|
Does it really matter whether it says "$10.21" or "1021 pucapoints"?
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Not everyone is American or used to thinking about cards in USD either. Not that anyone is going to be used to 'points' at first though. I imagine obscuring the value helps the system too. "Wait, I could have sold these 50 cards for $1k? What am I doing with my life!?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I imagine using points has more to do with avoiding certain headaches than anything else. I'm guessing if you set up an exchange where people trade each other imaginary wizard poker currency instead of real money you save your self a pile of legal questions and concerns. Yawgmoth posted:By this logic all trading by a set price guide is just rapid fire buying and selling. No it is not. For example if I wanted I could get rid of all my cards and never get a single card mailed to me in return. Puca Trade isn't working like a three way trade in the slightest. It's not you sending a Dark Confidant to someone who has a Lion's Eye Diamond, so they can send the Lion's Eye Diamond to someone else who then sends you a Force of Will, that's a "three way trade". Puca Trade just connects you with someone who wants a Dark Confidant and gives you a number of points for it, which you could then use to get a Lion's Eye Diamond or a Force of Will, that's more analogous to selling than it is to trading. Yawgmoth posted:you'd seriously rather sell your cards and lose money, and then spend more money later on to get other cards using that cash, than you would to trade cards on a site for trading and get those cards' actual values? And this is somehow better because "heh, I get cash You're assuming using money as the medium to exchange cards is a loss in value. It doesn't have to be, and in fact its worked out great for me. In two years I've completed a play-set of Dual Lands, have pretty much every legacy playable outside a few random things like a tabernacle or the abyss and I have three pieces of P9, I also have no income to speak of and spend maybe 50 bucks a month on Magic. I've also been able to buy a new PC, get my girlfriend a phone, and pay for all sorts of random poo poo from my silly Wizard Poker portfolio. I would have never been able to do that if I worked with Puca Trade instead of cash. So yeah cash is better than Puca Points, I've no idea why you find that to be smug. Its better than Bitcoin, its better than Home Depot gift cards, Cash is King man. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:10
|
|
"
|
Pucatrade chat makes me glad I can sell cards for cash back home in the Philippines. There is no trading cards for cards there - all transactions are cash for cards. If you want to get another card you then use that cash for it. Sadly the culture is different here in the states but maybe there are other regions of the world where this is also true? Though part of the reason why this might be the case is that all non-gaming activities are done outside the stores, which are in malls, due to space constraints. Since you're outside you might as well exchange cash. The best part is that due to the difficulty in obtaining legacy cards, I can almost get full retail value for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
So I haven't played Magic in... at least 10 years. Closer to 15 maybe. I've been getting back into it lately and I've noticed that mechanics have become really complex. Another thing I've noticed is that back in the day, they used to laugh at you for having a deck that relied on combos (they would consider that so cheesy as to be borderline cheating), but nowadays that's the norm? And the cards have got so explicit with the combos that they actually help you out by making you search for the other combo cards? (I'm referring to this trifecta of cards I saw in a youtube video that were a bog witch, a cauldron and a festering newt) There's no mana burn anymore.  Having cards that forced an enemy to tap his lands used to be a viable way of making him lose life. It was like Blue's version of a Red damage spell.So what else is radically new? I've been told that there are no longer 40-turn games, that things usually get decided by turn 5, and that decks are usually small and to the point (and rely on combos). All of this makes me extremely sad. I've seen some stuff from this cool Gothic expansion that has Red cards that I am actually interested for the first time ever (weren't werewolves Green? Doesn't matter though, I like that they got moved to Red, gives that awful colour something appealing). That expansion also gave ghosts and spirits to White and that is the absolute best thing that could have possibly happened to White. Don't like what they did with Blue though. Getting kinda tired of mad science getting lumped in with Blue. Mad science is clearly U/R. I think the last core set I ever saw was... the one with the Cephalids. I definitely played a lot of Sixth Edition back in the day (it's a testament to how much I hated the rule changes that I cannot remember right now what the gently caress happens in the Stack, and why there are no more mana sources), but my memories are very nebulous. I loved Blue control decks. Counterspell, bounce, walls. Ah, that's the thing I miss about Magic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:So I haven't played Magic in... at least 10 years. Closer to 15 maybe. I've been getting back into it lately and I've noticed that mechanics