|
Sen-dart posted:How often do you think the wrong Urborg is going to be named when casting Pithing Needle on Modo to turn of an Underworld connections during super standard? (only case I could think of were this might realistically occur) At least once, and I'd like to see screenshots when it does. I'd love an Urborg reprint just because I rarely get the chance to use flavour text from classic literature nowadays.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Does MODO let you choose cards that aren't in the format?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Does MODO let you choose cards that aren't in the format? You can name any card that exists online when naming with Pithing Needle or Slaughter Games or Meddling Mage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:At least once, and I'd like to see screenshots when it does. I'd love an Urborg reprint just because I rarely get the chance to use flavour text from classic literature nowadays. RIP Scathe Zombies and the perfect quote from Rime of the Ancient Mariner
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Hey does anyone have a link to an rss feed for the mothership? Mine stopped working with the changeover...
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
I think Profane Momento needs to go into my EDH deck, since the flavour text references maybe my favourite card. Eternal Thirst is one of those cards I would really like to work. I might Standard-ize my BW Theros heroic deck to use it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Gensuki posted:...I think you have those mixed up, also I checked his DotP bio thing and Garruk is listed at 8'2". Ajani is not in the game like that though... D14 - latest information - gives my numbers for them both. 
Sleep of Bronze fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:21
|
|
Brian Kibler's stream is amazing right now  
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I'm recently getting back into Magic and it has been an interesting couple of weeks. I know that longtime players are simply going to have much more card knowledge, but I'm starting to notice that everyone discusses decks like they're well-known setups. They refer to decks by name "my ___ deck" and others know what that means. I'm not just talking about terms like "aggro deck" or "control deck". They seem to have proper nouns that suggest some kind of strategy. What's the deal? EDIT: I have a Red/Black standard deck that uses Festering Newt+Bogbrew Witch+Bubbling Cauldron, along with things like Portent of Betrayal. Would I call this my "Festering Newt Deck" and generally be understood? Macintosh HD fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Generally any given constructed format ends up with some main decks plus a few more known but lesser decks. Anyone following the format will know what those decks are offhand just by name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:I'm recently getting back into Magic and it has been an interesting couple of weeks. I know that longtime players are simply going to have much more card knowledge, but I'm starting to notice that everyone discusses decks like they're well-known setups. They refer to decks by name "my ___ deck" and others know what that means. I'm not just talking about terms like "aggro deck" or "control deck". They seem to have proper nouns that suggest some kind of strategy. It's that you can be more specific; there are a few setups which are more common in various formats. For example, if we were talking about Standard and someone said "My Esper Control deck", I would know they meant a 3-color control deck built around Sphinx's Revelation, with Supreme Verdict for boardsweeping and with black for various removal spells and discard and probably kills with Aetherling or Elspeth, Sun's Champion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Generally any given constructed format ends up with some main decks plus a few more known but lesser decks. Anyone following the format will know what those decks are offhand just by name. Elyv posted:It's that you can be more specific; there are a few setups which are more common in various formats. For example, if we were talking about Standard and someone said "My Esper Control deck", I would know they meant a 3-color control deck built around Sphinx's Revelation, with Supreme Verdict for boardsweeping and with black for various removal spells and discard and probably kills with Aetherling or Elspeth, Sun's Champion. So, this seems to be popular, winning decks that emerge and get published online and eventually spawn trends in the format? EDIT: As a for instance, my deck is basically this with a couple changes I made to it (remove some of the control spells in favor of some Tenacious Dead and some Elixir of Immortality's). Macintosh HD fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:I'm recently getting back into Magic and it has been an interesting couple of weeks. I know that longtime players are simply going to have much more card knowledge, but I'm starting to notice that everyone discusses decks like they're well-known setups. They refer to decks by name "my ___ deck" and others know what that means. I'm not just talking about terms like "aggro deck" or "control deck". They seem to have proper nouns that suggest some kind of strategy. As far as proper nouns go, we often use the Ravnica guild names to describe color combinations (Black/Red = Rakdos, Blue/White = Azorius, etc...) when describing decks. In the case of your Festering Newt deck, I imagine most would call it a Rakdos Bogbrew Witch deck, or something. People sometimes use the Alara Shard names to describe 3-color combinations, such as Esper (Black/Blue/White), Jund (Black/Red/Green) or Bant (Blue/White/Green) to the same end. Lastly, if you're talking about things like "my Cephalid Breakfast deck" or "this Sligh deck," those are pet-names that have developed over time to refer to decks with specific interactions or playstyles -- usually you just have to know what those mean, because there's no way to tell by looking at the name. Those just come with time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:D14 - latest information - gives my numbers for them both. Garruk is a human? I guess that makes sense, but I always thought he was a beastman of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Sen-dart posted:How often do you think the wrong Urborg is going to be named when casting Pithing Needle on Modo to turn of an Underworld connections during super standard? (only case I could think of were this might realistically occur) I'm pretty sure there's a rule that when you have to name a card for something, you can't name a card that's not legal in the format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I'm pretty sure there's a rule that when you have to name a card for something, you can't name a card that's not legal in the format. Yep: quote:201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
