|
ShaneB posted:If I was interested in buying into UR Twin, what are the cards I should buy now vs. what I should wait for reprints? I'm currently looking at a playset of Snapcaster Mage and a number of shock lands. I'm planning on waiting for Zen fetches in return to Zendikar. What are cards that definitely won't be reprinted in MM15, due to being out of the reprinted sets in MM15? Consider the black splash if your meta is a ton of abrupt decay decks. It's the best way to fight them as a twin player.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:In the ongoing adventures of MODO programming, WotC is hiring a few devs. It's all fairly blah except for this one position Hahaha holy poo poo. And you guys enjoy paying for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
One time I had to call MTGO customer support because it wouldn't let me log in without doing something on the Wizards website (which is a separate account for some reason) but wouldn't let me log on because it said I didn't have a Wizards account. I tried to remake the account but it wouldn't let me because it said I already had one with that email. I couldn't make a new account because my MTGO account was already linked to a Wizards account with that email address. The support person got it so that I could reset my password, but when I tried to log in it would still say my account didn't exist. I spent over an hour on the phone and then he let me go. Two hours later he called back and said he couldn't fix it. He had me make another Wizards account on a dummy email address and manually linked it to my MTGO account. I do drafts on Cockatrice now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:One time I had to call MTGO customer support because it wouldn't let me log in without doing something on the Wizards website (which is a separate account for some reason) but wouldn't let me log on because it said I didn't have a Wizards account. I tried to remake the account but it wouldn't let me because it said I already had one with that email. I couldn't make a new account because my MTGO account was already linked to a Wizards account with that email address. The support person got it so that I could reset my password, but when I tried to log in it would still say my account didn't exist. How recently was this? I recall having a similar problem logging into my Wizards account to check my event history (vanity, etc.), and having to navigate an ouroboros of fields and links only for it to crash and burn. I had given up on it for a couple months, but decided to try it again on a whim about two weeks ago and everything worked again. Was able to reset my password, combine DCI numbers, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Entropic posted:DTK-FRF-KTK? That reminds me, I still need to get around to doing this. DRAFT TO THE FUTURE 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
IMO it should start with FRF, then the pod should take a vote on which set to do next.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
There's always that wise guy that's gotta try and play Dredge just to waste 7 cards in your sideboard in Vintage. (Dredge games, for the unfamiliar are basically unwinnable without graveyard hate, but the deck just folds to Leyline of the Void, Ravenous Trap, Grafdigger's Cage, etc. basically any kind of GY hate whatsoever.) Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:That reminds me, I still need to get around to doing this. DRAFT TO THE FUTURE I bet its really weird and fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Bread Set Jettison posted:I bet its really weird and fun It would actually be kinda awful because you don't have the fixing to actually play any of the three-color cards in the KTK pack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Entropic posted:It would actually be kinda awful because you don't have the fixing to actually play any of the three-color cards in the KTK pack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Entropic posted:It would actually be kinda awful because you don't have the fixing to actually play any of the three-color cards in the KTK pack. I assumed the format being spoken of was K-F-D (or the reverse), in which case you'd probably be able to pick up a non-trivial amount, plus you've got Banners (which were mostly hot garbage in triple KTK unless you done hosed up) and Monuments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I guess you'd be mostly in 2-colors-splashing-a-third most of the time. Trouble is that DTK incentivizes you to go in the allied pairs which closes off your options a bit in the KTK pack. It would probably work better with Khans first. I just want to go back to drafting triple Khans, I'm not feeling DTK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I guess you'd be mostly in 2-colors-splashing-a-third most of the time. Trouble is that DTK incentivizes you to go in the allied pairs which closes off your options a bit in the KTK pack. It sucks because even on MTGO you can't triple draft KTK, you have to have FRF (which was a lovely set for draft with a ton of bullshit bomby mono-color nonsense). Also, I learned something playing Modern in the practice room, which is that  revealing:  is in fact a thing you can do. That's some next-level (ahem) tech right there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:There's always that wise guy that's gotta try and play Dredge just to waste 7 cards in your sideboard in Vintage. Post-sideboard Dredge games are just about the most interesting games in Vintage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:It sucks because even on MTGO you can't triple draft KTK, you have to have FRF (which was a lovely set for draft with a ton of bullshit bomby mono-color nonsense). whooooaaaa, how can I abuse this with a card that isnt nameless inversion
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
You guys are going to love Caleb Durward's recent Silumgar's Scorn Modern articles/videos: http://www.channelfireball.com/author/caleb-durward/
