|
So what happens if you reverberate a howl of the horde? I'm guessing 5 of the next spell you cast?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Couldn't they have gotten sonething other than McDonald's though? This may sound like looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I would agree that serving that sort of thing is questionable. A nice gesture to be sure though. More mtg related; I've been play testing the 16 land super sligh deck posted in the brew thread and I love love love it. It's so low to the ground and so bleeding fast that In getting right under abzan midrange and jeskai alike. Titan strength and coordinated assault have put the fear of God into courser players when I declare attackers. The decision making is also a lot of fun, altogether very enjoyable to play so far, highly recommend it. Deofuta fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:Couldn't they have gotten sonething other than McDonald's though? This may sound like looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I would agree that serving that sort of thing is questionable. A nice gesture to be sure though. Maybe. But 50 cent burgers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:The most backbreaking play I've seen with Misdirection was Recall, Recall in response, Misdirection the second Recall in response, Misdirection the Misdirection for a net of 6 cards. And LSV still beat Smennnennen after he drew 7 cards in a turn!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Another nugget from the GP I forgot about until I went to clean out my phone just now:
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Does Disdainful Stroke counter an X spell (like Villainous Wealth) when the casting cost is greater than 4?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Does Disdainful Stroke counter an X spell (like Villainous Wealth) when the casting cost is greater than 4? Yes. When on the stack, X adds to the CMC. Anywhere else, X = 0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yes. When on the stack, X adds to the CMC. Anywhere else, X = 0. Thought so, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Wierd question: how do you guys test making really small changes to an existing deck? Is there any theory on it? I'm talking about like, 1 or 2 cards in a slow deck. This is one of the things that often makes me give up on brews, the final five percent or whatever that is incredibly important, sometimes I can test a new card for like 10 matches and see it twice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
I like drawing hundreds of sample hands with computer. Math works too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
field balm posted:Wierd question: how do you guys test making really small changes to an existing deck? Is there any theory on it? I'm talking about like, 1 or 2 cards in a slow deck. This is one of the things that often makes me give up on brews, the final five percent or whatever that is incredibly important, sometimes I can test a new card for like 10 matches and see it twice. I see pro testers doing a lot of 'fudging' - saving playtest time by, like, casually Scrying three on every draw step to help induce the situation they want to test. You don't want to just set up sample hands because that doesn't give you a feel for the odds, but fudging by a fixed amount should give you a loose feel for how likely it is that, say, you'll have an answer every time you see threat X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I see pro testers doing a lot of 'fudging' - saving playtest time by, like, casually Scrying three on every draw step to help induce the situation they want to test. You don't want to just set up sample hands because that doesn't give you a feel for the odds, but fudging by a fixed amount should give you a loose feel for how likely it is that, say, you'll have an answer every time you see threat X. Pro Tour theory: One interesting thing about this current standard is there are actually a ton of sweepers in the format, including ones that only hit your opponent's side of the board. It feels like if you figure out the perfect mix of cards for the early game, the rest of the game you're gonna be 1-for-2+ing so much that no deck can come back from it including control decks. If I kill my opponent's 2-6 wincons in a control match up, they just flat out lose the game plus lose sideboarded games right now. No one is running graveyard recursion. WB would probably be the nut control deck. Plenty of kill spells that hit stormbreath while also having exiling effects for annoying enchantments. We all know Elspeth completely wins games, and Resolute Archangel can reset your side of the board in such a huge way. Korak fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Oh man, thank you to whoever mentioned Puca Trade a few pages back! I'm getting rid of a bunch of old cards that were just collecting dust, and turning them into useful Khans cards. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:Oh man, thank you to whoever mentioned Puca Trade a few pages back! I'm getting rid of a bunch of old cards that were just collecting dust, and turning them into useful Khans cards. I have some guys sending me a couple cards I needed to pick up but didn't feel like spending 10 bucks on. This is also way cooler than going to the shop and getting half of what you should for your stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Last night of VMA: that Ancestral Recall. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Just thinkin' bout it, but doesn't Eidolon of Rhetoric completely turn off the Jeskai Ascendancy combo win? The 1/4 body keeps it outside of range of Magma Jet/Spray, Lightning Strike, Anger of the Gods, Bile Blight, etc. etc. The 2W cost is a little worrisome, but if you're on the play you can get that down before Jeskai Ascendancy even hits the board. edit: Ahh jeez, they'll probably just bounce him with Retraction Helix and keep going. Nevermind...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:Oh man, thank you to whoever mentioned Puca Trade a few pages back! I'm getting rid of a bunch of old cards that were just collecting dust, and turning them into useful Khans cards. Can you explain how it works? I'm still a little confused; are you just sending cards to people who want it, and that earns you cred until you can request a certain card? Or something???
