|
Zorak posted:
This is what I wanted to know and didn't know exactly how to parse it, thanks.
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Zorak posted:You can cast Turn on Master of Waves, as Turn is blue. This would incidentally kill its tokens. I had this same issue come up at a big event. My opponent wanted to Turn//Burn my Fiendslayer Paladin, and he didn't believe me that this is not allowed, since you must target both halves at the same time. You don't get to resolve the first half THEN target it with the second half after it loses the relevant ability. He was pretty pissed, it cost him the match, but that's what you get for not understanding your own cards. I'll never understand playing cards in your deck without researching these interactions thoroughly (it's not like this was a bizarre corner-case, I'm pretty sure protection and targeting were mentioned in the very first article discussing the Fuse mechanic), but then most of these people just netdeck a list that won the previous week's event and don't even practice with it beforehand, so  .
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
A fun one is that Soldier of the Pantheon can be targeted by either half of Turn//Burn separately, but not if you fuse it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:This is what I wanted to know and didn't know exactly how to parse it, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Anyone got any ideas when they're going to go deep into spoilers on the next two big product releases? We're less than three weeks away from the modern pre-con, and all we know about it is that it might be BW Tokens, per the mockup, and we've got what, three? cards from Conspiracy. Are they going to do spoilers on both at the JOU Grand Prix next week, or will they spread it out a bit more? Unless they do something ridiculously underpowered, I'm buying at least a box if not two, of conspiracy for fun drafting, especially since my local store has already said that they're going standard booster box price on it, unlike Modern Masters, where they doubled MSRP per pack, and went 250 per box.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:This is what I wanted to know and didn't know exactly how to parse it, thanks. Fun fact: you can actually kill Master of Waves with 2 copies of Turn/Burn in your hand!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
qbert posted:Fun fact: you can actually kill Master of Waves with 2 copies of Turn/Burn in your hand! Fun fact #2: just casting Turn will kill all the token dorks.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
kizudarake posted:Anyone got any ideas when they're going to go deep into spoilers on the next two big product releases? We're less than three weeks away from the modern pre-con, and all we know about it is that it might be BW Tokens, per the mockup, and we've got what, three? cards from Conspiracy. Are they going to do spoilers on both at the JOU Grand Prix next week, or will they spread it out a bit more? Well, MaRo said at the end of his article today, "Join me next week, when a third of what I say will be a lie." I took that to mean he'd be talking a bit about the conspiracy set then.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Mikujin posted:I'm doing 1 less Nykthos than the above currently, and I already hate how often I can get locked off a T3 Nightveil. If I bring in more Nykthos', they'll be at the cost of Mutavaults. I think it might be correct to go to 3 Mutavault's and stay with 2 Nykthos, adding an island, just for the T3 Specter as you point out above.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:Well, MaRo said at the end of his article today, "Join me next week, when a third of what I say will be a lie." I took that to mean he'd be talking a bit about the conspiracy set then. I got pretty upset at his article when he glossed over the design process behind Knowledge and Power (although the mana costs on that card might be a development thing rather than a design one) and then when he glossed over the arachne myth because it's a common glossing over that changes a theme of the myth.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Zorak posted:An interesting thing I've not seen people talk about much is the fact that the changes Wizards is making to the Card frame, with the cards now being machine-readable, opens up a lot of things in terms of consistent pack make ups and other similar things. One of the earlier versions of the Day/Night mechanic that became double-sided cards used paired cards that would be in the same pack and would always be together. But since the printers couldn't guarantee it consistently due to how the card sheets were collated into packs, they had to move away from it. With this change, technically they can map packs potentially much more precisely / exactly. I would quite enjoy WotC being able to include the correct token with a token producing card if it shows up in a pack since there's nothing that annoys me more irrationally than players representing token creatures with dice. "I'll attack with a minotaur and a bird, leaving this enchantment bird and boar token back to block." *points to four dice set to 2* 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Zorak posted:An interesting thing I've not seen people talk about much is the fact that the changes Wizards is making to the Card frame, with the cards now being machine-readable, opens up a lot of things in terms of consistent pack make ups and other similar things. One of the earlier versions of the Day/Night mechanic that became double-sided cards used paired cards that would be in the same pack and would always be together. But since the printers couldn't guarantee it consistently due to how the card sheets were collated into packs, they had to move away from it. With this change, technically they can map packs potentially much more precisely / exactly. I wonder if it might mean they can much more nearly truly randomize their packs. The cards are supposed to be completely randomized in packs, but logistically, print runs mean that certain commons will often appear with one another in the same pack and rares can be mapped based on pack order. It could be possible to abstract cards from their locations on the sheet and the machine could sort the cards based on a separate RNG instead. Assuming they keep updating their seed it would mean near-true randomization. Also, I realized the other week that the new frame isn't completely new - it's been used for years on Planeswalkers.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
