Legacy too. If your area has no Legacy then I feel incredibly sorry for you. Most areas that do have Legacy consistently have groups of regulars with extensive collections who will loan you cards until you can win enough to buy them yourself. The barrier to entry is only as high as your ability to make friends at a store where true Legacy aficionados play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I wish Wasteland was in Modern too, but drat do some of you guys ever get mad about mana denial not being a realistic strategy in Modern. It's funny because mana denial is a fringe but legitimate strategy. It's just blue. (or living end)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
The Wonder Weapon posted:Frankly I think they should ban fetchlands in every tournament format, but that's neither here nor there. Not that I disagree with you, but can you elaborate on your reasoning there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
L0cke17 posted:I am merely trying to point out that the he purports to want to play interactive games, and every card in the deck, besides mana, reduces the ability of his opponent to interact, exactly the thing he said he doesn't like about Legacy in the first place, besides it being expensive. But he's interacting with his opponent's ability to interact. It's like saying killing workers in RTS's isn't 'fighting properly'. Basically "Fair", "Interactive", and "Actually playing magic" are the worst terms used with regards to magic and I hope everyone stops using them because they don't actually mean anything any more, aside from "Fair" with regards to actually cheating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Lieutenant Centaur posted:Force everyone to play Planechase Duel Deck Planechase is one of my favorite formats. Everyone randomly picks a duel deck, then play Planechase. Nobody knows what the gently caress will happen and nobody can possibly dominate due to a deck, and we're still playing magic and socializing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I wish Wasteland was in Modern too, but drat do some of you guys ever get mad about mana denial not being a realistic strategy in Modern. Price of Progress would definitely be enough to force down the good-stuff decks in Modern imo. That, or print a 3 mana non-basic Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Duel Deck Planechase is one of my favorite formats. Everyone randomly picks a duel deck, then play Planechase. Nobody knows what the gently caress will happen and nobody can possibly dominate due to a deck, and we're still playing magic and socializing. I think the only appropriate way to play planeschase is with a 60 land deck. Just use the planes as your spells, I have so far won 4 games of planeschase that way using 60 land decks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Not that I disagree with you, but can you elaborate on your reasoning there? They allow for phenomenally consistent manabases, absurd splashes, and eat up huge portions of time off the clock in every format. No fetches would increase game speed and reduce obnoxious combo decks without requiring opponents to MD narrow hate cards. If you don't appreciate the clock time thing, you've never been to a GP. At Montreal this past weekend, the shortest round was ten minutes over time. Modern is no different, but if you remove fetches, you may actually get rounds to finish in under 50 minutes. Keep in mind this problem will only get worse as GPs grow. The round is only as fast as the slowest player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I eagerly await not having to play a game for 50 minutes because UW Control can't find it's wincon and has counterspelled/verdicted/d-sphered all of mine. Then you should just play Maze's End, it destroys any version of control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
The Wonder Weapon posted:They allow for phenomenally consistent manabases, absurd splashes, and eat up huge portions of time off the clock in every format. No fetches would increase game speed and reduce obnoxious combo decks without requiring opponents to MD narrow hate cards. What they should really do is reduce the number of rounds in the day or start earlier. Even with no fetches someone will always be slow, so that won't solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I think the main thing that makes Legacy feel different than Modern is the utility spells rather than the threats. Like, sure, Stoneforge Mystic and Show and Tell are unbelievable win conditions, but the thing that makes Legacy decks tick is, by and large, the cantrips and card selection. Brainstorm and Ponder reduce in-game variance a lot, let you get away with a lower land count, and make it easier to dig for silver-bullet sideboard cards. Modern is a higher-variance format by design, and things that reduce variance are actively culled from the format. Ponder, Preordain, GSZ, Jace... even Deathrite Shaman was banned for this reason, when you get down to it (when a Rock deck is happy to draw its acceleration in the lategame, some fundamental law of the universe has broken). That's why the best decks in Modern are decks that can handle variance, either with tutor packages (Pod, Gifts) or by being highly redundant (Twin, Affinity) or by just jamming as many of the most powerful cards as a manabase can support (Jund, UWR). And it's why Lightning Bolt is the most played spell in Modern - it has so many different uses and it offers an incredible rate on all of them, so it's never really a dead card. Attorney at Funk fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Then you should just play Maze's End, it destroys any version of control. Did maze's end get anything out of BotG? Coursier maybe? Haven't seen anyone run the deck in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
