|
Lawnie posted:Ponder is too busted for modern, meanwhile CoCo players are popping out 6 cmc in creatures for 4 mana at instant speed. There is this weird limit for cheating creatures/fast mana that apparently is OK in Modern, but apparently fixing your draws and cantripping isn't. It doesn't really make much sense because the cards sort of do the same thing - draw you into what you want. In some way Ponder is worse, since you still have to cast what you are drawing instead of just spamming it out into the battlefield at instant speed.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
CoCo has real deck construction costs to make it cheating mana, it's only cheating 2 mana at best, it's not cheating mana into big creatures, and it's only cheating creatures. Like if you think CoCo and Dark Ritual have anything in common you're kinda loving retarded
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Like if you think CoCo and Dark Ritual have anything in common you're kinda loving retarded Yeah, Dark Ritual is card disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:CoCo has real deck construction costs to make it cheating mana, it's only cheating 2 mana at best, it's not cheating mana into big creatures, and it's only cheating creatures. Whoa man, I didn't think I compared it to Dark Ritual, which isn't legal in modern anyway. I'm framing it as this: The "construction cost" of a coco deck is basically nil, since a deck like Abzan CoCo is playing a pile of synergistic and good creatures it wants to draw into anyway. I suppose you could say "yeah but you can't play EVEN BETTER creatures with CMC greater than 3" but that's besides the point since the deck is tier 1 as is with the creature pool it has right now. So effectively the construction cost is that you can only play like 8-10 non-creature spells. Which is fine because the 8 spells all draw you or fetch you the creatures you want on the battlefield anyway! Cheating 2 mana at best is the ceiling on mana cheating I am talking about in Modern. Eldrazi Temple, Simian Spirit Guide, delve creatures, tron lands - all of these are pretty clearly the ceiling WOTC wants for fast/cheating mana and all also come with deckbuilding costs as well. What I was comparing was the power of Ponder vs the power of Collected Company, and stating that it doesn't make a ton of sense that Ponder is seen as too powerful when "all" it does is fix your next 3 draws or give you an unknown draw while giving you a card to delve away if your deck wants that. Ultimately, CoCo is doing more for you, but obviously costs quite a bit more. I suppose you can say that Ponder doesn't have the same deckbuilding restrictions and would be run in a lot of blue decks just to ensure they draw into their answers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
CoCo should probably have been a sorcery or required double green.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:CoCo has real deck construction costs to make it cheating mana, it's only cheating 2 mana at best, it's not cheating mana into big creatures, and it's only cheating creatures. I didn't realize every creature in the deck already had flash? Adding flash to 2 creatures and also getting therm both into play with 1 card is not worth 0 mana.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:I'm framing it as this: The "construction cost" of a coco deck is basically nil, since a deck like Abzan CoCo is playing a pile of synergistic and good creatures it wants to draw into anyway. I suppose you could say "yeah but you can't play EVEN BETTER creatures with CMC greater than 3" but that's besides the point since the deck is tier 1 as is with the creature pool it has right now. So effectively the construction cost is that you can only play like 8-10 non-creature spells. Which is fine because the 8 spells all draw you or fetch you the creatures you want on the battlefield anyway! The fact that the deck is good within its own construction limits doesn't mean those costs don't exist, and Company decks having limited access to direct interaction with their opponent is a very real downside that makes for some very challenging matchups against decks that don't care about you gaining life or blocking on the ground. quote:What I was comparing was the power of Ponder vs the power of Collected Company, and stating that it doesn't make a ton of sense that Ponder is seen as too powerful when "all" it does is fix your next 3 draws or give you an unknown draw while giving you a card to delve away if your deck wants that. Ultimately, CoCo is doing more for you, but obviously costs quite a bit more. I suppose you can say that Ponder doesn't have the same deckbuilding restrictions and would be run in a lot of blue decks just to ensure they draw into their answers. This is definitely the case, given that even blue decks without Delver run worse-than-pauper filtering like Serum Visions just to help filter their draws. This might also be a byproduct of Snapcaster being in every blue deck, since it has pretty good synergy with him even if it's not usually your ideal scenario. EDIT: Company is a loving awesome card and definitely too good for Standard now that Siege Rhino is gone and they keep printing nutso tempo swing three drops, but it's not even close to being a bogeyman card in Modern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:Ponder is too busted for modern, meanwhile CoCo players are popping out 6 cmc in creatures for 4 mana at instant speed. Black Lotus is too busted for Legacy, meanwhile S&T players are popping out 15 cmc in creatures for 3 mana.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Star Man posted:It's cheap-ish? Are you talking about the budget version from mtg goldfish or the expensive version that is like 700 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:I didn't realize every creature in the deck already had flash? Adding flash to 2 creatures and also getting therm both into play with 1 card is not worth 0 mana. Didn't realize that was relevant to the complaints about it being fast mana? Like no poo poo the card is an instant. It's not oppressive in modern in the slightest. Ponder will do too much good for the combo decks out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:The fact that the deck is good within its own construction limits doesn't mean those costs don't exist, and Company decks having limited access to direct interaction with their opponent is a very real downside that makes for some very challenging matchups against decks that don't care about you gaining life or blocking on the ground. It is definitely a powerful card, but it is not nearly as terrifying as Glistener Elf or Death's Shadow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
