|
Recoil will never be reprinted (missing nonland), but it is high time to see the updated version, yeah.meanolmrcloud posted:Leagues were incredibly fun back in the day. Basically pay for a sealed pool and then you can play unlimited matches with it. I'm really not shocked they haven't brought them back because it dosen't fit their plan to squeeze every dime from the players, but drat is it good value. I'm pretty sure it is going to end up as a 5 matches done in one, asynchronous sealed pool that only pays out positive if you go 4-1 or better. No additional matches, no additional boosters, one pool for each limited set up, and probably a "casual" version that does phantom and only pays out positive if you straight 5-0, assuming it doesn't pay out points.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I honestly don't think you will see a cards in a modern-legal set ever refer to turning a non-creature face down. Its just too rules cumbersome. There are literally two cards ever printed that allow you to turn creatures without morph face-down. There are also two non-creature morphs? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:There are also two non-creature morphs? You cannot turn them face down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
I should add an attendum that my older brother played Invasion/Masque UB Control almost exclusively when we were young so perhaps that's why I associate those cards and him beating me so often as evil. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:You cannot turn them face down. Sure, but if the game can handle creatures flipping between face-up and face-down (e.g. Morph and Ixidron) and can handle creatures becoming noncreatures and vice-versa (e.g. Ensoul Artifact, various DFCs, the Future Sight nonceature morphs), surely the game can handle noncreature permanents flipping between face-up and face-down? The whole doesn't seem any more rules-complex than the sum of the individual parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:There are also two non-creature morphs? Three 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:re: Stupid poo poo you did as a kid playing MTG My favorite stupid thing we did when we first started was not understand that "sacrifice" pretty loving obviously requires you to sacrifice YOUR creature. Honest to God, for a while we played where a sacrifice effect could be used with any creature on the board. This was in the Legends era, but none of us had enough money for tons of packs or cool cards, so Life Chisel was the biggest beneficiary of this misunderstanding. "I'll sac your Serra Angel, gain four life."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
When I was in middle school we thought you could put as much land in play as you wanted down on your first turn. I have no idea how this started and I was really confused when I picked the game up years later with people who actually knew how to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
When I was starting out we played decks that were 200-card piles of everything we owned, but we thought the advice that a deck should have 20 lands was a rule that a deck must have exactly 20 lands. We played so many Borderposts and Obelisks to make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Reene posted:When I was in middle school we thought you could put as much land in play as you wanted down on your first turn. We did that along w/ drawing 2 cards a turn. It was degenerate. We knew the actual rules, but people wanted to play their big monsters quick. Otoh, the Stack was this mysterious apocryphal rule half of the people refused to believe and no one really understood - granting every instant Split Second kinda added to the degeneracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Reene posted:When I was in middle school we thought you could put as much land in play as you wanted down on your first turn. When I started(sometime around Ice Age) this was the popular belief where I was as well, I think a lot of people believed this in early Magic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:My favorite stupid thing we did when we first started was not understand that "sacrifice" pretty loving obviously requires you to sacrifice YOUR creature. Honest to God, for a while we played where a sacrifice effect could be used with any creature on the board. This was in the Legends era, but none of us had enough money for tons of packs or cool cards, so Life Chisel was the biggest beneficiary of this misunderstanding. "I'll sac your Serra Angel, gain four life." When I started playing 3 and a half years ago my friend who taught me how to play told me you could equip equipment to opponent's creatures. I was playing with 4 Skullclamp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I'm pretty sure it is going to end up as a 5 matches done in one, asynchronous sealed pool that only pays out positive if you go 4-1 or better. No additional matches, no additional boosters, one pool for each limited set up, and probably a "casual" version that does phantom and only pays out positive if you straight 5-0, assuming it doesn't pay out points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Sometimes you get a 14th pick Grafted Wargear and a 10th pick tangle wire and you think, OK, I'm blue aggro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:What you are describing is awesome though? If you think that is as good as leagues, or that it should take greater than five years to develop though, then I don't know what to say. 'Awesome' is not how I would describe it. I Love You! posted:Sometimes you get a 14th pick Grafted Wargear and a 10th pick tangle wire and you think, OK, I'm blue aggro. Like you put the wargear on the talrand drake token and they're still like "I don't get it?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Sure, but if the game can handle creatures flipping between face-up and face-down (e.g. Morph and Ixidron) and can handle creatures becoming noncreatures and vice-versa (e.g. Ensoul Artifact, various DFCs, the Future Sight nonceature morphs), surely the game can handle noncreature permanents flipping between face-up and face-down? The whole doesn't seem any more rules-complex than the sum of the individual parts. Its not that the game's rules can't handle it, its that making the game more and more complex is a good way to not have new players. If you turn something face down without a way to turn it face-up its confusing. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:We did that along w/ drawing 2 cards a turn. It was degenerate. It certainly makes the game...interesting. Another thing I did with my first regular Magic group was a version of the game we called Crazy Magic. Because everyone had shittons of commons or other useless cards stretching all the way back to Arabian Nights, we'd grab up a bunch of random selections from a box, remove anything with land/mana abilities, and make one giant library everyone drew from. Everyone shared the same library and graveyard, and as there were no lands, to get mana you had to place a card from your hand face down and you could tap that for any color, though you could never get that card back. It owned, especially in a big group. I kind of wish I could do that again with new people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I honestly don't think you will see a card refer to turning a non-creature face down because it is simply too cumbersome in terms of the rules. There are literally two cards ever printed that allow you to turn creatures without morph face-down and zero that allow you to do so with a permanent without morph. You can construct all sorts of strange scenarios where things get turned over that wouldn't normally flip. Kormus bell, urborg, and Ixidron will flip all lands, for instance. Now I kinda want to do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
The weirdest thing we did when I started playing was drawing 7 new cards once our hands were empty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