You best be careful about naming things though, god forbid you just say shackles or some junk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:As far as proper nouns go, we often use the Ravnica guild names to describe color combinations (Black/Red = Rakdos, Blue/White = Azorius, etc...) when describing decks. In the case of your Festering Newt deck, I imagine most would call it a Rakdos Bogbrew Witch deck, or something. Got it, thanks! I didn't realize they were referencing the Magic lore with the deck names.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:You best be careful about naming things though, god forbid you just say shackles or some junk. The rule is meant to help in those situation, if a player says "Shackles" in Modern his opponent should tell him to name a legal card. In Legacy, though, naming Shackles is a valid play and you're not going to take it back. Technically though you just need to uniquely identify the card, so you could cast your Pithing Needle and name "that 3-mana artifact that taps to gain control of a creature."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:The rule is meant to help in those situation, if a player says "Shackles" in Modern his opponent should tell him to name a legal card. In Legacy, though, naming Shackles is a valid play and you're not going to take it back. Technically though you just need to uniquely identify the card, so you could cast your Pithing Needle and name "that 3-mana artifact that taps to gain control of a creature." Shackles deserves a modern reprint. It's a good limited card with solid flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:Got it, thanks! I didn't realize they were referencing the Magic lore with the deck names. Deck names get really weird. There aren't really conventions for naming, it's just what happens to stick. If you say "my phrexian plaguelord deck" no one will know you're talking about "the rock and his millions." Hell, team america isn't even red white blue. Modern affinity doesn't use affinity besides thoughtcast. Call your deck whatever you want, and when it gets famous we can laugh at how dumb the name is!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:Got it, thanks! I didn't realize they were referencing the Magic lore with the deck names. Magic lore, breakfast cereals, pro wrestling, Sealab 2021,
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Magic lore, breakfast cereals, pro wrestling, Sealab 2021, Also, a lot of them just refer to mechanics. Mono Blue Devotion is just a blue deck built around the devotion mechanic. Br Vampires was just a tribal aggro deck that used synergies within the vampire tribe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Yeah, there are going to be names that don't make much sense. I was just curious about the names that people other than myself seem to recognize and understand, despite not being descriptive at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a couple categories of deck names: 1) The in-joke/weird reference: Examples: "What's Red and green and goes really fast? A Frog in a Blender" Got a Black/Blue/Green made out of all the best cards that aren't played in the US? Call it Team America. Got a mono-blue combo deck that decks people by playing only things on the opponent's turn? Name it after a limited common that you just played(Solidarity) Made a combo deck in the late 90s? Name it after a breakfast cereal(Fruity Pebbles, Cocoa Pebbles, Trix, Full English Breakfast) and lots of other weird things, some of which I don't know(eg Freshmaker or Nic Fit) 2) Functional, named after a key card(s) or mechanic/color (Mono blue devotion, Ravager Affinity, Rec/Sur, Pros/Bloom, Psychatog, UG Madness, Necro, Storm, etc) 3) Classics: Deck names that have been around forever and existed in some form for most of that time (UW Control, Zoo, White Weenie, Red Deck Wins, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:Yeah, there are going to be names that don't make much sense. I was just curious about the names that people other than myself seem to recognize and understand, despite not being descriptive at all. Yeah there's a body of jargon that you can pick up if you spend enough time reading or talking about Magic that makes sentences like "my Esper deck is pre-sideboarded for the Revelation mirror" intelligible. The line between intelligibility and unintelligibility is drawn by your own experience with and immersion in that body of jargon. There are a number of people in this very thread who could tell you the difference between 'Team America' and 'Team Italia', or the etymology of Twin-Blade, or know offhand what Trix and Solidarity and Maverick are. They could tell you how and why Vintage Dredge and Standard Dredge are totally unrelated decks. Most people in this thread could, I bet, do some but not all of these things. Magic is a complicated game with a long history and it's played mostly by people who think they're very clever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:D14 - latest information - gives my numbers for them both. Ah, I was going by 2013. I guess Garruk shrunk down a bit between games? That still makes the picture weird... Tiny Garruk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Yeah, there's a couple categories of deck names: Stopping here because these are the only good deck names. The nice thing is that memes have starting creeping into deck name usage and I can't wait until an appropriate doge deck is created. There was a honey badger deck made a couple years back which was really cool too. It's really sad that SCG has a stranglehold on deck names and they make them really bad and boring all the time. "Shot in the dark" would've been named UB artifacts and Canadian thresh has already been downgraded to RUG delver.