|
Um there's also Oran-Rief, the Vastwood Tranquil Thicket Wooded Foothills Yavimaya Hollow Slippery Karst Serra Sanctum Miren, the Moaning Well
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
And now we finally have:
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
How can you forget Twiddle, which is a filthy combo with any of the bone cards?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
The entire rav shockland cycle can be considered references to female genitals. Steam vents Godless shrine Temple garden Blood crypt Overgrown tomb Hallowed fountain Stomping grounds Breeding pool Sacred Foundry Watery grave
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:Johnny Five Jaces mods change my name to this pls
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Goblin Bangchuckers Flickerwisp Sharding Sphinx
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
power taint mystic snake Gwendlyn Di Corci glacial casm Clergy en-vec
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Four Score posted:mods change my name to this pls actually mods make it mine instead
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Molybdenum posted:The entire rav shockland cycle can be considered references to female genitals. Goddamn it I laughed when I read down the list to Blood Crypt.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I have a question for people who are good at math. How many people would there need to be registered in an event like a GP for you to have to go 8-1 to make day 2? What about 9-0?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Gorilla Titan wants a banana this big 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Lets Pickle posted:I have a question for people who are good at math. How many people would there need to be registered in an event like a GP for you to have to go 8-1 to make day 2? What about 9-0? Didn't they move to a system where 7-2 or something automatically makes it, regardless of top X?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Core sets were the continuation of Magic itself, the base game, beginning with Alpha. Of course there was a core set, the term 'core set' is synonymous with 'Magic: The Gathering.' It served the purpose of having a core to the game where certain cards could keep being reprinted for regular use. But most of the time if a new expansion included a really unique or powerful card, it was never reprinted in any core sets. This is the colossal distinction between the core sets and Modern Masters. Look at expansion sets from, say, Invasion through Ravnica: City of Guilds. Look at all the really popular/valuable/powerful cards from those sets. How many of them were ever reprinted in core sets? The purpose of the core sets was not to diminish the significance or rarity of the cards in the expansions. It was just to have a core set that could function as a game in itself and have a balanced card pool to build decks from, and serve as a kind of perpetual portal for reprinting staple cards that are central to the game. Not cards that are really special, unique and specific to the stories of the different expansions. If core sets in more recent years have become more powerful and filled with unique, rare cards from previous expansions, all I can say is that that is why they're doing away with the core set now, as it has becoming illogical and meaningless. Four expansions per year will continue the classic tradition of the game, and if you suddenly go back through time and pick out all the special cards from all the sets, and reprint them in the way Modern Masters is being done, you don't get a new set, you don't get the equivalent of what the core set was, you just get a bunch of fake copies of cards that exist in their legitimate forms in the sets in which they were originally printed. Think of an example. Karn Liberated is a card from New Phyrexia. He fits in that set, he's part of that story. He is part of the New Phyrexia set and always will be. If you have a copy of him that doesn't have the New Phyrexia symbol on it, you don't really have an authentic Karn Liberated. He is part of that set.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Lets Pickle posted:I have a question for people who are good at math. How many people would there need to be registered in an event like a GP for you to have to go 8-1 to make day 2? What about 9-0? GPs don't cut to a specific number of players for day 2, everyone who has a 7-2 record or better makes it. So for your question to make sense, you have to specify an amount.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:GPs don't cut to a specific number of players for day 2, everyone who has a 7-2 record or better makes it. So for your question to make sense, you have to specify an amount. I understand all this. But Wizards did establish a precedent for a long time with expansion sets, and they are still continuing that lineage and creating new sets with new cards that have collectible value in the long term. Modern Masters doesn't fit into that. They can do whatever they want, but for collectors, a Zendikar card will always be a Zendikar card. A duplicate of it with a foreign symbol on it is just a proxy from a real collectors perspective. It would be different if that duplicate was from a new expansion set that followed from Zendikar and included some reprints as well as new cards. But Modern Masters doesn't fall under the definition of a 'set' or an 'expansion' within the lineage of expansion sets from Invasion to Onslaught to Lorwyn to Zendikar to Dragons of Tarkir. This is a long tradition, and it's a continuing tradition with Battle for Zendikar. Modern Masters is just a collection of cheap duplicates as far as collectors are concerned. If Wizards suddenly said "Magic doesn't exist anymore, there are no tournaments, no new sets, no legal or non legal cards," etc, would all Magic cards suddenly lose their value? No. Wizards has created something that grows into the world and grows past what they have control over. The precedent they've set with decades of core sets and expansions comprises a collectible game within which Modern Masters is nothing but a fake compilation of popular cards stamped into being with a unique expansion symbol to denote their fakeness. Look at the price difference between Onslaught and Khans fetches. The only reason reprints have significant value at all is because like you said, the price is largely driven by how much they are played. But look at the difference in those fetches, look at Thoughtseize in Lorwyn vs. Theros. From the collectible side of things people aren't buying these reprints as fully legitimate. And if the play aspect of the game had a decreased impact on prices at any point in time, Modern Masters would be practically worthless, I would bet. Theros and Khans are definitely still more legitimate from a collectors perspective, relative to Modern Masters. And the price still isn't the same as the original.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
GPs do have a provision for top X amount of players to proceed to day 2 if they fall below a certain number of people, but I can't remember the last time that was used.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
The cool, crazy authentic guy would work well in the realm of the post-synthetic diamond industry.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:GPs do have a provision for top X amount of players to proceed to day 2 if they fall below a certain number of people, but I can't remember the last time that was used. If there are fewer than 64 players that are 7-2 or better, then day 2 is just the top 64 of day 1. But yeah, probably has never been used and never will be used.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:The cool, crazy authentic guy would work well in the realm of the post-synthetic diamond industry. There is no cost barrier for new players. Intro packs cost $15 and come with two boosters each. My wife and I have had loads of fun with just five or ten intro packs from sets from the last couple years. Even just a single pair of intro packs can be a game that doesn't grow old for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:The cool, crazy authentic guy would work well in the realm of the post-synthetic diamond industry. I want WOTC to pick this guy up and formally sanction his views. Give him a platform to talk until he and whatever other crazies he can attract to his banner have completely dominated the discourse. Maybe issue an apology for having to flood the market with all these inauthentic cards, but it's a necessary evil to let people keep playing the game despite the relatively small number of authentic Cryptic Commands, etc.... Eighteen months later, paper Vintage Masters comes out. What? Reserved list? No, these are inauthentic fakes, not actual cards. You can legally use them in sanctioned Magic, but they're not legitimate reprints. See the expansion symbol??