L0cke17 posted:I am merely trying to point out that the he purports to want to play interactive games, and every card in the deck, besides mana, reduces the ability of his opponent to interact, exactly the thing he said he doesn't like about Legacy in the first place, besides it being expensive. Because I have nobody to play legacy with. I have a legacy deck. Or well technically I have all the cards needed to modify affinity to legacy affinity. It wasn't that expensive, and I like robots, so I picked up the cards. They just sit, waiting for a chance to use them. There is no place within an hour of me that has a legacy community. Traveling more than one hour to play cards is an all day commitment and I have family and work schedule that makes this difficult, so it is extremely rare. There is no choice of format for someone who can play FNM and 1 "large" saturday event a month in the area I live in, it is modern. It also helps that one of the stores near me has a thriving modern community, and my in town local store is quickly developing one also. The few people at my LGS who play legacy are slowly switching to modern because they have the same choice. Continue to travel for many hours to legacy events or play modern FNM and other local modern events. You don't have to feel sorry for me, there is a thriving format for people like me, that is growing more popular. I feel sorry for the people that really hate modern and love legacy, because the future has nothing good for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:
Legacy will go the same way as Vintage. The only people who play will allow proxies, and play the most fun interesting things and will only be people who are playing for the love of the game. Vintage right now is incredibly fun, and I can only assume that Legacy will be the same way since the shitlords who run rampant at so many events will stop playing because it has too low of an 'EV' for them to play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Did maze's end get anything out of BotG? Coursier maybe? Haven't seen anyone run the deck in a while. That could work but I play creatureless. If you only have 4 CoK and nothing else, they will eat all of the removal that should be stuck in your opponents' hand. Kiora works sometimes (nothing better after a Verdict to play her) but its a corner case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Zoness posted:But he's interacting with his opponent's ability to interact. "10 minutes before rushing - no worker kills" is the worst gentleman's rule in all RTSs. You can see the effect of such a rule when you ban cool, interesting characters like Shaco or other early threats from league of legends. It forces everyone to go through a laning phase instead of killing dudes from the start. I think the forced laning phase (and bans) is a good analogy for the differences between modern and legacy. In legacy, you don't have to slowly build up your creature quality like you do in pod. No need to work up a couple turns. Want to pod into your griselbrand or emrakul in the beginning of the game? Bam there you go. Some people like this and some don't. It's the same game but faster. Same with factory beats vs. colonnade. Same game but faster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Zoness posted:What does non-interactive actually mean? People have called Dredge, Storm, and Charbelcher non-interactive but realistically there are ways to stop all of those decks! I really enjoy Legacy but I think Modern is the future of extended magic. It has just the right blend of creatures and spells ending a game. Arguably the only negative right now in Modern is that you have to play a deck that can stop combos AND you have to be able to kill value creatures or else you will just lose. Some people enjoy that and some don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
L0cke17 posted:Legacy will go the same way as Vintage. The only people who play will allow proxies, and play the most fun interesting things and will only be people who are playing for the love of the game. Vintage right now is incredibly fun, and I can only assume that Legacy will be the same way since the shitlords who run rampant at so many events will stop playing because it has too low of an 'EV' for them to play. No doubt. When I hit that lotto I'm going to play the hell out of legacy and vintage. I'll buy enough poo poo to make decks for my friends so we can actually play them and I have no doubt it will be a blast. But as a practical matter to play magic regularly, I'll be enjoying modern because its more diverse than any standard ever will be, and it isn't as hard to get a game as legacy is for me, and it isn't as expensive for me to get into as legacy would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Dredge, Storm and Charbelcher are all examples of non-interactive decks. They don't