|
Zoness posted:but realistically the root of the problem is that most magic players dont get what "random" means, at best Let's not act like this is restricted to Magic players, the vast majority of people don't really understand that random means "any order is equally likely"; presented with "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" and "3, 4, 1, 5, 2", most people will say the second is "more random" despite the two obviously having the same likelihood.
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:No, he's not - I've seen people at FNM take about 2s per card while pile shuffling. I don't know how it's possible. Agreed, it's not possible. I just tried to pile shuffle while performing a mash shuffle in between placing each card into a pile. It took me 145 seconds. I had to eventually switch to riffles once I was down to about 20 cards.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Holy gently caress, a second and a half per card? Jesus christ, I don't know how I could possible pile shuffle that slowly. I like to pile shuffle every now and then to count cards, check for marked sleeves, and make sure my sleeves don't stick, and it takes me 20 to 25 seconds depending if I'm double sleeved.  If I look at the clock when they start piles and it says 34:xx and when I look back when they finish and it is at 31:xx, I can reasonably assume that they took for-gently caress-ever. My guess, if I had to make one and I guess I do since you're so pissed off you're questioning my ability to read a clock, is that the "I must separate these into as many piles as my playmat will allow" along with a general incapability to move faster than a recently overfed python makes it take longer than a random goon at his computer. So I guess congrats, you're more dextrous than roughly a third of my FNM.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:"I can't do it therefore it can't be done" yeah okay whatever big man, you got me. Yawgmoth posted:You are really mad about being wrong so I'm just going to let you be mad and wrong. The fact that you apparently can't keep track of your cards for more than 15 seconds says all that needs to be said. Please stop projecting. You're incorrect here. Please at least try to pile shuffle in such a way that it takes 90 seconds - 90 seconds is way more time than you think.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Made it to the semis of the gpt on merfolk. 4 players of 32 on the deck, 3 made t8. Was a good time, my best perormance at a REL event.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
i don't think it matters how fast you pile, taking time to count your deck once per sideboard seems ok to me. you shouldn't have to count your deck again in the same game so if you pile again in that same game you're slow playing, this is really easy guys!!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Please stop projecting. You're incorrect here. Please at least try to pile shuffle in such a way that it takes 90 seconds - 90 seconds is way more time than you think. MrL_JaKiri posted:No, he's not - I've seen people at FNM take about 2s per card while pile shuffling. I don't know how it's possible. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
For the little it's worth, I just replicated the "Idiot at FNM" style of pile shuffling (Pick up one card from the deck. Very deliberately put it down on one of the piles. Pick up the next card, ponder which pile it should go on before putting it down oh so deliberately. Repeat.) and it takes about a minute and a half.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Barring bad clumsiness or perhaps similar deck sleeves to the opponent, it should be enough to count the sideboard. I can do that in as little as 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Holy loving crap guys I've seen a lot of things on these forums that made me go "this is the worst" but the shuffling argument is literally the worst
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Balon posted:Made it to the semis of the gpt on merfolk. 4 players of 32 on the deck, 3 made t8. Was a good time, my best perormance at a REL event. Congrats! I've been thinking of going all in on Merfolk for a while. How were your match ups? (Trying reeeeeeeally hard to get off the stupid loving subject of shuffle cheating)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Hey look at this decklist that has nothing to do with lovely shuffle chat! http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpmin16/blue-red-flyers-with-tamoharu-saito-2016-05-29 Saito's deck looks like an mtggoldfish budget magic deck but apparently he finished the GP at 12-3 with it, picking up that last loss in round 15. Looks fun. I wonder how many times Saito mash shuffles his deck?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Hey look at this decklist that has nothing to do with lovely shuffle chat! dunno but he probably finishes his pile shuffling in seven minutes if he's up a game.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:dunno but he probably finishes his pile shuffling in seven minutes if he's up a game. What a stupid thing to say. Everyone knows it's impossible to pile shuffle in less than 12 minutes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
InterrupterJones posted:Congrats! I've been thinking of going all in on Merfolk for a while. How were your match ups? The mirror was 50/50, its basically 'who plays an island last' or 'who draws the most lords'. That was my first 2 rounds - which was stupid. Scapeshift and Grixis are two great matches for Merfolk. Merfolk also has a decent match against Tron provided you get your spreading seas and you have seas claims in you board (im running 2 in my board). Affinity is rough, but is close to 45/55 in their favor. You can shut off manlands with your island makers, and running 4 Recalls in the board puts games 2 or 3 in your favor. Your worst match is creature-based agro of any kind. Infect and Elves are hard to win, but not impossible. Elves is hands down your worst match. Jund and Junk are decent matches, as long as you can keep them off of board wipes you're ok with them trying to 1-for-1 all day. Mutavaults are MVPs. Some matches that are still up in the air are Eldrazi taxes and burn. Taxes tries to go long and you blank a lot of their hand destruction. Burn is a straight race, and you have MAYBE one answer in your board if you run a Monastery Siege. I've been playing the deck for a year and a half and its a great aggro deck, but lacks responsiveness. I like it, its positioned well, but is still too 'fair' to be tier 1. E: I played Merfolk mirrors for the first rounds, then Grixis, Scapeshift, Tron, and Infect. Dropped one round to the second Mirror, and in the t8 to infect. There was an ID in there to Jeskai Control. Balon fucked around with this message at 23:50 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:What a stupid thing to say. Everyone knows it's impossible to pile shuffle in less than 12 minutes. well if you're pile shuffling, it'll definitely take longer than 12 minutes to get a randomized deck.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
