|
Sigma-X posted:I don't get why that gifts pile has quicken commandeer isn't very good when played at sorcery speed
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
So you can play unburial rites at instant speed if they put the gear hulk in your graveyard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Best part of vintage champs is that there is actually room in the hall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Elyv posted:What are you commandeering in modern, become Immense? obviously their ad nauseam in your deck full of expensive poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Johnny Five-Jaces posted:obviously their ad nauseam in your deck full of expensive poo poo Wow way to steal my plan!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
 Winter Orb is just magical.  I won this game, maybe 10 turns later?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Jabor posted:commandeer isn't very good when played at sorcery speed wat Molybdenum posted:So you can play unburial rites at instant speed if they put the gear hulk in your graveyard. Oh this makes sense, thanks! Tim Raines IRL posted:
what the gently caress are you playing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:what the gently caress are you playing? Opposition. So much tilt, so much fun. Practicing for Baltimore. Have gone 4-0 and 2-2 locally in paper. I think 4-0 had a lot to do with being paired against Infect twice, though...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Opposition. So much tilt, so much fun. Practicing for Baltimore. Have gone 4-0 and 2-2 locally in paper. I think 4-0 had a lot to do with being paired against Infect twice, though... Is this the same as that 80-card elf deck you were talking about earlier? If not  a list, I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:Is this the same as that 80-card elf deck you were talking about earlier? If not I stole this from a list that top 8'd a Bazaar of Moxen, but have been playing around with it. Currently it is 3 Tropical Island 2 Bayou 3 wooded foothills 4 windswept heath misty rainforest verdant catacomb 2 dryad arbor 1 forest 3 gaea's cradle 3 noble hierarch 3 baleful strix 3 elvish visionary 4 coiling oracle 4 deathrite shaman wirewood symbiote 3 shardless agent craterhoof behemoth 3 opposition 3 garruk wildspeaker 3 cabal therapy thoughtseize sylvan library 4 green sun's zenith 2 Abrupt Decay board Umezawa's Jitte 2 Surgical Extraction Reclamation Sage Scavenging Ooze 2 Marsh Casualties Stain the Mind Dread of Night 2 Winter Orb 2 thoughtseize abrupt decay leovold, emissary of trest I have some thoughts on matchups if anyone is curious, I've played this a few times in paper and a bunch more online. I've also tested against DnT until we were both sick of it and then some because I can take lunch breaks with a thalia.dec player. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Started 6-1 at eternal vintage but ended up 6-3 when the wheels came off. Ended up being in the top four of powerless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Anyone have lists from Eternal Weekend's NA Legacy Championship? There were some hot decks in the stream today but I didn't get to see the top 8 or lists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:Anyone have lists from Eternal Weekend's NA Legacy Championship? There were some hot decks in the stream today but I didn't get to see the top 8 or lists. Eldrazi Death and Taxes Miracles Death and Taxes Death and Taxes BR Reanimator 4c Delver Hex Depths Actual lists --- Vintage up top, legacy below http://www.cardtitan.com/coverage
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Tried to watch some Vintage and I got 15 mins of players shuffling while Randy Buehler tries to fill time...
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Dehtraen posted:Eldrazi Oh, that Soldiers deck didn't make it? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:Oh, that Soldiers deck didn't make it? Lost to miracles on t4 to a topdecked entreat
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:Oh, that Soldiers deck didn't make it? Was this the Stompy version that pops up a couple times a year? Have most of it built but got lazy about finishing it since there's no Legacy around here (and also $60 Cavern of Souls  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:Was this the Stompy version that pops up a couple times a year? Have most of it built but got lazy about finishing it since there's no Legacy around here (and also $60 Cavern of Souls The one that proves that the other 67 cards don't matter if 8 of your cards are Ancient Tomb Chalice of the Void?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Dehtraen posted:Eldrazi well i guess i'll just throw delver in the garbage e: i know there is literally a delver list in there but playing against the card "sword of fire and ice" makes me very sad
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Did i mention that the pacing on this stream is HORRIBLE?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
what happened to your NRA av
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:The one that proves that the other 67 cards don't matter if 8 of your cards are Ancient Tomb Chalice of the Void? That's why I haven't taken it apart yet, lol I'd just use them to build Eldrazi if I could get City of Traitors for less than a Benjamin per copy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
I've been playing a lot of modern merfolk recently and was looking at building the legacy version. I'd probably be playing mostly on MTGO, though there is a small legacy crowd that's beginning to grow in my area so I may translate it into paper. Is it actually any good or am I going to get stomped by more common archtypes like miracles and delver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Mef989 posted:I've been playing a lot of modern merfolk recently and was looking at building the legacy version. I'd probably be playing mostly on MTGO, though there is a small legacy crowd that's beginning to grow in my area so I may translate it into paper. Is it actually any good or am I going to get stomped by more common archtypes like miracles and delver. Merfolk is actually kinda favorable against miracles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:That's why I haven't taken it apart yet, lol glhf
