|
I don't believe for a second that the mox ban will be a thing, but if so it wouldn't be surprising. It would further cement that investing large amount of money in modern is a risky thing. That and the people over the ban decisions are idiots.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:asking if having 4 sources of free mana that's basically always turned on was good was not the most thought-out question i've ever had haha well, I actually think it's a fair question, cause I've won plenty of games with no Opal and it's not directly doing busted stuff. The deck just thrives on its speed and having an appreciable percentage of your games accelerated by one turn turns a lot of 1-2s into 2-1s. The cumulative effect would be pretty drastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Sickening posted:That and the people over the ban decisions are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Mulligan folks, mulligan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I think they really just need to ban something from the Eldrazi deck, let modern adjust / sit for a bit and right itself before making any further ban choices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I had a 7 with no lands, a 6 with no lands, a 5 with no lands, and kept a 4 with two three-drops and two lands. i managed to go three drop, three drop, four drop, take a turn off, five drop, avacyn, and ended up winning that game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
If they ban Mox Opal they will really kill the appeal of modern as a "non-rotating" format since all of a sudden the deck you've spent ages with is unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
0-1 drop yesterday. No idea what I was supposed to do with two Drownyard Temple and a promo Foreboding Ruins... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Not all of a sudden though, remember Splinter Twin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
haven't followed this in a long time but I just found out about Triskaidekaphobia and I want this card what is a deck that could make this work please assist!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:If they ban Mox Opal they will really kill the appeal of modern as a "non-rotating" format since all of a sudden the deck you've spent ages with is unplayable. People keep wanting control to be playable. With only Infect and Burn as the "Kill you turn 4" decks, maybe it will be sense boards will no longer have to dedicate artifact hate to the same levels? I don't think they will ban Affinity though, sense they have virtually no data about what Modern will looks like post Eldrazi post Twin, other than "Affinity was playable even during Eldrazi winter" (which says alot about the power level of that deck though).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I just noticed the Briarbridge Patrol/Tamiyo's Journal combo and suddenly I need to brew this deck. Might that actually make Confirm Suspicions constructed playable? (Probably not.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Got my 8 digit DCI number back from 2002, now time to get ready for my first paper pre-release in years! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I was so excited to see how WotC ruined vintage and modern (and possibly even legacy!) when I woke up today. So excited that I forgot what day it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
anglachel posted:People keep wanting control to be playable. With only Infect and Burn as the "Kill you turn 4" decks, maybe it will be sense boards will no longer have to dedicate artifact hate to the same levels? Control is one of the few decks that can beat Affinity by virtue of having 8 1 mana kill spells in poo poo like UWR
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Honestly a Mox Opal ban when the format hasn't had any time to shake out would be the most tiring thing. As a counterpoint, gently caress affinity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
clamiam45 posted:Got my 8 digit DCI number back from 2002, now time to get ready for my first paper pre-release in years! 8 digits was 2002? Wow I feel old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Always watching is a busted card. Should of seen my opponents face when i resolved my 2nd one 
give head or get dead fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
It's not bad form to not concede on the last turn in extra time when the opponent would have won the next turn and them winning the game would've resulted in a tie (as in, because of this I won the match), is it? The opponent didn't complain or anything, but it felt kinda bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
If they ban Mox Opal after I just opened one, but before I could offload it, I will be very sad. Hell, even if they don't it probably becomes that much harder for me to move the card. It would line up with my theory of Wizards not wanting any "free mana" in Standard/Modern though (see also: no good, legal Rituals; no Sol lands that aren't hyper-specific). Doesn't Lantern Control also run Opals?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's not bad form to not concede on the last turn in extra time when the opponent would have won the next turn and them winning the game would've resulted in a tie (as in, because of this I won the match), is it? The opponent didn't complain or anything, but it felt kinda bad. Why would it be? Knowing there's only 5 turns left causes people to generally play different, if there was a 6th turn there's no way to determine if the board states would've been the same. C-Euro posted:If they ban Mox Opal after I just opened one, but before I could offload it, I will be very sad. Hell, even if they don't it probably becomes that much harder for me to move the card. It would line up with my theory of Wizards not wanting any "free mana" in Standard/Modern though (see also: no good, legal Rituals; no Sol lands that aren't hyper-specific). That said, if it's not banned (and the info about it seems extremely dubious) I'd actually expect a bump, as affinity's bound to be great after the Eldrazi bannings (being that it could survive during the eldrazi mess).