have become really complex. Another thing I've noticed is that back in the day, they used to laugh at you for having a deck that relied on combos (they would consider that so cheesy as to be borderline cheating), but nowadays that's the norm? And the cards have got so explicit with the combos that they actually help you out by making you search for the other combo cards? (I'm referring to this trifecta of cards I saw in a youtube video that were a bog witch, a cauldron and a festering newt) What? Combo Decks were the best thing about old magic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Zoness posted:What? Combo Decks were the best thing about old magic. It was probably a cultural thing, but in my country, you got ridiculed for relying on a combo instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played. Combos were heavily frowned upon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:I've seen some stuff from this cool Gothic expansion that has Red cards that I am actually interested for the first time ever (weren't werewolves Green? Doesn't matter though, I like that they got moved to Red, gives that awful colour something appealing). Both red and green, actually. That would be Innistrad, widely considered one of the best if not the best block in the last couple years. There hasn't really been a dedicated combo deck in Standard in quite a while though, with Jeskai Ascendancy forming the core of one just very recently. It's not that decks rely on combos so much as synergy between cards, but hasn't that always been the case, really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:It was probably a cultural thing, but in my country, you got ridiculed for relying on a combo instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played. Combos were heavily frowned upon. That's silly and I hope you enjoyed their mounting frustration as you combo off on them over and over. There is no 'how it's meant to be played.' You either play to win, in which case if combo is the best you play it, or you play to have fun, in which case if combo is fun to you you play it also. gently caress the haters  They are a lot more careful now in printing the engine, resource translation, and fast mana effects that made combo so prevalent in the past. Luckily there is even a competitive combo deck in standard right now for the first time in years. Also I wouldn't say the complexity has ramped up all that much. It's just a lot has been internalized in to evergreen keywords over time. Or rather, it got really bad and they've pulled back again. In general though the big differences are: - Mythic rares - Planeswalker cards - Equipment cards - More creature for your mana Small differences: - Mana burn (it was pointless and lame) - Combat damage using the stack (ditto) - Having to assign lethal damage to blocker N before any to N+1 - Some effects have moved around the colour pie. Green gets card draw and 'fight' style removal, red gets temporary stealing and casting, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Hyper Crab Tank posted:There hasn't really been a dedicated combo deck in Standard in quite a while though, with Jeskai Ascendancy forming the core of one just very recently. It's not that decks rely on combos so much as synergy between cards, but hasn't that always been the case, really? I'm not sure you can call bloodbraid elf finding a random 3-drop or 2-drop in your deck synergy, I think that's just called wizards goofed. Synergy implies bloodbraid elf isn't already doing something crazy on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:It was probably a cultural thing, but in my country, you got ridiculed for relying on a combo instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played. sorry, but combos are part of how it was meant to be played. You don't happen to live in an ex-soviet bloc country do you? that might explain the fun-ban. Also there's one good/mediocre combo in standard, that's about it. Thanks for your mtg diatribe thanks for visiting the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Hyper Crab Tank posted:Both red and green, actually. That would be Innistrad, widely considered one of the best if not the best block in the last couple years. Oh thank you, I had completely forgotten the name of the block. I'll definitely look it up. Well, combos weren't binary. You had some stuff that was ultracheesy like a perpetual milling machine, and then you had the more minor stuff like (forgive me if I don't remember the names) this red card that dealt damage to both an enemy and one of your creatures, but you could play a creature that, if it got dealt damage, you could do something (pay mana?) to deal damage to target creature or player, so you could do that mini-combo (and follow it with a Lava Axe if you had the mana) to deal a crapton of damage on the enemy player in a single turn. The other day I saw this mind-blowing mana ramp in Spellslingers with the Voyaging Satyr and this land that had the ability to pay 2 and tap it to give you mana equal to your devotion. So the dude had 2-3 satyrs out constantly untapping that land and he was just gathering a massive amount of mana in order to do something with this new weird monstrosity mechanic. So bottom line: he ramped up like 16 mana and got 8 8/8 tokens out. That is literally insane. Back in my day, everything was straightforward: Green wanted to get big dudes up, or small dudes and then buff them. Red wanted quick expendable creatures with haste and first strike plus damage spells. White was like Green but they had some tricks up their sleeves with spells that could instakill your threats. Black was about weakening the enemy with -X/-X because their own creatures were always substandard for their cost. And Blue was all about control, delaying until you got your big guns out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
