|
That's basically just a slightly better Epiphany at the Drownyard (better as in, you can pay 3 CMC and reveal 3 cards, when you'd need to pay 3U for the same effect with Epiphany), which I never recalled seeing any play, and that was Eldritch Moon standard. I think it's fair.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Katana Gomai posted:Agreed, T1 will between this and whatever the best aggro red deck (either Ramunap or R/RB/RU pirates) will be. Once Attune is gone, you can cut green from any deck pretty much. RR will be better than pirates, though it might need to sideboard a Kari Zhev's Expertise or two. Esper Gift to round out T1 would be my guess. Maybe a G/B snek build in there as well. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Matsuri posted:That's basically just a slightly better Epiphany at the Drownyard (better as in, you can pay 3 CMC and reveal 3 cards, when you'd need to pay 3U for the same effect with Epiphany), which I never recalled seeing any play, and that was Eldritch Moon standard. I think it's fair. Nah, it's significantly better (read: at least playable) because it has the FoF template (your opponent makes the piles and you pick, rather than vice versa). It's basically RTR Jace -2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Nah, it's significantly better (read: at least playable) because it has the FoF template (your opponent makes the piles and you pick, rather than vice versa). Oh, it's vice versa? I forgot. Yeah, definitely better then. (I still think it's fair for Standard.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
The more I've been thinking about the new WotC policy implementation, the more it's left a sour taste in my mouth. Part of that reason is because I think, overall, it will hurt the Judge program - as WotC continues to keep the Judge program at arms length ("we control you but we don't own you"). This is just another bad faith item from WotC to Judges to add to the stack they've handed the program in recent years. Beyond that, I think the interest level/desire to convert players to Judges will dwindle given the appearance of added cost. Most might think that a small fee (in the US typically $15-25) as part of entry into the program wouldn't be a large barrier cost to entry - and indeed, it isn't! However, cost-benefit perception plays a huge part in usage, adoption, and enrollment of products and services. For example, back in 2010-11, a few airlines added a nominal fee to in-flight headphones/earbuds (in an effort to cover costs, since this was during a period when airline markets were taking hit). The result? Few customers opted to purchase the headphones. Doesn't seem like it would matter much, but it had a downstream impact of reducing in-flight entertainment sale conversions by a large margin, as well. The solution? You'll probably notice that many airlines hand those headphones out for free all the time again (they're not new though, just "refurbished" from previous flights). While it'd not an identical scenario, the analogy I feel is similar. Consumers on airlines didn't feel they got enough out of an incredibly marginal cost (often in the $2-4 range), especially since more downstream costs were associated with it, to bother with the expense. Prospective Judges aren't necessarily going to be thinking about their long-term community impact, or the opportunities afforded them in the program, they'll see a yearly (or more frequent, since we have no word on that end of policy yet) cost that gets tacked onto existing travel costs, stacked up with perceived opportunity costs ("If I Judge the event, I can't play in it"), to further discourage and dissuade them from joining it. Add that, of course, to the fact that the compensation to judges has dwindled in recent years (ie. removal of GP/conference foils in favor of Exemplar program, many TOs providing little event compensation because it's out of their pockets), it's not wonder that many judges within the program are somewhat cynical of it. Heck, you'll find no shortage of Reddit thread and blog commentators - let alone Judge groups and chats - where people pat themselves on the back for getting out of the program. Compensation issues aside, it's shameful that WotC is being beaten on judge engagement and management by - of all companies - Nintendo, how takes ownership of their judge community (Pokemon Professors), and themselves foot the cost for background checks on any of the organizational/rules arbitration staff at Pokemon TCG events (from local to large). I know none of these comments are likely a surprise to anyone (even less so to Judges), but while I applaud WotC for trying to make their community safer, the reasons why they are doing it now and the manner in which they are doing it feels absolutely tainted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Mikujin posted:(they're not new though, just "refurbished" from previous flights). :gross:
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