BXCX posted:I would quite enjoy WotC being able to include the correct token with a I had this conversation with some of the guys at my LCS and while it would be great, it probably won't happen just because it makes those packs slightly fatter and is probably more work than they want to put out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I had this conversation with some of the guys at my LCS and while it would be great, it probably won't happen just because it makes those packs slightly fatter and is probably more work than they want to put out. Tokens replace those rules cards that come in every pack anyway, though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I had this conversation with some of the guys at my LCS and while it would be great, it probably won't happen just because it makes those packs slightly fatter and is probably more work than they want to put out. Like Vomax said, you just make sure that if you get a token producing card in your pack, you get an appropriate token instead of a pointless advertising card or unrelated token.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
What if you get more than one token producer in your pack? You might get Curse of the Swine in the same pack as the guy who makes Soliders off heroic.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
mehall posted:What if you get more than one token producer in your pack? Would be nice for the rares/mythics.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
SketchyPlane posted:Not sure this went far enough: Battlefield should be the friend zone 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Battlefield should be the friend zone Do you think love can bloom, even in the friend zone?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
ScarletBrother posted:He obviously meant 'non-rotating' because 'eternal' means 'all cards ever printed' in Magic lingo. Only Legacy and Vintage are 'eternal', but both of those and Modern are non-rotating. No need to be pedantic. I always thought "eternal" meant "once a card enters the format it's in eternally unless it gets banned".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I always thought "eternal" meant "once a card enters the format it's in eternally unless it gets banned".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I always thought "eternal" meant "once a card enters the format it's in eternally unless it gets banned". This is pretty much the context I use the term in. Considering how little Vintage is played these days, the fact that there's an umbrella term for 'Legacy+Vintage' but not one for 'Legacy+Modern' is kind of baffling.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Promoted Pawn posted:This is pretty much the context I use the term in. Considering how little Vintage is played these days, the fact that there's an umbrella term for 'Legacy+Vintage' but not one for 'Legacy+Modern' is kind of baffling. What about "The Good Formats"? I seriously love Legacy and Modern, they're so interesting to watch, especially Legacy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Are you telling me "non-rotating formats not counting Vintage" doesn't just roll off the tongue?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I always thought "eternal" meant "once a card enters the format it's in eternally unless it gets banned". Commander is also an eternal format then
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Are you telling me "non-rotating formats not counting Vintage" doesn't just roll off the tongue? Technically block constructed is also a non-rotating format (with the lone exception of Ice Age block, which had an additional set added about a decade later)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Every format is eternal, some are just more eternal then others.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
revengeanceful posted:This is an easy way to think about it, but based on the official MtG Tournament Rules, the only Eternal formats are Legacy and Vintage. See Section 3.2. But wouldn't that also include Pauper? Anyways, screw whatever the official line is, "eternal" means pauper, legacy, vintage, and modern and I'm going to keep using it like that even if nerds insist on being stupid about it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
"Eternal formats" is the new "strictly better than."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Fox of Stone posted:"Eternal formats" is the new "strictly better than." "eternal formats" is strictly better than "strictly better than"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:Every format is eternal, some are just more eternal then others. My cards will obviously be more eternal than yours...I double sleeve.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:My cards will obviously be more eternal than yours...I double sleeve. I play with each card in a top loader 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:I play with each card in a top loader They better already be double sleeved with a sleeve cover before adding the top loader.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:They better already be double sleeved with a sleeve cover before adding the top loader. Toploaders are for scrubs. I feel bad for anyone who doesn't have all their decks double sleeved plus sleeve covers inside screwdown cases.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:They better already be double sleeved with a sleeve cover before adding the top loader. I play my pauper deck in a 2 foot-high stack of slabs. It takes some muscle to use scry.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
You guys all suck because you should all clearly be doing this: Except, of course, that your lands should be in front of your creatures because apparently that's a thing that bothers people. Also in one big stack, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
BXCX posted:Toploaders are for scrubs. I feel bad for anyone who doesn't have all their decks double sleeved plus sleeve covers inside screwdown cases. Screwdowns inside team bags
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Back in my day, we didn't sleeve our cards! We'd just shuffle our decks like we were playing Poker, and when they got to the point where the backs are mostly spotty/faded and were no longer rigid enough for shuffling, we'd just buy another couple packs of Homelands.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Zoness posted:You guys all suck because you should all clearly be doing this: I, too, would like tap 4 for a Shivan Dragon.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Elyv posted:I, too, would like tap 4 for a Shivan Dragon. There are clearly 6 lands tapped in that picture. But I mean, it's greasy neckbeards handling the cards so they're obviously going to be stacking their lands on top of each other.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:22
|
|