My question about Pucatrade: Is there a place you can put money in to get Pucapoints? If there isn't, I can't figure out how their business model works, but they do not mention it in any of the overviews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:My question about Pucatrade: Is there a place you can put money in to get Pucapoints? If there isn't, I can't figure out how their business model works, but they do not mention it in any of the overviews. You buy different levels of memberships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Mortimer posted:You don't happen to live in an ex-soviet bloc country do you? that might explain the fun-ban.  I don't get it. xeose4 posted:Oh thank you, I had completely forgotten the name of the block. I'll definitely look it up. The video between LSV and Day[9] owned bones (I think that's the one you're referring to). But honestly magic as far back as when ice age came out was pretty broken. If you played around, 1998 or so? combo decks were absolutely ridiculous and most decks won by making your opponent draw their entire library. Everything is tame by comparison now. Pros-bloom in 1997 is commonly referred to as the first dedicated combo deck, but stasis has existed ever since like 1995 and kismet-stasis is probably the first real combo. It's just that back then those decks tended to not be as widely known. Zoness fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:That's silly and I hope you enjoyed their mounting frustration as you combo off on them over and over. There is no 'how it's meant to be played.' You either play to win, in which case if combo is the best you play it, or you play to have fun, in which case if combo is fun to you you play it also. gently caress the haters Well, I was never really neither pro nor against combos. I remember hearing people being like "Bah! Combos are for losers who don't know how to play the game!" and then other people who would be like "With this combo I cannot lose the tournament! It's guaranteed to win!" and I couldn't really agree with either. If you have fun with the combos, that's nice (it doesn't really say anything about your skill level), but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable relying on a combo to win a game. Fuzzy Mammal posted:They are a lot more careful now in printing the engine, resource translation, and fast mana effects that made combo so prevalent in the past. Luckily there is even a competitive combo deck in standard right now for the first time in years. Ahh, I see. Yeah, I tried to read what the Stack does a couple of months ago and it made my head spin. Fuzzy Mammal posted:In general though the big differences are: Hm. That may be a lot to digest. I have no idea what a mythic rare or a planeswalker card is (or, more accurately, what makes them so major). I've seen equipment cards, they seem straightforward enough. Green got card draw??? Wow. Well, that might make it synergise with Blue (I always did like U/G decks, even though they were difficult to pull off back then). Zoness posted:But honestly magic as far back as when ice age came out was pretty broken. If you played around, 1998 or so? combo decks were absolutely ridiculous and most decks won by making your opponent draw their entire library. Everything is tame by comparison now. Pros-bloom in 1997 is commonly referred to as the first dedicated combo deck, but stasis has existed ever since like 1995 and kismet-stasis is probably the first real combo. Yeah, I played around 98-2000. Maybe 2001, since wikipedia tells me that's when the Cephalids came out. That said, I was in middle-school/early high-school back then, so I wasn't really "worldly" when it came to magic. I do remember everyone hating the poo poo out of Kismet+Stasis and that "draw/discard your entire library" thing. That's exactly why everyone hated combos, though, because they were absolutely broken. xeose4 fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:- Some effects have moved around the colour pie. Green gets card draw and 'fight' style removal, red gets temporary stealing and casting, etc. I'd like to point out that Green gets creature-based card advantage, with stuff like tokens, or sorta-searching effects (Genesis Hydra etc), or creature-based drawing, and not outright "draw cards" stuff, that is the domain of Blue, Black (often with paying life) and Red (often with discarding, or similar). xeose4 posted:Back in my day, everything was straightforward: Green wanted to get big dudes up, or small dudes and then buff them. Red wanted quick expendable creatures with haste and first strike plus damage spells. White was like Green but they had some tricks up their sleeves with spells that could instakill your threats. Black was about weakening the enemy with -X/-X because their own creatures were always substandard for their cost. And Blue was all about control, delaying until you got your big guns out. This isn't hugely far from what's happening now, Green still likes big dudes (its signature creatures in the current Standard are a 5/5 for 4 mana, and a 4/5 trample for 4 