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I want WOTC to pick this guy up and formally sanction his views. Give him a platform to talk until he and whatever other crazies he can attract to his banner have completely dominated the discourse. Maybe issue an apology for having to flood the market with all these inauthentic cards, but it's a necessary evil to let people keep playing the game despite the relatively small number of authentic Cryptic Commands, etc.... I was going to laugh until the second paragraph. Now I agree. Do it Wizards, please.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, sure I guess. Wasteland and force will have to be rare or common since they can't be like original uncommon. I'll scoff every time any plebeians play the common version of force. We know who the true legacy players are.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Thanks for all the extra responses, guys, they were a riot. I'm still laughing at Power Taint. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
bhsman posted:So a friend of mine is trying to compile a list of Magic cards with sexually suggestive and/or funny names and I literally balked at an answer (other than Uktabi Orangutan, I guess); could anyone else help here? Wall of Denial.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful. i'm sure any discussion of the 4 card limit is tied into the 60 card min deck size being a thing but I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable to actually discuss it
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Yeah, sure I guess. Wasteland and force will have to be rare or common since they can't be like original uncommon. I'll scoff every time any plebeians play the common version of force. We know who the true legacy players are. I would happily be laughed at with my not authentic pile of common FoWs. Right after I force your original future sight foil goyf right he gently caress out of here. Also I know I'm old but werre none of these loving idiots around for Chronicles? I was and as a kid it was loving awesome because I could finally get the cards. this is not the first time wizards has done a set like this. They did it badly at the very beginning and are doing it better now. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 22:13 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful. it's to spook out chinese players along with all the skeleton imagery because 4 "sounds like death in chinese"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful. The 4 of rule was from back when they had no idea how the gently caress their game was going to work. As it turns out that rule works pretty well
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Also I know I'm old but werre none of these loving idiots around for Chronicles? I was and as a kid it was loving awesome because I could finally get the cards. this is not the first time wizards has done a set like this. They did it badly at the very beginning and are doing it better now. Absolutely. Commander, From the Vaults, Duel Decks, etc, have never looked like real cards to me. I don't mind the concept of a product like the dual decks, as they give people the ability to buy a pair of decks to play against each other, and it makes sense that they have their own expansion symbol for each product. That's more tolerable than what they are doing with Modern Masters because they have clearly separated it from the game at large by giving a single pair of decks their own expansion symbol. Modern Masters is trying to be a legitimate set, but it's just a collection of reprints. It doesn't have its own story, it's not an expansion of Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, etc. Whereas Zendikar, Ravnica, etc, are.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Floral Spuzzem man. FLORAL SPUZZEM
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Also I know I'm old but werre none of these loving idiots around for Chronicles? I was and as a kid it was loving awesome because I could finally get the cards. this is not the first time wizards has done a set like this. They did it badly at the very beginning and are doing it better now. If you remember Chronicles fondly, you aren't old enough, then. It's widely regarded as one of the low points in Magic History.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I'm impressed with how many quote posts have been made that are relevant replies. Unless they aren't quote posts 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:If you remember Chronicles fondly, you aren't old enough, then. It's widely regarded as one of the low points in Magic History. Well yes, playing professionally should cost money, why not? Comparing it as a game to other games in terms of how games are normally played by people, it is not any more expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Zoness posted:it's to spook out chinese players along with all the skeleton imagery because 4 "sounds like death in chinese" lmao
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Are there any good analytical posts from a game design perspective why the 4-of rule exists, and why it's not a 3-of or 5-of or something else? The only posts I can find that mention it just say "because no card limits made degenerate decks that weren't fun" and that's not helpful. The 4 of limit goes back to like 1994, and it stayed because they found it worked. Why did they choose 4 in the first place? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Elyv posted:The 4 of limit goes back to like 1994, and it stayed because they found it worked. Yeah that's the question I'm trying to answer. I'm aware of when it came about and why it exists, I'm just wondering if there's any legit analysis into why 4 works. I have a friend who is designing a card game himself and the question of how many copies of a card should be allowed in a constructed deck came up. 4 gives less variance but seems to require more balanced game design, while 3 or 2 can allow more high-powered cards because variance makes them come up less. Unless you have tutors for them or whatnot, etc etc. It's an interesting discussion and I wanted to see if anyone had dug into the topic before.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
My friends and I bought way too much chronicles as kids because a) OLD* CARDS WOW b) the internet wasn't a thing so we had only the vaguest idea of what cards were actually in the set, and c) we were dumb kids bad at card evaluation and had no idea what the actual good cards were. My most prized cards were Baron Sengir and Nicol Bolas and I coveted my friend's Jester's Cap. *cards from 1-2 years ago seem old when you're 11 and magic has only been around for 2 years.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:51
|
|
