|
Hellsau posted:I wasn't sure what kind of finisher I wanted. Probably going to go down to 14 islands, add a cantrip and a Mind Sculpt as the finisher. Didn't want to put effort into it if it wasn't going to be playable tomorrow. I'd say Capsize is best. It can help you while you're still somewhat early in the combo, after a few High Tides it can go infinite with Cloud of Faeries, and you can bounce all your opponent's permanents and then bounce their first land each time they play it. Just remember not to wind up with too few cards in your library after comboing.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Hellsau posted:
I don't get it. What's the bug?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:I don't get it. What's the bug? High Tide and Merchant Scroll were commons in Fallen Empires and Homelands respectively, but on MTGO they're uncommons and normally aren't legal in Pauper. Other cards affected by this bug include Sinkhole, Strip Mine, and Hymn to Tourach.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I'd say Capsize is best. It can help you while you're still somewhat early in the combo, after a few High Tides it can go infinite with Cloud of Faeries, and you can bounce all your opponent's permanents and then bounce their first land each time they play it. Just remember not to wind up with too few cards in your library after comboing. I need a quick victory. Capsize just takes so much time to actually bounce everything, then I need to keep bouncing things while attacking them, and bouncing my Clouds if they get removal pointed at them. It just takes too much time. One option is Capsize + Crusher, since a Tide and a few free spells could just let me steal wins with a quick Crusher. Mind Sculpt is not a Sorcery. I only want to run one actual finisher, and I want it searchable to Merchant Scroll. It's Vision Charm's time to shine! MiddleEastBeast posted:I don't get it. What's the bug? High Tide, Hymn to Tourach, Sinkhole, Strip Mine, Merchant Scroll, and other sweet sweet cards were printed as commons in paper, but not online. They've previously not been legal in MTGO Pauper for very good reasons. Hymn, High Tide, and Strip Mine would be banned if they weren't already illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Alright that fuckin owns
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Is it possible they changed the rules on Pauper, or maybe they plan on changing them but it got implemented too soon by mistake?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Is it possible they changed the rules on Pauper, or maybe they plan on changing them but it got implemented too soon by mistake? You're talking about an eternal format where they banned Storm spells. There's no way this isn't a fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:You're talking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Is it possible they changed the rules on Pauper, or maybe they plan on changing them but it got implemented too soon by mistake? Yeah I was going to say, having them change it to sync up with the cardboard legality would be a pretty cool move on their part, only if that's what they were trying to do then they forgot the "ban stuff" step. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
This is just a prelude to the new format of vintage pauper and modern pauper
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
It's kind of amusing how far and fast fetchlands have fallen in value on MODO. I think some of the temples held value better than this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Yeah I was going to say, having them change it to sync up with the cardboard legality would be a pretty cool move on their part, only if that's what they were trying to do then they forgot the "ban stuff" step. The only advantage that has is to enable the Elemental Blasts to be playable in Pauper, which is dumb. Everything else is either useless or way overpowered. Also Sinkhole would be a $30 pauper card if not banned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
tirinal posted:It's kind of amusing how far and fast fetchlands have fallen in value on MODO. I think some of the temples held value better than this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
What does the MODO terms of agreement say about exploiting bugs? Will I get in trouble if I use my 4 Hymn to Tourach, 4 Sinkhole, 4 Strip Mine deck in a Pauper daily?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Didn't they kill pauper dailies/any way to make pauper profitable? Or did they keep the dailies but nerf the prizes or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:Didn't they kill pauper dailies/any way to make pauper profitable? Or did they keep the dailies but nerf the prizes or something? They nerfed prizes, but the events still fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Dumb question, are morphs valid targets for spells like sultai charm which stipulates the target has to be monocoloured or does being colourless not count?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