mana) and ramp, less so small dudes. Red is very much the more aggressive colour, with stuff like Goblin Rabblemaster and his tokens. White is more controlling, getting some good value (the aforementioned 4/5 trampler is also white and has a life-drain effect), whereas black is more in the domain of single-target removal and often efficient creatures (sometimes with drawbacks or otherwise needing some support). Blue is still Blue, card draw and advantage being its most obvious characteristic, along with counterspells, and the previous Standard had a Blue-White control deck be a pretty dominant force in the format. As to your Stack comment, the stack is easy. Think of every ability (except stuff that just gives you mana) as a plate. They all stack up, in order. So I put my plate down, then your response goes on top of it. When neither player responds to the top one, the top one's effect happens. There's more to it than that, of course, but at its core, it's not a bad way to think of it to get started.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:It was probably a cultural thing, but in my country, you got ridiculed for relying on a combo instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played. Combos were heavily frowned upon. No turtleing, no spamming fireballs, if you throw you have to let the other guy throw you, right? xeose4 posted:Back in my day, everything was straightforward: You said you played during sixth edition. That era of Magic is literally defined by ridiculous, incredibly quick, win-button cards and decks. It's cool if the game you played was more straight forward and flavorful than that, especially if that's how you liked it (and there are ways to play the game these days that can approximate it), but it's not like what you're describing is some golden age of Magic design. Well, some people may think it was, but for different reasons than you. Edit: Beaten, pretty much. Boxman fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Well, I was never really neither pro nor against combos. I remember hearing people being like "Bah! Combos are for losers who don't know how to play the game!" and then other people who would be like "With this combo I cannot lose the tournament! It's guaranteed to win!" and I couldn't really agree with either. If you have fun with the combos, that's nice (it doesn't really say anything about your skill level), but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable relying on a combo to win a game. No offense, but you have a child's interpretation of the game. It's probably in part because you played at such a young age, and in part because of the playing environment (just an FYI, at anything other than the kitchen table, the game has never been played in the narrow confines you and your friends laid out). There's a lot to learn and the game has amazing depth. I'd recommend checking out some recent tournament reports (Grand Prix, SCG Opens, or the last Pro Tour) to see how the game plays out currently. The globalization of the game (and the ease of finding players online) has really kinda squashed a lot of the "No combos. Craw Wurms only. Final Destination." crowd, or at least pigeonholed them in their awful EDH groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Does it really matter whether it says "$10.21" or "1021 pucapoints"? That implies you'd get 10.21 for the card if you sold it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Boxman posted:No turtleing, no spamming fireballs, if you throw you have to let the other guy throw you, right? Yeah, I remember the combos being insane and people ranting about how unfair they were. Part of me sympathised with them, but part of me reminded me that the best part about playing Blue is watching people scream in frustration. So I'm not really in any place to judge. I'm not really complaining about the combos themselves, but how much shorter the game seems to be. When I build a deck, I want to be able to play out the majority of it, not just the first 15-20 cards. Serperoth posted:I'd like to point out that Green gets creature-based card advantage, with stuff like tokens, or sorta-searching effects (Genesis Hydra etc), or creature-based drawing, and not outright "draw cards" stuff, that is the domain of Blue, Black (often with paying life) and Red (often with discarding, or similar). Yeah, I saw that Red gets to draw cards while discarding others (that's why I never liked Red and Black, why do they have to harm themselves so often in their cards? Pay X life, sacrifice this creature, discard cards, get a -X/-X counter, etc.), which is definitely interesting. What is White's thing nowadays? It used to be about angels, enchantments and then removal/destruction spells, but all the stuff it did was done better by other colours. Green, especially, since stuff like Blessing never caught up to Giant Growth, and Green's big creatures were generally better than White's, then Black had better destruction spells (and even Red was better at wiping out the entire board). About the Stack: it sounds simple, but the rules on the stack were a lot more complex than that. Are they just special cases and exceptions? Toshimo posted:No offense, but you have a child's interpretation of the game. It's probably in part because you played at such a young age, and in part because of the playing environment (just an FYI, at anything other than the kitchen table, the game has never been played in the narrow confines you and your friends laid