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Why would it be? Knowing there's only 5 turns left causes people to generally play different, if there was a 6th turn there's no way to determine if the board states would've been the same. That's fair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Might that actually make Confirm Suspicions constructed playable? (Probably not.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Sin Prodder is gross. so's the flip mist unblockable hexproof dude, especially if you have the mana to pitch a Madness vampire to transform it. I lost my round 3 to my opponent landing Olivia turn 3 both games, if you don't have a removal spell ready the second she comes down you're absolutely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
SEX HAVER 40000 posted:Sin Prodder is gross. so's the flip mist unblockable hexproof dude, especially if you have the mana to pitch a Madness vampire to transform it. My opponent played sin prodder. He really needed a second red source. I did not let him draw his mountain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's not bad form to not concede on the last turn in extra time when the opponent would have won the next turn and them winning the game would've resulted in a tie (as in, because of this I won the match), is it? The opponent didn't complain or anything, but it felt kinda bad. Nah, nobody likes to tie. If it would give them the win instead of a tie then it's a nice gesture if you're not losing out on prizes or anything because of it. You're never obligated to concede though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
First of all. MTG is currently experiencing rather severe speculation. Speculators perform (almost) weekly buyouts and card-spikes are speculation driven more than demand-driven. If I am wrong about this, then the rest of my argument is void, so if you consider the current "spike-hikes" to be healthy and natural, then you can save yourself some time and stop reading here Smile It is my belief that Wizards realise that speculation driven "Spike the investment" is bad for the game. The rate of reprints and the rate of bans in modern seems to indicate that wizards is trying to "protect" that format from speculators. Modern masters and the habit of "banning" the best deck should deter speculators. That it fails to work says something, I fear, about how crazy MTG_finance has become. Basically more or less any card in modern could be reprinted in Eldritch moon and the few "mistakes"- cards like Tarmo can be controlled through Modern masters or bans. Wizards obviously can't just destroy all "the value" in one fell swoop - but clearly the way they treat the format seems to indicate that they are trying to dissuade speculation. I would take heed- Wizards may abandon this strategy or they may escalate it - either way - they completely control supply and nothing stops them from printing uncommon tarmos tomorrow... Wizards are (unlike mtg_Speculators) not fools. They know that speculation-driven bubbles burst. Surely they want their piece of the cake, but if they care for the long term, they will try to dissuade the speculation gradually and minimize the impact of the bust. One huge elephant in the room is the reserved list. A lot of iconic and fundamentally fun magic cards "cannot" be reprinted due to a "pledge" made by wizards. This makes people hoard reserved_list cards like they were german state bonds. Some of the cards on that list would clearly be broken beyond anything. Others are just silly. A chosen few would revitalise legacy and allow for the creation of affordable cubes and make commander players cry out in joy! imagine a reprinting of original duals in a standard legal set. It would litteraly be ripped off the shelves. Wizards would make millions and tonnes of decks would become affordable, thus boosting the secondary market. Everybody apart from those who have considered tropical islands parts of their life savings would be happy. Wizard knows this. They know that doings this could revive eternal formats - inspire casual players and even give them a huge cash-injection. The argument against it is the reserved list... Thus eventually they will abolish it Now someone is going to first post and tell me that it cannot be done and that wizards will be sued from here to oblivion and I am going to counter with: have you seen the prices of a good lawyer. All those tropicals are worthless now remember, you cannot afford the lawyer due to the reprint Smile Joke aside. Wizards have NO legal obligation to not reprint something unless they promised the original buyer to not do so at the time of the purchase. In addition the reserved list is not SET IN STONE -They could point to the rather hefty precedence. The reserved list has been revised several times and the conditions for cards appearing on the list have been revised. Clearly there is precedence for wizards changing the list. Even if it was legally possible for players to "block" this, I can think of several easy ways around it. For example they might create a new company called "Wizards of the vintage" and sell them the rights to certain sets. That particular company would be under no obligation to respect the reserved list... "Wizards of vintage" would be controlled by HASBRO or by WotC and Wizards would license the right to certain cards or sets... Sorta like Forgeworld and games workshop... So the idea that "magical lawyers" will help protect my investment is flatly ridicoulous. The best protection is "public outcry" - that people will be angry if wizards abolished the list. Here I would ask myself (if I were a speculator) - "how many ordinary players (Ie dudes with two casual decks, a janky commander deck and a half completed modern deck) would care about this+" A few maybe - but not many compared to how many would be excited to put duals in their janky commander deck. Also what would happen if more people wanted the duals back... They public outcry would be lessened. It seems to me that Wizards is currently methodically increasing demands for eternal stapples. Commander products and conspiracy products bring reprints and focuses players imaginations on the old cards. 