What happened to make Suicide Zoo suddenly popular? I thought everyone viewed as a fun gimmick but too fragile and one-note.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Are you talking about the budget version from mtg goldfish or the expensive version that is like 700 bucks. The latter. I say cheap-ish because it doesn't break four digits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Star Man posted:The latter. I say cheap-ish because it doesn't break four digits. Yeah but you could build literally every deck besides Jund, Junk, Jeskai Nahiri, and Grixis Delver for that cost. I guess Abzan Coco is about $1200, but you can get it down to about a grand. And all of those MTGgoldfish prices are TCGmid instead of low, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:It is definitely a powerful card, but it is not nearly as terrifying as Glistener Elf or Death's Shadow. Clearly the way to break modern is to play coco and reveal a Death's Shadow and a Glistener Elf
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Hahaha, Maro's corporate masters are making him sign all his blog posts with a hashtag indicating he's a Wizards employee. This is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Ponder would be insanely ubiquitous in modern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Ponder would be insanely ubiquitous in modern. There's hardly any blue decks. How could this possibly be true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:There's hardly any blue decks. How could this possibly be true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Preordain is more likely just because you see less cards so it's not as good in combo. And as another grixis delver playing fool I would love any of em.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
The problem isn't cantrips...specifically. It is a certain critical mass of them. If you have to many good 1 mana cantrips storm combo just becomes this insurmountable juggernaut. Imagine Storm combo with Ponder and Preordain.....it is terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Wizards needs to print more 1 mana cantrips, then ban the old ones, both to have some variety in the game and to force people to crack new packs. (New Blue Cantrip will dig through 4 cards and be mythic rare.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Wizards needs to print more 1 mana cantrips, then ban the old ones, both to have some variety in the game and to force people to crack new packs. Everything about this post is true except the cantrip will be 1U - Draw a Card
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
lol the actual article on WOTC immediately removed the part about the vehicles:
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Kaladesh confirmed for Hasbro TONKA and/or Playskool crossover!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:lol the actual article on WOTC immediately removed the part about the vehicles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiLaNEFyCiM
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
It also mentioned a Murder reprint in Kaladesh. Obviously that might have changed with it coming in EDM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Vehicles makes sense as the thing that Magic has tried to do since the early days but hasn't been able to get perfect so far and would also fit into making Kaladesh a set that features artifacts without seeming like a retread of Mirrodin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
whydirt posted:It also mentioned a Murder reprint in Kaladesh. Obviously that might have changed with it coming in EDM. Speaking of which, the difference between this: and this: is a good analogue for complaints about WotC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Speaking of which, the difference between this: Well yeah, the second one has flavor text which is cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:Yeah but you could build literally every deck besides Jund, Junk, Jeskai Nahiri, and Grixis Delver for that cost. I guess Abzan Coco is about $1200, but you can get it down to about a grand. And all of those MTGgoldfish prices are TCGmid instead of low, of course. Yeah. I dunno what I want to build, really. A tier one deck would be best, but some kind of okay tier two deck that incorporates cards used in other decks is fine by me. Maybe I can do Elves because $4050 of it is just in Verdant Catacombs and Cavern of Souls, and the remaining $200 is the rest of the manabase, Collected Company, and all of the creatures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Well yeah, the second one has flavor text which is cool. fight me
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:fight me I mean this is the superior version of Prey Upon so sure. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Yeah. BW Tokens can be good because it has great match-ups against the tier one decks Affinity and Jund, while having an good game against Jeskai. But it has terrible game against Infect and Tron, the other tier one decks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:BW Tokens can be good because it has great match-ups against the tier one decks Affinity and Jund, while having an good game against Jeskai. But it has terrible game against Infect and Tron, the other tier one decks. What does a good BW tokens list look like anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:What does a good BW tokens list look like anyway http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=13015&d=275943&f=MO It includes cards like Auriok Champion that aren't used in anything else but are still 30 bucks because mtg finance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
keeblerdrow posted:So I was flipping through my Standard binders putting cards back in preparation for the new set's brewing and I noticed and then remembered this little guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
For your weekly dose of wotc doing questionable poo poo, take a look at their new guidelines for social media!quote:With these changes you may see employees use various hashtags, such as #WotCStaff or #WizardsEmployee or other things like that which make clear their employment in the text of their posts. Which means that, on literally every single post on MaRo's twitter or tumblr (or Trick Jarett's, or Matt Tabak's, or...), he has to put #WotCStaff in it. Well, just the ones about Magic, but that's all most of them post about. Why do this? Well, the FTC is cracking down on bloggers and YouTube channels doing paid reviews for products without disclosing them, or disclosing them poorly; see the recent Shadow of Mordor dustup. Specifically, the guidelines say this: quote:If your company allows employees to use social media to talk about its products, you should make sure that your relationship is disclosed to people who read your online postings about your company or its products. Put yourself in the reader’s shoes. Isn’t the employment relationship something you would want to know before relying on someone else’s endorsement? Listing your employer on your profile page isn’t enough. After all, people who just read what you post on a review site won’t get that information. It's nice that they made a strange decision that only affects their employees and not everyone actually playing the game, but... what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
They're complying with an FTC regulation. Let's bitch about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
I am not going to put in an ounce of thought into hashtags. I have no idea why anyone else would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:53
|
|