It would be great if it was indeed a giant oversight on Wizards' part but instead of owning up to it they realize they have an easy out and announce that it was their intention to align online Pauper legality with paper, just to avoid embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Wurzag posted:Dumb question, are morphs valid targets for spells like sultai charm which stipulates the target has to be monocoloured or does being colourless not count? Colourless is not monocoloured.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Wurzag posted:Dumb question, are morphs valid targets for spells like sultai charm which stipulates the target has to be monocoloured or does being colourless not count? Colorless does not count. See: Ultimate Price cannot kill Mutavault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:What does the MODO terms of agreement say about exploiting bugs? Will I get in trouble if I use my 4 Hymn to Tourach, 4 Sinkhole, 4 Strip Mine deck in a Pauper daily? AFAIK, all the bug exploit decks like Spirespine and Order of Succession are reprehensible but not bannable, so I'd expect this is fine too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:AFAIK, all the bug exploit decks like Spirespine and Order of Succession are reprehensible but not bannable, so I'd expect this is fine too. "Reprehensible, but not bannable". Sounds good to me!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Did glittering wish just get banned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I am glad I could bring all of this joy with news of this super loving goofy MODO bug.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Did glittering wish just get banned? I can't access magic.wizards.com to even tell you either way. All I know is the Gatherer still says it's Modern-legal. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I can't access magic.wizards.com to even tell you either way. All I know is the Gatherer still says it's Modern-legal. Banlists are only updated when they release a new set. Also if they ban Wish but not Ascendancy I will be furious and surprised, since you'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson with combo decks powered by three-mana enchantments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
I don't think they're going to ban Ascendancy before it can make some actual tournament appearances. As strong as it is, that'd be overly aggressive Meanwhile, banning Glittering Wish would just be silly
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
The real problem is I was checking out Maro's KTK card stories and the site broke before I could get to part 2. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
I'm sure they're comfortable sitting on it longer. I'd much rather see them ban Ascension and kill the deck rather than ban wish to try and make it "fair." Glittering Wish is a fun and cool card and I would be sad to see it banned. That plus banning Wish might just kill the deck anyway so why not just ban Ascension in the first place? EDIT: Ban Cerulian Wisps. mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Pro tip: If you Nemesis Wave for 6 and hit End Hostilities, put it on the stack after all the creatures. (Kenji just put it on the stack first and his reaction is golden, he's so deflated) What card is this referring to? I can't find one called Nemesis Wave, and Genesis Wave only hits permanents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Cozz posted:What card is this referring to? I can't find one called Nemesis Wave, and Genesis Wave only hits permanents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Cozz posted:What card is this referring to? I can't find one called Nemesis Wave, and Genesis Wave only hits permanents. Villainous Wealth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Cozz posted:What card is this referring to? I can't find one called Nemesis Wave, and Genesis Wave only hits permanents. I think it's a nickname for Villainous Wealth. Card nicknames are annoying. Except Taylor Swiftspear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick response, I didn't realize it was nicknamed Nemesis Wave. I also believe I looked at the card the other day and I'm surprised I didn't remember it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Wouldn't you resolve the Hostilities first, not last? You clear the board and get a bunch of creatures, right? Or is that what he meant due to the wording?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Wouldn't you resolve the Hostilities first, not last? You clear the board and get a bunch of creatures, right? Or is that what he meant due to the wording? Kenji mistakenly put it on the stack first, so it would resolve last and wipe any of the creatures he got anyway. Other than Ashcloud Phoenix anyway, which chat had to have a huge argument about because it doesn't specify 'under your control' or 'under its owner's control' on the card.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Wouldn't you resolve the Hostilities first, not last? You clear the board and get a bunch of creatures, right? Or is that what he meant due to the wording? In order to resolve it first, you must put it on the stack last. Last in, first out is the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:In order to resolve it first, you must put it on the stack last. Last in, first out is the rule. That's what I said, but the wording confused me at first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
On the subject of eternal format bannings, there's a lot of people already asking for Treasure Cruise to be banned, which is kind of weird / quick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
I don't think there's any way that Ascendency itself isn't the card that eats a ban if they go after the modern Ascendency deck. I could see them keeping it if there was a way to push it from a turn 3 to a turn 4 win, but the list of cards you'd have to ban to do that would be massive
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:48
|
|