out). There's a lot to learn and the game has amazing depth. I'd recommend checking out some recent tournament reports (Grand Prix, SCG Opens, or the last Pro Tour) to see how the game plays out currently. The globalization of the game (and the ease of finding players online) has really kinda squashed a lot of the "No combos. Craw Wurms only. Final Destination." crowd, or at least pigeonholed them in their awful EDH groups. Yeah, that's probably a very fair assessment. I did play on the occasional tournament and I don't recall things being too different, but my memory is probably unreliable at this point. xeose4 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:I'd like to point out that Green gets creature-based card advantage, with stuff like tokens, or sorta-searching effects (Genesis Hydra etc), or creature-based drawing, and not outright "draw cards" stuff, that is the domain of Blue, Black (often with paying life) and Red (often with discarding, or similar). Well occasionally green is all "Is it swole? If yes, draw a card." So yes, creature based card draw is a thing green does. It does tend to be weird or a little awkward to use though, like Life's Legacy. Sometimes it's stuff like Eidolon of Blossoms, which is pretty much Enchantress with Legs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
There's also Harmonize, but we don't talk about Harmonize. Or planar chaos for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
The stack is a WAY simpler interpretation of the rules than the old broken way. It's considerably simpler. Someone post the chart. Other changes are a bit more debatable but the stack and cleaning up card types is the best thing that has happened to the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
The magic experience is HIGHLY dependent on your playgroup. As others have mentioned, if you were playing competitive magic back then you would have seen how widespread combo and synergy was. Combos are not no-skill either, take a look at a legacy storm deck and tell me its easy to play. Its not a cheat or a hack, or a crutch, its just a different type of deck. It sounds to me like you are in shock because the game has a changed a lot. I guarantee you it has not changed for the worse. I suggestion trying to supress your bias and get to know the game again, you find that less has changed than you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:There's also Harmonize, but we don't talk about Harmonize. Or planar chaos for that matter. I want to talk about Harmonize it owned, reprint harmonize wizards
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:The magic experience is HIGHLY dependent on your playgroup. As others have mentioned, if you were playing competitive magic back then you would have seen how widespread combo and synergy was. I think I said at least 3 times that I don't have anything against combos? I'm simply expressing how the mtg community I was a part of viewed that kind of thing. Like I said in another post, the only thing I dislike is how much shorter the games seem to have become, that's all. I don't consider the game has changed for the worst, I'm sure the new mechanics have added a lot of interesting things to the game, even if they seem daunting at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:The stack is a WAY simpler interpretation of the rules than the old broken way. It's considerably simpler. Someone post the chart. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/arcana/130
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
I was responding specifically to this, forgive me if I misinterpreted something. xeose4 posted:If you have fun with the combos, that's nice (it doesn't really say anything about your skill level), but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable relying on a combo to win a game. Its a common belief that combos take no skill, but the same could be said for other strategies. Ramp is dumb, you just play a big guy and win. Aggro is just turning guys sideways. How does it take any skill to play control, you just counter everything. etc The biggest legitimate complaint against combos is that if you are playing against one with a deck that is unable to interact the games are fairly uninteresting and boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
I've never heard someone say "Combos take no skill," and if I did, I'd tell them go to try out Long.dec or Doomsday and get back to me. Some of the greatest decks ever made are extremely skill-testing combos. Non-interaction, however, is a totally legit complaint I usually end up agreeing with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:I was responding specifically to this, forgive me if I misinterpreted something. Oh no, it's not because I denigrate people who play combos, it's because I feel too unsafe relying on a single thing to win me a game. I like having contingencies and back-ups and never relying on a single thing to win me a game. Sure, I can win if I can get my massive Leviathan out, but I can also win if I get some cheap flyers and walls out, bounce/counterspell my opponent's flyers, and just chip away at him until he dies. Or I can do both!