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Bread Set Jettison posted:whooooaaaa, how can I abuse this with a card that isnt nameless inversion Activating a Mutavault would work too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Activating a Mutavault would work too I guess. 3 mana for a hard counter? Count me in!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:Post-sideboard Dredge games are just about the most interesting games in Vintage. I just played a game against Dredge and game 2 was this: Opponent: Bazaar, go Me: Black Lotus, sac for 3 white mana, Sol Ring, Rest in Peace, Rest in Peace. I lost this game and it was absurd.  The reason why was that I figured a 2 Rest in Peace hand I could T1 was going to be good enough to win the game even though the rest of my hand had no mana at all. Opponent Nature's Claim's the first RIP off a Undiscovered Paradise. Then we spend 9 turns draw-go (he's using Bazaar to dig for another Claim) and after 9 turns I still have zero mana sources. Granted, I won Game 1 with the following line of play: I have Mox Jet and 2 Tundras out, all are tapped for a Monastery Mentor. He casts Cabal Therapy, I cast Mental Misstep to get a Monk. He casts a second Cabal Therapy, which I Force. I untap with 2 Monks + the Mentor. The next line of play is tap Mox, play Sol Ring, Float mana from Sol Ring, Hurkyl's Recall targetting myself, play Sol Ring with floating mana from Sol Ring, play Mox Jet. (the two attacking Monks got there from Mental Misstep on a Cabal Therapy and a Force of Will on a second Cabal Therapy). Game 3 I won with Mentor and 2 buddies out, untap, then Snapcaster Mage targeting a Repeal in my GY, use the Repeal to return a Mox Sapphire to hand (using mana from the Mox), play the Mox again, then play Mystic Remora, Mental Misstep my own Mystic Remora, Mental Misstep my Mental Misstep, Force of Will the Mystic Remora again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Bread Set Jettison posted:whooooaaaa, how can I abuse this with a card that isnt nameless inversion You'd have to use one of the other changeling spells from Lorwyn. They're the only noncreature dragons. That kind of interaction existed in Lorwyn itself. Silvergill Adept and its cycle ask for a type but don't care if it's a creature or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
This is why I'm annoyed tribal didn't pan out. Expanding creature types beyond creature spells is sweet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I can never remember what the abstruse reason was that they couldn't just print a card with a type line like "Instant - Goblin" and had to create a whole new card type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:This is why I'm annoyed tribal didn't pan out. Expanding creature types beyond creature spells is sweet. Yeah, this whole discussion is just rubbing in the fact that we're never getting tribal again because WotC hates us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:You'd have to use one of the other changeling spells from Lorwyn. They're the only noncreature dragons. I think that's what's kind of neat - Tribal type is apparently dead (I doubt it in the very long term, of course) but they still print stuff in a way that lets you use Tribal cards despite the fact that there never has been a Tribal Sorcery/Instant - Dragon ever printed. Entropic posted:I can never remember what the abstruse reason was that they couldn't just print a card with a type line like "Instant - Goblin" and had to create a whole new card type. Something about Instant and Sorcery not being capable of having a type by rule. We had a whole conversation on this like a month(?) ago. It made sense to me when explained then, but I kind of forgot the entire issue an hour after learning why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I can never remember what the abstruse reason was that they couldn't just print a card with a type line like "Instant - Goblin" and had to create a whole new card type. It's because if they printed that, it would make goblin into a spell type, like arcane, as well as a creature type. Which would be weird and make no real sense, because goblins are a kind of creature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:It's because if they printed that, it would make goblin into a spell type, like arcane, as well as a creature type. Which would be weird and make no real sense, because goblins are a kind of creature. but creatures are a kind of spell therefore goblins are a kind of spell
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:It's because if they printed that, it would make goblin into a spell type, like arcane, as well as a creature type. Which would be weird and make no real sense, because goblins are a kind of creature. Why is it bad or broken to just say "the list of creature types can actually now be used on any card type if you want"? Like what does that actually break?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
It's because they don't want to mix creature types with land types mainly. There's too many types of noncreature cards that have functionality that makes it weird. Basic land types, auras, and equipment have a lot of functionality that would be weird on other card types. Planeswalker types also have some functionality but it matters a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
I guess it would mess with cards that say "pick a creature type" because it confuses what actually counts as a creature type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I mean they could just say there's still a list of creature types, land types, sorcery types, etc, but creatures can only ever have creature types and any other card can have both their own types and creature types. It's just weird and inconsistent to do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:I mean they could just say there's still a list of creature types, land types, sorcery types, etc, but creatures can only ever have creature types and any other card can have both their own types and creature types. It's just weird and inconsistent to do this. Not really any weirder than the solution they came up with IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I think that's what's kind of neat - Tribal type is apparently dead (I doubt it in the very long term, of course) but they still print stuff in a way that lets you use Tribal cards despite the fact that there never has been a Tribal Sorcery/Instant - Dragon ever printed. "Dragon creature card" is longer than "dragon card" and in every interaction in standard they're basically the