really attempt to interact with their opponent. Non-interactive doesn't mean your opponent can't interact with you. Also, if you think SCG is just going to throw away Legacy Opens, that's kind of silly. I could see them attempting to run a Legacy and a Standard event on Saturday, and Modern on Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:Dredge, Storm and Charbelcher are all examples of non-interactive decks. They don't really attempt to interact with their opponent. Non-interactive doesn't mean your opponent can't interact with you. I think trying to kill my opponent with 2/2 or 1/1 creatures is pretty interactive (even going by the dumb arbitrary definition of interactive)! (All of these decks can kill you with creatures ~whoa~). I'll accept that Charbelcher is less ~interactive~ since it goes for turn 1 wins and basically asks 'do you have force' but I'm not going to agree with labeling Storm and Dredge noninteractive when they often depend on multiple permanents to stay on board over multiple turns. You can also trump storm by gaining enough life and trump Dredge by bolting your own dudes to kill their bridges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:Also, if you think SCG is just going to throw away Legacy Opens, that's kind of silly. I could see them attempting to run a Legacy and a Standard event on Saturday, and Modern on Sunday. That would probably be a good way to go about it. From my experience, most people who go to an open to play legacy only want to play legacy. They're not trying to gain more "value" from the trip by playing in both events.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:This just in: If Wizards dissolved the Reserved List and made a decent run of Legacy Masters, you'd be able to bear witness to the last game of Modern ever played. We have a new winner for "wrongest post ever."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Zoness posted:I think trying to kill my opponent with 2/2 or 1/1 creatures is pretty interactive (even going by the dumb arbitrary definition of interactive)! (All of these decks can kill you with creatures ~whoa~). Wow, you didn't read my post at all. Brownhat posted:They don't really attempt to interact with their opponent. Non-interactive doesn't mean your opponent can't interact with you. There, I made it bold it for you. Fox of Stone posted:That would probably be a good way to go about it. From my experience, most people who go to an open to play legacy only want to play legacy. They're not trying to gain more "value" from the trip by playing in both events. Also, there is a decent chance that some Legacy players might play Modern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:There, I made it bold it for you. I don't get it - I'm interacting with my opponent by trying to kill him with creatures and/or spells! What part of trying to win is non-interactive? I feel like you're choosing not to interact with my questions here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Pretty much this. Mono Black Aggro and RW burn are both fun as hell to play, Cheap (if you forgo mutavaults) and very competitive in the current meta. People bagging on standard don't play a lot of standard cause it's a very diverse format these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:We have a new winner for "wrongest post ever." Even if it's correct it wouldn't be any sort of a rhetorical coup de grace. It's basically like saying "if there were no negative consequences for any human being consuming sugar, you'd be able to bear witness to the last diet soda ever drunk." No poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Zoness posted:I don't get it - I'm interacting with my opponent by trying to kill him with creatures! What part of trying to win is non-interactive?!?!?!? Non-interactive decks are decks that don't try to interact with an opponent's board state. I can see you're getting extra defensive, so let me make something clear: I have nothing against non-interactive decks. You don't need to defend your pet deck's honor. I play Modern Storm, which is incredibly non-interactive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Non-interactive decks come in two flavors: They don't interact with you, or they don't let you interact with them. Storm is a good example of the first. Storm will basically ignore whatever you do. Their goal is to just combo off ASAP. They don't care how many creatures you have or how close they have you to dead, they just focus on killing you with spells. Land destruction does the opposite. It stops your opponent from being able to interact. They ensure that their player can't cast spells or do anything to affect the board state. Magic is the most fun for both players when they're both edging for card advantage and board position, which is why too many combo decks or lock-out decks are bad for a format.