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Like I said in another post, the only thing I dislike is how much shorter the games seem to have become, that's all. Except that this isn't really true in any sense. Especially around the time you quit, it was a time plagued with players leaving the game in droves because the game almost never went past turn 3. Up until maybe 3 or 4 years ago, anything that cost more than 4 mana was so expensive as to be "this has to win the game on the spot, because otherwise it's way too loving slow to remotely be usable." You could argue something like Morphling cost 5 mana and was good, except for the decks that played Morphling would never be able to cast Morphling until they had something like 2 counterspells in hand, a full hand of cards, and your opponent was on no board and very few cards in hand. These conditions would mean Morphling actually did guarantee the game was over. Nowadays you actually get people casting spells that cost 5 and 6 mana in decks with no mana acceleration, and having those 5 and 6 drops be answerable by a number of generic kill spells. This was completely unheard of until the Titans were printed in M11 (the year 2010). It wasn't even until last year or this year that those types of cards became playable even if having them immediately answered didn't leave your opponent in horrendous shape just for killing them (see: Primeval Titan). What you have to understand is what you are reading about is the current competitive game, because that is what most people talk about and are invested in, and what you played originally was not the competitive game. It's like jumping into Street Fighter 4 today after not having played a fighting game since playing the old SNES port of Street Fighter 2 with buddies at your place, then commenting on how SF4 is so much more complicated and there's so much more to learn. In reality SF2 is actually the FAR more complicated and difficult game to get into at a competitive level, but just playing it casually would not have led to that conclusion. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:I have mana leaked a spell pierce with that deck too, I think I worded myself poorly. The idea again was the other player not understanding its bout mana and not cards. The leak worked as a way to bait them into paying 3. When you both have 10 cards in your hand, card advantage doesn't mean anything, and if I have enough mana to cast all the counters in my hand, I am perfectly willing to throw away a mana leak to try and bait my opponent. Not to belabor this now old and dead point, but yeah what gets me about your example is that it hinges on your opponent essentially misplaying (which, if you know they will do, validates your play of course). If they spell pierce your spell knowing full well you can pay 2 for it and you respond by leaking instead, they should know something is up because your open mana already represented a known hard counter to their situational counter. That's good on you though for sussing out that they couldn't read what mattered at that moment and baiting the play out of them but in a world where you know your opponent is bait-proof, I'm assuming you just pay for the pierce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Wait I forgot the most basic case of all: If you have nightscape familiar Mana Leak only costs U while it will cost 2 to pay for spell pierce. Okay case shut and done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Reminder that someone wrote a book on how to play Doomsday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Is it just the word "Don't" followed by a bunch of blank pages?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
I think the funniest part about Mana Leak is that they realized Counterspell was too strong somewhere around 7th Edition, yet they printed Mana Leak all the way through M12.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:Except that this isn't really true in any sense. Gonna have to smack my friend then, because he was the one who told me nowadays games are decided by turn 5 (though yes, I do remember that back then, Green, Red and to a lesser degree Black, loved to rush at you with cheap creatures and try to overwhelm you). That said, I will definitely go back to reading up on things because it seems I have a massive amount of stuff to catch up on. Clearly I need to just forget how things used to be and approach the new MTG with fresh eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Gonna have to smack my friend then, because he was the one who told me nowadays games are decided by turn 5 (though yes, I do remember that back then, Green, Red and to a lesser degree Black, loved to rush at you with cheap creatures and try to overwhelm you). Games are often well in favor of 1 person or the other by Turn 5. However, when you played last (assuming by Cephalids, you are referring to Odyssey), and generally for every point up to around... Kamigawa block, the games were often even further in a player's favor by turn 2 or 3. Your description of magic, and your friends' responses, indicate a complete lack of understanding of the game on a fundamental level (which is not all that uncommon amongst newer or younger players). It's like looking at a baseball game and going "Oh that's easy. You just swing where the ball is."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I think the funniest part about Mana Leak is that they realized Counterspell was too strong somewhere around 7th Edition, yet they printed Mana Leak all the way through M12. Well, Mana Leak gets significantly less good in the late game, whereas Counterspell is just as good on turn 2 as it is on turn 12, so it's kind of understandable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:39
|
|