shut the gently caress up about shuffling you idiots
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:shut the gently caress up about shuffling you idiots idle hands are the devil's plaything, and the devil loving loves pile shuffling.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
So apparently, apparently, some kid at Manchester had a strong starting run with Serra Angel in their 75. Prompting discussion not just because it's strictly worse than Avacyn, but because people didn't know it was standard legal.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:So apparently, apparently, some kid at Manchester had a strong starting run with Serra Angel in their 75. Prompting discussion not just because it's strictly worse than Avacyn, but because people didn't know it was standard legal. Hell sometimes you just need Avacyns 5-8. 4/4 Flying Vigilance is no joke.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:So apparently, apparently, some kid at Manchester had a strong starting run with Serra Angel in their 75. Prompting discussion not just because it's strictly worse than Avacyn, but because people didn't know it was standard legal. actually it isn't strictly worse because it may be more beneficial to keep the vigilance and you don't have complete control over it flipping or not now lets talking about the phrase "strictly better" for the next 6 pages you loving nerds
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:actually it isn't strictly worse because it may be more beneficial to keep the vigilance and you don't have complete control over it flipping or not Isn't talking about the definition of "strictly better" strictly worse than talking about shuffling or rare redrafting? This discussion is clearly strictly more interesting than Eternal Masters. What a wet fat of a reprint set.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:This discussion is clearly strictly more interesting than Eternal Masters. What a wet fat of a reprint set. Maybe if their mash shuffling was perfect we would've gotten Rishadan Port...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:now lets talking about the phrase "strictly better" for the next 6 pages you loving nerds River Boa is a strictly better Thrun. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:shut the gently caress up about shuffling you idiots No need to get so worked up.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:River Boa is a strictly better Thrun. Discuss. I'm not sure what there is to discuss. that's pretty obvious. It's an axiom of Magic the Gathering that you can't really question or the whole thing breaks down
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
So, Nature's Claim got sweet new art: Super colorful. In other news, Heritage Druid is a rare, and they didn't reprint Nettle Sentinel for some reason. That seems like a bizarre decision.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I'm brand new to MTG and have two Welcome 2016 Serra Angels and they're both in my white deck. I probably should have went to GP Manchester.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Didn't see it posted so here's a deck tech featuring a friend of mine. Also mfcrocker, are you the one in Bristol with the beard or the one who took my tron deck to lost and found at GP London? Because if either then hey, small world! EDIT: Hellsau posted:So, Nature's Claim got sweet new art: It had this art in Conspiracy I think?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Anyone else bothered by werewolves being human only on the front side, whilst the werewolf type being on both? Aren't they as much a werewolf on the front, as they are human on the back? Also, what's the deal with human zombies losing the the human type in undeath? Not true of other specices.  
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:
No way dude you can cradle your bulk Rares afterwards and remember that awesome draft experience
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:So, Nature's Claim got sweet new art: if elves are a well supported tribe in limited heritage druid does absolutely bonkers stuff if you draft it early. not saying it should be rare, but it definitely should have been at least an uncommon.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
There is a guy at my store who ordered 3 boxes of Eternal Masters before seeing the full spoiler. Poor guy.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Is Nature's Claim a better card than Natural State in modern?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Is Nature's Claim a better card than Natural State in modern? Tron likes natures claim to eat it's own maps/eggs for life against burn. Otherwise nope
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Tron likes natures claim to eat it's own maps/eggs for life against burn. Otherwise nope Infect will run it as well as it cares not for life totals.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
The Wicked Wall posted:It had this art in Conspiracy I think?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
DangerDongs posted:There is a guy at my store who ordered 3 boxes of Eternal Masters before seeing the full spoiler. Poor guy. It's a tough lesson to learn about the lottery, but maybe he won't spend as much on it in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Anyone else bothered by werewolves being human only on the front side, whilst the werewolf type being on both? Aren't they as much a werewolf on the front, as they are human on the back? I think the werewolf/human thing has a lot to do with what it lets them do mechanically. I believe there are a few cards that care about which side is face up, and they do so by specifying non-human werewolves, that sort of thing. Specifically, I think there was a card in original Innistrad that transformed all humans? As for zombies, MaRo actually addressed that at some point, and if I remember correctly, basically just said that "Human Zombie" sounds weird because the human part is usually assumed if it just says "Zombie." It's a bit of a weird justification to me, since on one hand I agree that it sounds a bit odd, but on the other hand, I don't like the inconsistency either.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Is Nature's Claim a better card than Natural State in modern? Can't nail Leyline of Sanctity with Natural State. It and Wurmcoil are the only cards Nature's Claim gets that Natural State doesn't. One is a sideboard option for decks that probably aren't considering their G artifact/enchantment hate, and one of them is Wurmcoil Engine. I guess Night of Soul's Betrayal rarely sees play, too? Very rarely.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 02:05
|
|