|
kizudarake posted:Counterspells. Assuming this is modern, they don't have any counterspells they can play before they drop a land.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
4 battle of wits and 250 lands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
It makes no sense that Shaharazad is banned in Vintage. The card is bad to begin with and your opponent can just concede the subgame if time is an issue. Sensei's Divining Top probably wastes dramatically more time than Shaharazad would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Assuming this is modern, they don't have any counterspells they can play before they drop a land. Pact works, so does Gemstone mine. Belcher is also very quickly nonsense, even if you do some sensible stuff to count the libraries together for things apart from drawing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Allstone posted:Pact works, so does Gemstone mine. Belcher is also very quickly nonsense, even if you do some sensible stuff to count the libraries together for things apart from drawing. If they pact my spell, then I just pass the turn. Angry Grimace posted:It makes no sense that Shaharazad is banned in Vintage. The card is bad to begin with and your opponent can just concede the subgame if time is an issue. Sensei's Divining Top probably wastes dramatically more time than Shaharazad would. Shaharazad is not a bad card. It enabled some very fast wins. But, yes, it should be unbanned. Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:It makes no sense that Shaharazad is banned in Vintage. The card is bad to begin with and your opponent can just concede the subgame if time is an issue. Sensei's Divining Top probably wastes dramatically more time than Shaharazad would. The problem is you need an extra table for each subgame. It's not a timing issue, it's a space issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Pile shuffling is a superstitious ritual and I participate in it daily. Just like masturbation. Your store is a lot more permissive than mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Your store is a lot more permissive than mine. This is what happens when they stop printing good permission control
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Also, could you imagine how annoying people would be if shaharazad was legal at the same time that inception was a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
instantrunoffvote posted:The problem is you need an extra table for each subgame. It's not a timing issue, it's a space issue. That doesn't seem like a big enough deal to keep the card banned in the format of "no banned cards." The card can be restricted to prevent it from happening often and very few Vintage tournaments exist anyways. It isn't like Vintage Dredge doesn't have space concerns, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:Can't wait to call JUDGE! if my opponent attempts to pile shuffle more than once between games. (I will actually try to politely tell them that they shouldn't do that because it's against the rules now). The "as a count" is the key here. I intend to ask every player I see piling post-mulligan as a judge why they're piling. Gonna give out so many slow play warnings it's gonna be great
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
I have never seen someone pile shuffle more than once in a row. What kind of monsters do you people play with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Suggest to them force of will or hearthstone because that's what they are. It works fine in those games. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I think it's such a fundamental change in deck construction that at this point it can't work in Magic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Assuming this is modern, they don't have any counterspells they can play before they drop a land. Disrupting shoal isn't modern legal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I think it's such a fundamental change in deck construction that at this point it can't work in Magic. That's what I mean. The cards in the other games have to be designed over that mechanic being a core part of gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:I would really like to be able to play pauper casually but still be competitive without playing drake combo. I have played 0 games of pauper since EM purely because of that single legal card Same except I've played a few matches. Lost them all to Peregrine Drake. I'm considering completely selling out of MTGO at this point if they still haven't done anything about it. They've already admitted they made a huge mistake, and it's what? 30-something% of the meta? Why not fix it? Angry Grimace posted:That doesn't seem like a big enough deal to keep the card banned in the format of "no banned cards." The card can be restricted to prevent it from happening often and very few Vintage tournaments exist anyways. "This thing that will completely screw up a tournament without adding anything to the format would only happen occasionally so it's fine." How do you even resolve it? Move the game to the other side of the room, leaving part of your $10k+ deck and hoping nobody else messes with or steals it? It's not like you can just have a judge sit there until you get back. Dredge doesn't take up 2 tables. suicidesteve posted:Besides obviously not Gush. Nailed it. Modern, vintage, and pauper continue to be miserable for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:"This thing that will completely screw up a tournament without adding anything to the format would only happen occasionally so it's fine." You resolve it by either saying "I concede the subgame" or making some loving space, or, don't play Shaharazad because its bad. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Is chaos orb still banned? If so, there's the goofy motherfucker of a card we should be crusading for E: force modo to include a physics engine for two cards
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Kill yourself and don't start this argument again, in either order Somebody is triggered i see. Dont worry at this rate eventually they will print a 2 mana creature with good stats with some kind of counter attached to it. Sadly it will be green most likely and you probably wont be able to spend most of your turn interacting with your opponent by looking through your deck and drawing cards in standard anymore. Pile shuffle change is good. They should probably add a thing about minimum riffles too. While Drake in Pauper isnt As Bad as some broken rear end decks when it comes to meta game share. Its basically like Wizards saying they are okay with CoCo dominating standard at its current rate forever. Drake and Delver need a banning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:making some loving space Have you ever been to a major tournament?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