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:Non-interactive decks are decks that don't try to interact with an opponent's board state. I can see you're getting extra defensive, so let me make something clear: I have nothing against non-interactive decks. You don't need to defend your pet deck's honor. I play Modern Storm, which is incredibly non-interactive. Okay thanks for actually defining the term which was what I was trying to get to - that is - to blast the term "non-interactive" for being nonsense as opposed to defending any kind of pet deck. But What's so special about a board state that makes it only include permanents? I consider the hand, the stack, and life totals all important parts of a board state, and all of these decks interact with a board state by that definition. By interacting with my opponent's life total I'm interacting with his board state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Okay thanks for actually defining the term which was what I was trying to get to - that is - to blast the term "non-interactive" for being nonsense as opposed to defending any kind of pet deck. That is not what 'board state' is commonly used to mean. 'Board state' is used to mean 'permanents controlled by both players'. Cards in hand and life totals are not part of the board state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
"Non-interactive" is kind of a weird and useless term; you're the one who has to bring the interaction for them. Their disinterest in inviting your interaction is not a useful strategic concern; all decks run better against a goldfish. Fair vs. Unfair, though, is much more meaningful; it's basically about "trades resources" vs. "breaks the resource system". The fairest deck is something like Maverick or Hatebears, where they just want to trade their resources with yours and come out ahead; the unfairest deck is probably Tinfins or maybe Omnitell, where the difference between victory and defeat is 10-40 points of mana cost you're avoiding paying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Okay thanks for actually defining the term which was what I was trying to get to - that is - to blast the term "non-interactive" for being nonsense as opposed to defending any kind of pet deck. It's that permanents vs. spells thing I posted about earlier. I don't see a distinction either and I agree with you but you'll see a lot of players who do see a distinction and preference. They feel like the game should strongly focus on the permanents-only side of the "dichotomy" (the realms of both aren't mutually exclusive but are different enough, mostly because not all colors get equal access to both spells and permanents like blue does). WotC has been making the importance of permanents > spells for a while now. Really though, could just be a primal feeling of "permanence" that adds to the atmosphere of playing with toys for more than an instant. Like in the near-exclusivity of permanent interactions in board games. e: or what LordSaturn posted. It's a dog whistle term for "not interacting the way I would like to interact." Chill la Chill fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Okay thanks for actually defining the term which was what I was trying to get to - that is - to blast the term "non-interactive" for being nonsense as opposed to defending any kind of pet deck. To answer your question, some people have a problem with people playing combo decks because, instead of growing a board state and using spells as tricks, they essentially just wait until they can combo out. Storm's gameplay is essentially using its tools to manipulate its own hand until it has or thinks it can get to a win. It doesn't really do anything to the opponent to make this happen, and once it combos out most decks really can't come back. I don't necessarily agree with this; I have Maze's End and am planning on building Restore Balance and Breakfast Burrito, so I'm obviously fine with combo. I guess in conclusion LordSaturn posted:"Non-interactive" is kind of a weird and useless term;
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Fox of Stone posted:It's that permanents vs. spells thing I posted about earlier. I don't see a distinction either and I agree with you but you'll see a lot of players who do see a distinction. They feel like the game should strongly focus on the permanents-only side of the "dichotomy" (the realms of both aren't mutually exclusive but are different enough, mostly because not all colors get equal access to both spells and permanents like blue does). WotC has been making the importance of permanents > spells for a while now. I don't get how its complicated. Its like this. Its turn 3. I've just passed my turn after doing something, which didn't outright win the game. Storm goes. It combos' off and wins the game I have no ability to stop it because I dared to use my resources for a turn or didn't have one of a narrow range of cards that would prevent it from going off and winning the game. Permanents basically don't operate like this. If they do there is a wider range of cards available to prevent it from happening. Any instant speed removal spell can stop a splinter twin combo or pod combo basically. Death Bot posted:To answer your question, some people have a problem with people playing combo decks because, instead of growing a board state and using spells as tricks, they essentially just wait until they can combo out. Storm's gameplay is essentially using its tools to manipulate its own hand until it has or thinks it can get to a win. It doesn't really do anything to the opponent to make this happen, and once it combos out most decks really can't come back. It isn't just that. It is that plus the smaller array of answers for decks like Storm when they are combo'ing off. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 20:06
|
|