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:It's really sad that SCG has a stranglehold on deck names and they make them really bad and boring all the time. "Shot in the dark" would've been named UB artifacts and Canadian thresh has already been downgraded to RUG delver. Bugsy probably remembers what I'm talking about since he watched AWiy's show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Macintosh HD posted:Yeah, there are going to be names that don't make much sense. I was just curious about the names that people other than myself seem to recognize and understand, despite not being descriptive at all. It should be noted, nowadays most new decks are given functional names based on their colour combo, cards used, and strategy (eg: Melira Pod is a deck with Melira, Sylvok Outcast and Birthing Pod, Dredge uses cards with the dredge mechanic) Most of the really incomprehensible historical terms like Cephalid Breakfast, Sligh, etc. are historical. In major tournaments, players submit their decklists for coverage purposes and there's a field for deck name. "Back in the day," it was common for players with offbeat decks to give their deck a creative name, and then if they were the first one to perform well with it, coverage magazines/sites would publish their deck with that name. Those names were a way for the player to lay claim as the originator of a deck archetype, sometimes blatantly (eg: aggressive decks based on low-cost red creatures are called "Sligh" because Paul Sligh was the first player to put up good tournament results with one.) Then some time within the last five years ago, major coverage sites Daily MTG and StarCityGames moved away from publishing deck names that weren't descriptive, because coverage was getting very inaccessible for new players given that all the decks had nonsensical vanity names.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
I don't mind 'obvious' deck names as long as they're at least a little interesting like 'Omni-Tell' or 'Sneak and Show'. 'RUG Delver' is just the most boring thing imaginable; you couldn't even call it 'Bug in a RUG'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Elyv posted:(eg Freshmaker or Nic Fit) Freshmaker is a Lorthos deck right? Because that's a not at all obscure joke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Freshmaker is a Lorthos deck right? Because that's a not at all obscure joke. Freshmaker was actually an original Mirrodin Standard RG hate deck that was preboarded against affinity, often running cards like Molder Slug or Oxidize main. It was still like 55-60% at best against Ravager Affinity because Ravager Affinity was just much more powerful than it and could often grind it down with 1 for 1s. Also, unsurprisingly, it was much worse against the rest of the field. Edit: Sample list, IIRC a bit more extreme on the hate than most
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Glenn Jones while he worked there admitted they basically try to keep the deck names simple because people complain about them and its a hassle to keep them organized. He said they largely didn't enjoy doing it or something like that. I mostly hear the groaning from the deck creator side of the experience since Geirhart had to argue a bunch to get them to call his creation what he wanted. I can see standard decks doing t since they rotate so quickly but eternal decks tend to get locked with those names for life so it's a waste to call them something boring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
I had an RUB deck that centered around milling and burning an opponent and bringing out a consuming aberration for the win that I called Milburn Drysdale. I also called my version of the cheap gates deck from Inn-RTR block standard Dr. Crusher, because she was played by GATES McFadden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
There are still occasionally whimsical deck names these days, even in standard--see Caw-Blade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Elyv posted:lots of other weird things, some of which I don't know(eg Freshmaker or Nic Fit) I think that Nic Fit was a typo in the original mention of the deck, but I'm not sure what exactly the context was. Maybe that a card was a nice fit in a deck brew, but I really can't guess beyond that. The good spot for me with names is something like Sneak and Show. It's a name more amusing than "Red-Blue Cheat Guys Into Play", but it's not a random reference, and it's not a total shot in the dark to guess that it uses Sneak Attack and Show and Tell to cheat guys into play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
vOv posted:I don't mind 'obvious' deck names as long as they're at least a little interesting like 'Omni-Tell' or 'Sneak and Show'. 'RUG Delver' is just the most boring thing imaginable; you couldn't even call it 'Bug in a RUG'? "Omni-Tell" is good but I've always kinda wished it was "Show & Know" or "Know & Tell." I like "Bug in a RUG" but it would probably confuse some people who would mix it up with BUG Delver. Speaking of BUG though, it's always fun when you find out that half your playgroup had been thinking of RWU whenever the other half mentioned "Team America" for a span of months. We didn't notice the confusion until one of them questioned the wisdom of splashing for double-B Hymn. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
And of course, you have the case where a deck name sticks around even after the ability it's named after is no longer relevant. Any deck built around a bunch of low cost artifacts is "Affinity" and any deck built around self-milling is "Dredge".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Serperoth posted:Maybe that a card was a nice fit in a deck brew, but I really can't guess beyond that. You can't be serious. Nicotine fit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:53
|
|