anglachel posted:Pile shuffle change is good. They should probably add a thing about minimum riffles too. The chances that we start insisting on riffles in this very expensive card game are nil. We have a penalty for Insufficient Shuffling and I reckon most judges know what it roughly means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I understand that Wizards probably don't understand Pauper enough to know that they should ban Delver. I don't understand how Peregrine Drake is still legal. It's better than Cloud of Faeries for comboing.instantrunoffvote posted:The problem is you need an extra table for each subgame. It's not a timing issue, it's a space issue. Space and time are linked, that's just science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Imagine four subgames on the edge of a cliff
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
anglachel posted:
Yes, lets try and make people riffle shuffle someone else's double sleeved deck. Sound advice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:Have you ever been to a major tournament? Have you ever been to a major Vintage tournament? The answer is probably no, and the reason why is because there's like 1 per year, and nobody is gonna show up to a loving Vintage tournament to grief other players off a single copy of Shaharazad. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I can't help but think there's a reasonable shot he's being serious. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Yes, lets try and make people riffle shuffle someone else's double sleeved deck. Sound advice. The only redeeming factor for playing this last round of standard was I felt free to riffle shuffle my double sleeved standard deck, since all the valuable stuff was either Collected Companies that I were going to keep for modern, or a bunch of flip cards. Checklist cards are great, I can shuffle however I want!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Yes, lets try and make people riffle shuffle someone else's double sleeved deck. Sound advice. I meant riffle or mash. But phone posting  A little. "7 mashes or riffles will be considered randomized" would be nice. The little overhand shuffle should be banned i think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Have you ever been to a major Vintage tournament? The answer is probably no, and the reason why is because there's like 1 per year, and nobody is gonna show up to a loving Vintage tournament to grief other players off a single copy of Shaharazad. If your contention is that nobody will play it, why do you even want it unbanned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Nailed it. Modern, vintage, and pauper continue to be miserable for the foreseeable future. What would you have liked to have seen changed in order to make Modern not miserable for you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Have you ever been to a major Vintage tournament? The answer is probably no, and the reason why is because there's like 1 per year, and nobody is gonna show up to a loving Vintage tournament to grief other players off a single copy of Shaharazad. e: for the record they managed to win one game, ironically vs a Hatebears deck. Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:What would you have liked to have seen changed in order to make Modern not miserable for you? Let's not do this stupid argument again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Let's not do this stupid argument again. You are the one who started it, though. Saying [format] is miserable as a blanket truth is kinda dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Someone went to the Vintage world championships with a deck consisting of nothing but lands and variants on the card Grizzly Bears. I could definitely imagine someone bringing it to troll, and if they did it would cause legitimate logistical issues. Shaharazad would still be restricted because there ARE degenerate combos if you have multiple copies (e.g. if you could cast Shaharazad in a subgame). As a general principle the card isn't really worth including in an otherwise normal Vintage deck, and playing a deck that is laser-focused on resolving Shaharazad isn't likely to be particularly great against a field of ultra-powerful Vintage decks. Not to mention opponents can simply avoid the troll by conceding the subgame - playing Shaharazad and then chaining Snapcaster Mages to play it again is probably orders of magnitude less powerful than just playing a regular game of Vintage. It does a quirky thing, but its not actually degenerate or broken as a singleton. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Shaharazad would still be restricted because there ARE degenerate combos if you have multiple copies (e.g. if you could cast Shaharazad in a subgame). "there's no extra table space so uh why don't you just concede the subgame?" "no, you concede"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:You are the one who started it, though. Saying [format] is miserable as a blanket truth is kinda dumb. Yes and we've all had this argument about why it's an awful/great format 3 times in the last month. So let's not do it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Speaking of shuffling, have you ever seen the little... I don't even know how to describe it other than "deck spanking" thing YuGiOh players do? Their cards are made out of flimsy toilet paper and they've collectively decided that their cards are made worthless if there's even the slightest bit of wear on them. So they've invented this bizarre method of "shuffling" where they rapidly take a portion of their deck and slap it against the other portion over and over. It looks really easy to make it appear as though you're doing something when you're actually keeping the cards in the exact same spot. If the kid I saw at the prerelease was playing when I was judging, I would have told him to shuffle normally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Yes and we've all had this argument about why it's an awful/great format 3 times in the last month. So let's not do it again. Stop bringing it up if you don't want to talk about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Shaharazad would still be restricted because there ARE degenerate combos if you have multiple copies (e.g. if you could cast Shaharazad in a subgame). It's logistically maddening and an insane time sink, so no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Someone went to the Vintage world championships with a deck consisting of nothing but lands and variants on the card Grizzly Bears. I could definitely imagine someone bringing it to troll, and if they did it would cause legitimate logistical issues. Does anyone have the image with the trip report for this? It deserves to be read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:19
|
|