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:Just thinkin' bout it, but doesn't Eidolon of Rhetoric completely turn off the Jeskai Ascendancy combo win? The 1/4 body keeps it outside of range of Magma Jet/Spray, Lightning Strike, Anger of the Gods, Bile Blight, etc. etc. Well, there are two Ascendancy combo decks in standard floating around. The one with Dragon Mantles and Stratus Walks does have a problem with that effect. Either way I'm not sure how important dealing with that deck will actually be; I suspect not at all, but Eidolon of the Great Revel shuts the deck off completely, and Thoughtseize is also a fairly brutal weapon against it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Can you explain how it works? I'm still a little confused; are you just sending cards to people who want it, and that earns you cred until you can request a certain card? Or something??? Yeah, pretty much exactly that. You just list the cards you have, and the cards you want, and their system matches you up with people who want cards you have. All you do is send cards to people, and in turn, people send cards to you. No money involved, aside from the postage costs, which you eat. I live in rural Japan, and I have a tough time getting to the nearest shop, whose selection is pretty limited anyway, so for me it's a really useful tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:Yeah, pretty much exactly that. You just list the cards you have, and the cards you want, and their system matches you up with people who want cards you have. Alrighty; I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, but that seems pretty interesting. Once I have some time I guess I'll just get my entire collection online.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo Pearl Lake Ancient sucks rear end. Even in limited its not worth picking because it gets chumped by everything because WOTC was too loving chicken to let a 7 mana mythic have trample, flying or any kind of evasion whatsoever. I don't understand how the gently caress they put stuff like Siege Rhino and Wingmate Roc in the set and let this bullshit get through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Alrighty; I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, but that seems pretty interesting. Once I have some time I guess I'll just get my entire collection online. A few things to note before you jump in -- it may take some time before you get the cards you want. It depends on whether you have the points to afford the card, whether that card is being offered by someone, and whether they're willing to ship to you. Also, officially, Puca Trade only supports trades in Mint/Near Mint cards and only English cards (although I found lots of people who are OK with receiving non-English cards).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Holy loving poo poo Pearl Lake Ancient sucks rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Holy loving poo poo Pearl Lake Ancient sucks rear end. Even in limited its not worth picking because it gets chumped by everything because WOTC was too loving chicken to let a 7 mana mythic have trample, flying or any kind of evasion whatsoever. I don't understand how the gently caress they put stuff like Siege Rhino and Wingmate Roc in the set and let this bullshit get through. Someone is going to tell you that you're being unreasonable and that "not every card is for you." I always thought this argument was horseshit though because I can't imagine anyone refusing to play a card that WotC made playable. Are there really people out there that would be sad if this or that dumbshit phase turtle had trample?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Pearl Lake Accident seems like a card that is valid only if you get off a flash kill on something big or flash it in when your opponent will be dead on board to your set up. Otherwise yeah I dunno, doesn't seem like it does much more than the big Loxodon. The thing that's dumb is that in Limited its not like you can somehow finagle an empty board on turn seven. I just played him and got chumped by that one mana dork with 2 mana regeneration until his fliers pinged me to death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
fadam posted:Someone is going to tell you that you're being unreasonable and that "not every card is for you." I always thought this argument was horseshit though because I can't imagine anyone refusing to play a card that WotC made playable. Are there really people out there that would be sad if this or that dumbshit phase turtle had trample? Well you see our market research indicates that Timmy really, really loves having his big splashy creature shut down by a 1/1 mana elf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Wizards attempts to print the necessary cards for just about every archetype in every standard format, even if they don't expect the archetype to actually go anywhere. Pearl Lake Ancient is a bit of a letdown compared to Aetherling, but in the games where a resilient blue control finisher is valuable, it's one of them. It's a pretty lame mythic for Limited though, and since it doesn't seem like blue control is very viable in current standard, it seems without a home there either. It's still worth printing though just in case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The thing that's dumb is that in Limited its not like you can somehow finagle an empty board on turn seven. I just played him and got chumped by that one mana dork with 2 mana regeneration until his fliers pinged me to death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Pearl Lake Ancient is clearly designed for the blue control mirror specifically. Until/unless permission-heavy control decks become a thing, it'll just sit in binders, but as soon as they emerge, he'll be there waiting to take up 1-2 sideboard slots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