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Merfolk is actually kinda favorable against miracles. Everyone always says this (they also say it about every deck so  ) and I've never seen it win a game, let alone a match.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Merfolk has the same problem that every creature deck does against Miracles: Terminus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Everyone always says this (they also say it about every deck so I've never dropped a match against miracles either though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Star Man posted:glhf p much. Fortunately(?) there's only one weekly Legacy event around here and it's at the same time as my favorite gym class, so there's no point in me trying to build anything right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Man, vintage top 8 had some real drama going on this morning. The eventual winner got deck-checked for 20 minutes, was told 2 of his cards (crucible and sol ring) were clearly marked (the only foils in his deck, single sleeved and very curved)had to replace only one of them immediately (the other had to be replaced after the match, which makes little sense if it really was marked) and got no penalty for it. Did get a warning for insufficient randomization though for other reasons we were told. Many people around were quite  about this both ways. Most everyone but his team were mad that he got off completely scot-free for something so seemingly serious, while his team seemed very mad that anyone would dare impugn his honor that way. Apparently his team (vintage magic) have a reputation for being savage cheaters at other events in the past, which made the whole situation that much more charged and tense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
L0cke17 posted:Man, vintage top 8 had some real drama going on this morning. The eventual winner got deck-checked for 20 minutes, was told 2 of his cards (crucible and sol ring) were clearly marked (the only foils in his deck, single sleeved and very curved)had to replace only one of them immediately (the other had to be replaced after the match, which makes little sense if it really was marked) and got no penalty for it. Did get a warning for insufficient randomization though for other reasons we were told. Many people around were quite Randy and Bob were referring to him as "the sketchy one" before the stream officially started (the mics were already on). They were also talking about possibly providing evidence of cheating. n1tro fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
There an archive somewhere of this vintage tournament?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:There an archive somewhere of this vintage tournament? https://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/videos/all
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
ETM had a controversial judge ruling on a chalice. Player a casts chalice on 1. Player a casts pithing needle. It resolves. Passes turn to player b. Player b untaps and notices the missed the chalice trigger. The judge ruled the pithing needle stays in play. Current procedure dictates that a missed trigger gets added to the stack at the moment it was missed. In this case, the missed chalice trigger goes on the stack, but pithing needle is already in play and therefore there is nothing to counter. I agree that it was handled by the book, but It seems like everyone agrees that re-winding in this specific case would have been a much better solution. I wonder if we could add a little discretion for these situations. Perhaps allowing the game state to be re-wound if both players and the judge agree to do it. Of course this opens up the possibility for player a to rule scum his opponent and not allow the re-wind. It jus seems impossible to have a ruleset that will always find the correct option, so I feel there should be some avenue to customize the option for the specific setting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
The head judge already has discretion to backup the game state if the "appropriate" fix without backing up leaves the game in a stupid situation. Just give the head judge the discretion to also do that for missed-trigger cases where the opponent wants the trigger to be resolved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Everyone always says this (they also say it about every deck so I play Miracles, I have a friend who plays Merfolk who I have played against many times and watched play against many times. The matchup is not good for Miracles if the Merfolk player doesn't wildly overextend into Terminus without countermagic backup. Counterbalance is next to worthless and a single TNN demands a Terminus, Council's Judgment, or EE, and Chalice on 1 is a huge beating. Mutavaults are also incredibly annoying for the Miracles player if they are not overextended into a big Terminus. Postboard Moat is big game against them - their only out is usually 1-2 Echoing Truth if that - otherwise it's still not great. I would call it at least a 60-40 matchup for Merfolk if not better. IIRC I am like 2-7 personally against my experienced Merfolk friend. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
eSporks posted:ETM had a controversial judge ruling on a chalice. Why would you rewind there though? It's the chalice's owner's responsibility to remember that trigger. Playing into a chalice to see if your opponent is paying attention is perfectly reasonable. I suppose if nothing else happened to the boardstate then yeah, you could argue for a rewind but it's still a legal play and a textbook ruling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Why would you rewind there though? It's the chalice's owner's responsibility to remember that trigger. Playing into a chalice to see if your opponent is paying attention is perfectly reasonable. I suppose if nothing else happened to the boardstate then yeah, you could argue for a rewind but it's still a legal play and a textbook ruling. It was Player A missing his own chalice trigger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It was Player A missing his own chalice trigger. Ohhh well I misread that and made some incorrect assumptions. Then yeah, I disagree with that ruling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
L0cke17 posted:Man, vintage top 8 had some real drama going on this morning. The eventual winner got deck-checked for 20 minutes, was told 2 of his cards (crucible and sol ring) were clearly marked (the only foils in his deck, single sleeved and very curved)had to replace only one of them immediately (the other had to be replaced after the match, which makes little sense if it really was marked) and got no penalty for it. Did get a warning for insufficient randomization though for other reasons we were told. Yeah, that's straight wrong, it's a Game Loss for upgraded Marked Cards and they should need to change both (and frankly, with the single-sleeving and insufficient randomisation on top I'm investigating for Cheating). Jabor posted:The head judge already has discretion to backup the game state if the "appropriate" fix without backing up leaves the game in a stupid situation. The Head Judge always has discretion to ignore policy, but they should be really careful about doing so. Policy is there to provide consistency. Again, this is a snap-investigation and they're going to have to do a reaaaaal good job convincing me that going "Chalice on 1, 1-drop miss trigger" isn't cheating (probably the only way this isn't is if they didn't know they can't deliberately miss their trigger)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 11:43
|
|