same. It's more elegant and is how the rules work anyway, allowing for neat things like nameless inversion qualifying as your dragon card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Something about Instant and Sorcery not being capable of having a type by rule. We had a whole conversation on this like a month(?) ago. It made sense to me when explained then, but I kind of forgot the entire issue an hour after learning why. The issue isn't functional, it's form. They don't want to print creature sub-types on non-creature cards, nor do they want to print land sub-types on non-land cards, and so on. Mikujin fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I guess it would mess with cards that say "pick a creature type" because it confuses what actually counts as a creature type. But even then, I'd be confused as to what it actually breaks. Why don't we just unify types? I mean, okay, say I can suddenly name Arcane (or Swamp, or Jace) when my Engineered Plague hits the board. What does that do that's bad, other than most likely wasting my Engineered Plague?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Mikujin posted:You must have missed Kamigawa, a block that included an entire [url=http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype=+[%22Arcane%22]gimmick[/url] built around a single sub-type of Instant/Sorcery spells. Whoever explained it to me did so in this thread, so I'm not going to claim to be a Rules Master or anything. That was just how I vaguely understood it. I think the idea is that there's an actual limitation on the types of "creature" or "tribal" that something can be. Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:"Dragon creature card" is longer than "dragon card" and in every interaction in standard they're basically the same. It's more elegant and is how the rules work anyway, allowing for neat things like nameless inversion qualifying as your dragon card. I'm sure you're right, its just neat. Although Sarkhan's Triumph only fetches Dragon creatures, but all of the reveal-a-dragon cards only specify "Dragon." Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:But even then, I'd be confused as to what it actually breaks. Why don't we just unify types? I mean, okay, say I can suddenly name Arcane (or Swamp, or Jace) when my Engineered Plague hits the board. What does that do that's bad, other than most likely wasting my Engineered Plague? Planeswalker types have rules baggage attached to them that nobody wants to risk encountering in a game. It would break MODO even worse. It would let you splice Evermind onto Chameleon Colossus, with results that are, at best, debatable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:But even then, I'd be confused as to what it actually breaks. Why don't we just unify types? I mean, okay, say I can suddenly name Arcane (or Swamp, or Jace) when my Engineered Plague hits the board. What does that do that's bad, other than most likely wasting my Engineered Plague? Something something Changelings tapping for G because of Dryad Arbor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:
Angry Grimace posted:Something something Changelings tapping for G because of Dryad Arbor. Good points, though still not unfixable. Specify in the comp rules that only things with type "Land" have the mana abilities that come from basic land subtypes. Specify that non-instant/sorcery spells can't have things spliced onto them. There are existing cases where they use the rules to specify that something that would otherwise happen can't happen because it's the wrong card type, like trying to put a Splinter onto the battlefield. I can understand that it's more that they don't want to go to all that trouble rather than that they literally couldn't do it, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Good points, though still not unfixable. Specify in the comp rules that only things with type "Land" have the mana abilities that come from basic land subtypes. Specify that non-instant/sorcery spells can't have things spliced onto them. There are existing cases where they use the rules to specify that something that would otherwise happen can't happen because it's the wrong card type, like trying to put a Splinter onto the battlefield. In the end, I think the issue was that they wanted to staple creature types onto spells without having to rewrite the rules wholesale. The easiest way to do that was to say that creature types are a subtype of Tribal rather than a subtype of Enchantment, Instant or Sorcery. Its not the cleanest solution, but its the most self-contained one as well as the one that's least likely to break the game if the developers didn't think of some weird corner case. I think Tribal will come back, just not any time soon. Maro is skeptical of the idea because he thinks its confusing to new players, but the reality is that at some point you're losing more players than you're taking on and you don't have to worry so much about making newbies upset. Wonky or not, Tribal allows for cool interactions that reward synergy. In the end, I don't think Tribal is actually any more convoluted than the regular rules of Magic: the Gathering; sure, it adds complexity to learning the game, but so does literally every new card and mechanic they add to the game. Edit: its an interesting point that some of the rules clutter with Dryad Arbor already exists. The card itself does not specify that Dryad Arbor is not a Forest Dryad creature type. The comp rules simply specify that Forest isn't a creature type. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
JerryLee posted:Good points, though still not unfixable. Specify in the comp rules that only things with type "Land" have the mana abilities that come from basic land subtypes. Specify that non-instant/sorcery spells can't have things spliced onto them. There are existing cases where they use the rules to specify that something that would otherwise happen can't happen because it's the wrong card type, like trying to put a Splinter onto the battlefield. Imagecrafter can turn dudes into Auras, which may or may not wind up killing them depending on how you rewrite the Aura rules. Changelings can be targeted by abilities that say 'target Plains/Island/Swamp/Mountain/Forest'. vOv fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:35
|
|