In an alternate universe, goons are bemoaning the decision to take a fatty that has flash, uncounterability, and dodges removal (albeit in a resource-limited fashion) and give it immunity to being meaningfully chump blocked as well. I mean, it seems obvious in hindsight that they could have pushed it a little bit more, especially at 7 mana and with you being able to return it to hand once, maybe twice in a reasonable game, but I can see Wizards not wanting to tickle the tiger's tail in that department. As Myriad Truths said, push it a little too far the other way and you get Aetherling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Pearl Lake Ancient is clearly designed for the blue control mirror specifically. Until/unless permission-heavy control decks become a thing, it'll just sit in binders, but as soon as they emerge, he'll be there waiting to take up 1-2 sideboard slots. Yeah, in fact that's actually why they gave it Prowess (which is obviously a super weird ability to see on a 6/7) - Pearl Lake Ancient is supposed to be a trump card for the blue control mirror, and it's obviously a bad idea if your mirror trump bounces off itself in combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:It exists to that you can have the immense satisfaction of tearing it in half. I once got a foil Mindreaver from a pack for Sealed, and it met that exact fate. yeah, it's probably time my 3 copies of this shitburger met the same fate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
In fairness, Mindreaver could see play just for being a UU creature with 2 power if enough other devotion enablers show up. Literally just one or two more devotion enablers get printed (which is possible, since the rest of Khans block isn't wedge-based) and mono-U devotion comes back swinging. Especially since now it can even counter the board wipe against control decks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
fadam posted:Someone is going to tell you that you're being unreasonable and that "not every card is for you." I always thought this argument was horseshit though because I can't imagine anyone refusing to play a card that WotC made playable. Are there really people out there that would be sad if this or that dumbshit phase turtle had trample? Someone in this thread or the last one told me I was being unreasonable for calling Eternity Snare a bad card, their justification being "it's removal, which makes it perfectly viable in limited."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Pearl Lake Accident seems like a card- Was this on purpose or was it an accident?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Jabor posted:In fairness, Mindreaver could see play just for being a UU creature with 2 power if enough other devotion enablers show up. Literally just one or two more devotion enablers get printed (which is possible, since the rest of Khans block isn't wedge-based) and mono-U devotion comes back swinging. Yeah, Mindreaver is in a weird spot. The card is far from atrocious at being a Devotion card (it's Goblin Piker / Coral Merfolk), but it suffers from the psychological effect that Mark Rosewater talks about where people evaluate cards with any sort of text poorly. Still think it's a longshot, but once in a while a desirable effect gets there. fadam posted:Someone is going to tell you that you're being unreasonable and that "not every card is for you." I always thought this argument was horseshit though because I can't imagine anyone refusing to play a card that WotC made playable. Are there really people out there that would be sad if this or that dumbshit phase turtle had trample? The bottom of the power curve still has to exist, man. Would you really rather have them aim for "probably not too good" instead of "playable, but weak" for filler cards?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Niton posted:Yeah, Mindreaver is in a weird spot. The card is far from atrocious at being a Devotion card (it's Goblin Piker / Coral Merfolk), but it suffers from the psychological effect that Mark Rosewater talks about where people evaluate cards with any sort of text poorly. Still think it's a longshot, but once in a while a desirable effect gets there. For me, it was more the fact that it was a Wetland Sambar that took up my rare slot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:For me, it was more the fact that it was a Wetland Sambar that took up my rare slot. Speaking of that dude, Elk seems like a weird creature type for a Blue common. I'm not sure what else exists on Tarkir that they could have used, though. Also it's totally different, it costs UU  But you're right, it is an exceptionally boring rare, I just don't think there's anything wrong with the card itself as an example of an underpowered creature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
At prerelease, I saw a guy flash in the Ancient, bounce 3 lands, hold priority bounce 3 more lands, and recast the Ancient. This meant he had no more islands for his opponent's Durdle Turtle to walk through, and allowed him to return a lethal attack when he was otherwise dead to unblockable damage. When did Aetherling ever remove landwalk from a card? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
suicidesteve posted:At prerelease, I saw a guy flash in the Ancient, bounce 3 lands, hold priority bounce 3 more lands, and recast the Ancient. This meant he had no more islands for his opponent's Durdle Turtle to walk through, and allowed him to return a lethal attack when he was otherwise dead to unblockable damage. When did Aetherling ever remove landwalk from a card? The best thing about the existence of complicated bad cards is that it allows amazing stories like this to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:52
|
|