93/94 magic seems to be gaining in popularity. This has made speculators frothe at the mouth and impulse-buy more or less every reserved list card on the internet. I think they should consider that Wizards may also be wanting in on that action... I could imagine that eternal masters would create a lot of interest in eternal formats and those players cannot afford reserved list duals and LEDS and so on and they will write stuff like this about how Wizards should release the duals and eventually Wizards can "give in" to the demands of the people and revise the reserved list or maybe just get rid of it. My personal bed is that Duallands are not reserved in 2020. I would suspect that if EMA takes flight then EMA 2 will be released in 2018. That would just happen to be the 25th anniversary of MTG. That would be a grat occassion to have duals brought back. I think that most of the big stores would realise that they would make more money off 50-60 dollar duals from aN EMA set (which they buy directly from wizard) than off the few remaning "wild duals". Those hurt are going to be collectors (whose hit is minor. beta duals will still be beta duals) and speculators who sit on 100+ dual lands... Those guys are fools. There is a reason that Goldman sachs has not bought up the internets collective magic-supply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
I will be the first to tell you that nobody puts much time investment into any of that at WOTC but instead on what sells cards the best. WOTC doesn't give a poo poo about the secondary market unless they can use demand to sell packs. I don't believe a single person or dept at WOTC puts a 10th of the time into the markets as any the top spergs do in MTGfinance. Edit* Source your quotes. Sickening fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Source your quotes (the hosed up punctuation is a dead giveaway)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I will be the first to tell you that nobody puts much time investment into any of that at WOTC but instead on what sells cards the best. WOTC doesn't give a poo poo about the secondary market unless they can use demand to sell packs. MTGSalvation lunacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
I want to make sure I'm getting this right. I can attack with Vish Kal and before damage bring back Bloodsoaked Champion from the graveyard and sack it to Vish Kal and keep recurring it until I run out of mana. Is this correct? Unrelated, my store ran out of pre-release boxes so they did two-headed giant with the intro decks. I played EDH today instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I just won a game with Triskaidekaphobia, can confirm best card
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Oraculum Animi posted:I want to make sure I'm getting this right. I can attack with Vish Kal and before damage bring back Bloodsoaked Champion from the graveyard and sack it to Vish Kal and keep recurring it until I run out of mana. Is this correct? Yep. It also
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:My opponent played sin prodder. He really needed a second red source. I did not let him draw his mountain. Your opponent is still drawing an unknown card each turn, just as if they hadn't played sin prodder. I think the thread has been over this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Mr. Unlucky posted:haven't followed this in a long time but I just found out about Triskaidekaphobia and I want this card what is a deck that could make this work please assist! Play BW Allies/Vampires and hope they don't have a way of manipulating their life total?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I just won a game with Triskaidekaphobia, can confirm best card Like it's an actual card? Some people at my LGS were singing its praises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
This slipped my mind yesterday after the pre-release, but I wanted to ask about something weird that happened during one of my matches. My opponent and I had both mulliganed our initial hands. On the second draw, we both kept and he took the first turn. When he went to draw, he looked at the top card of his library, put it on the bottom of his deck, and then drew the next card (scrying, essentially). I was like  and asked him what the deal was. He replied that it was customary for each player to be able to scry 1 if both people mulliganed. He was not the only person I saw doing that at this particular prerelease. Since it was the last round and I was already 0-2, I let it go and played on, eventually winning the match. Is this mulligan scry thing an accepted practice now, or some weird regional thing (this was in upstate NY), or did I just get scammed? I've been playing MTG off and on for 15+ years now, never seen anyone do anything like that before. Had it been for higher stakes I probably would've called a judge, it seems very dubious. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
That is a new rule as of Battle for Zendikar. If you mulligan to less than 7 cards, you get a free scry at the start of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
It is the new mulligan rule, though he did the timing slightly wrong. After you mulligan and decide to keep you get a scry 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Well I'll be damned. I thought I'd caught up on all the new rule changes, but I didn't play any BFZ or OOW so I missed that one. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:11
|
|