At M15 Game Day I played against a guy in his early 20s with a pretty complete UB Mill Deck and I think about 3 times I had to explain that the dual lands that actually say "tap to add U or B" don't actually mean "you can tap this to play an Island or Swamp from your hand" because he kept trying to do that. I'm not sure how he got enough cards together and played the game enough to get to an organized tournament with a constructed deck and didn't understand the "one land per turn" part of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Boco_T posted:I'm not sure how he got enough cards together and played the game enough to get to an organized tournament with a constructed deck and didn't understand the "one land per turn" part of the rules. "How did you hear about Friday Night Magic?" ......From a sealed event. ......From MTGO. ......From the Wizards of the Coast website. ......From a fellow player. X....From a promotional insert in a booster pack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Boco_T posted:At M15 Game Day I played against a guy in his early 20s with a pretty complete UB Mill Deck and I think about 3 times I had to explain that the dual lands that actually say "tap to add U or B" don't actually mean "you can tap this to play an Island or Swamp from your hand" because he kept trying to do that. My own variant was a person who thought that it meant putting a land token into play. So rather than playing one from his hand or searching his library like some folks here have reported, he just used a die to keep track of the number of extra Forests he had in play.  The whole switch in basic land textblock templating is so stupid because, however rare they may be in the grand scheme of things, it's a nonzero number that is greater than the presumably lesser number caused by actually being consistent. Is there a piece of market research that shows that the text "T: Add G to your mana pool" causes fuses to blow in the target demographic's brains?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Honestly, the easiest way to teach the concept is to have a Mancala board and WUBRG-colored glass beads and be like "whenever you tap a land I'm gonna give you a glass bead that matches the color of the mana you just made." Then just have them pay with the beads. Then, after a few games be like "man these beads sure are a hassle, right? Let's just forego them and just assume we both know how many beads you're spending." e: the Mancala board is the 'mana pool.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Yeah like in abstract it is understandable that you might be mistaken into thinking "pile of lands" is your "mana pool" especially when those cards say "add U" and look that basic land has nothing on it but that U symbol. I just wonder how many times he'd played before and with who and what kind of bias confirming echo chamber conversation they had. Then again, do the Duels games have anything but basics in them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Josh Silvestri posted a great article on CFB about judge stories. http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/silvestri-says-judge-tales/ One of the stories he tells seems relavent to the chat from a couple days ago slow rounds. At GP NJ there were a lot of stories swapped. One of my favorites: Match slips come in. There's a problem-- these two were playing the wrong opponent! It's 11 minutes into the round, so double match loss, and double match loss for their two partners. Except... they're sitting next to the right spot. And the two players sitting in the wrong seats have the exact same name. Oops. And we can't treat that as the correct pairing and fix it in WER because they're in different pods. That one earned an 18m time extension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
drat, I had no idea mana pool wasn't some billiard-based side game. I just assumed it was another failure of MTGO to implement it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
People keep letting me draft mono red in Cube. I have yet to NOT 3-0 when that happens. I hate red, usually, but free wins are free wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Another one I find that's incredibly prevalent, although a bit understandable because it used to work that way. I tap my birds or paradise for blue, OK I bolt in response and you get no mana. As recently as last year at least 5 of the regulars at my FNM were playing this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
I don't think mana abilities ever used the stack, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Wouldn't matter if they did, once an ability is on the stack destroying the object that placed it on the stack isn't going to stop it from resolving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Wouldn't matter if they did, once an ability is on the stack destroying the object that placed it on the stack isn't going to stop it from resolving. Didn't it stop them in the old rules? I seem to remember killing a Royal Assassin would save your guy, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Wouldn't matter if they did, once an ability is on the stack destroying the object that placed it on the stack isn't going to stop it from resolving. It would matter, because Stifle exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Didn't it stop them in the old rules? I seem to remember killing a Royal Assassin would save your guy, for example. I'm 99% sure that was never actually true. Although, I definitely thought it was true for years as well. My friends and I had many a staredown with us both having an Avatar of Woe in play, because we also though that summoning sickness only prevented attacking, not playing tap abilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
So I had a bad day with Sidisi Whip, I lost to two UW Heroic decks. I beat everything else I played. How the hell can I beat this stupid heroic deck?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Keiya posted:It would matter, because Stifle exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:So I had a bad day with Sidisi Whip, I lost to two UW Heroic decks. I beat everything else I played. I played that deck last night for a while. It is so bad that every win feels very satisfying. I think the answer is drown, since you're in black. Though if they've accumulated counters and can also keep up protection you're probably done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:So I had a bad day with Sidisi Whip, I lost to two UW Heroic decks. I beat everything else I played. Big enough blockers (nighthowler) and enchantment removal? It is a hard match for you though due to it being rock to your scissors, targeted removal is pointless against it. Mardu for example destroys it due to crackling doom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Not really. You could never stifle a mana ability even if it did use the stack, it's even written on the card. You misunderstand what a mana ability is. A mana ability: 1) Generates mana upon resolving 2) Does not target 3) Is not a loyalty ability If it doesn't follow all those rules, it's not a mana ability, it uses the stack, and it can be stifled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Keiya posted:It would matter, because Stifle exists. It still wouldn't matter because Stifle can't counter a mana ability. Kabanaw posted:If it doesn't follow all those rules, it's not a mana ability, it uses the stack, and it can be stifled. We're specifically talking about mana abilities though so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
The hell I do. Follow the conversation.field balm posted:I don't think mana abilities ever used the stack, right? Ciprian Maricon posted:Wouldn't matter if they did, once an ability is on the stack destroying the object that placed it on the stack isn't going to stop it from resolving. Keiya posted:It would matter, because Stifle exists. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:10
|
|