That's a heady wall of text with an even headier number of assumptions. So far all WotC has said is that stores must have their employees and judges go through a background check. I don't see how they could even think of making it be the judges who pay for the check. It's still a lovely, hands off excuse of a policy cooked up to give WOTC an out. And it is an added cost to stores, which will likely not be happy about it. But I sincerely doubt the judges are going to be the ones paying for their own background checks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Toshimo posted::gross:  PJOmega posted:That's a heady wall of text with an even headier number of assumptions. So far all WotC has said is that stores must have their employees and judges go through a background check. I don't see how they could even think of making it be the judges who pay for the check. Either way, WotC has provided very little insight into this policy change beyond "Yeah stores need to do it now" which is in atrociously bad taste. It's entirely a reaction to the Unsleeved Media shitheel, and only shows their lack of thought towards policy and implementation for the businesses that will be pushing their product (and volunteers who help manage their gaming community).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:I don't see how they could even think of making it be the judges who pay for the check. Welcome to the year 2018! If you can still return to your own time of the mid 1990s, I implore you to PLEASE become employed at Wizards of the Coast, LLC and steer their management in the direction of competence, even every 5 years or so. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Mikujin posted:If stores would have to pay for checks for any new judge/volunteer, it's likely going to be less costly in larger urban areas to have judges foot the cost for their own check that they can provide the store with, rather than pay for a new check every other week. In areas that lack multiple venues, it may well be simpler for stores to cover the cost. Emphasis mine. There are a ton of problems with WotC's proclamation. This, however, appears to be a problem with your understanding of how background checks work. If a judge goes from store to store each store would have to, at most, perform the background check once for whatever the time period WotC decides on. They wouldn't have to perform a new background check every time they judged a different location and came back. If a judge goes to a store to play they don't need to have a background check performed. It will only needs to be done if they are the judge of record. Why would they have to perform the check every other week? Realistically, by the very nature of judges not being attached to a store, it should be done through the judging program. But WotC is addicted to their free labor. There's no way any remotely competent company* would expect such a loosely worded mandate to actually be followed. They're putting it in place so if future problems are found they can throw the store under the bus, pull their WPN certification, and wash their hands of it. *For all their faults they're at least semi-competent. With access to Hasbro's lawyers on retainer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:For all their faults they're at least semi-competent. With access to Hasbro's lawyers on retainer. Good, Hasbro's lawyers can balance sets for constructed then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
I think judges should be drug tested also.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Koirhor posted:Hot Take : in 5 years paper will be dead and they are going all in on Arena. this is in fact the new wotc president's take
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Emphasis mine. What I've stated (and re-emphasized in your post) is the crux of the issue. WotC is taking zero responsibility for this initiative, and putting it entirely on their stores and the judge program. Because of that, those entities will be on the hook for costs and/or development of some sort of infrastructure for records-keeping. Ideally, WotC would be taking control of the judge program (which in and of itself is scary because of how incompetently they seem to handle everything community-related), and implementing some sort of useful system for storing and managing such records. Using a judge for an event should be as simple as "Yep, your most recent check is still valid in [some system]," rather than having no universal implementation where some stores pay for it and keep record of it in some areas, and in others judges manage their own. But, of course, that's assuming some level of competency from WotC in both policy/community and infrastructure matters, where we've seen them committed to the absolute lowest (if any) standards, as evidenced by all-star community managers like Trick and outstanding digital products like MODO and WER.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I think judges should be drug tested also. This except replace "judges" with "R&D"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:This except replace "judges" with "R&D" You really want R&D doing meth and coke instead of reefer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:That's a heady wall of text with an even headier number of assumptions. So far all WotC has said is that stores must have their employees and judges go through a background check. I don't see how they could even think of making it be the judges who pay for the check. lets come up with a hypothetical scenario store: and this fee which will be applied to you because we have to run a background check judge: wait why is that my problem? store: well we're not going to do it. judge: well i am not either. end scene enter scene store: and this fee which will be applied to you because we have to run a background check judge 2: wait why is that my problem? store: well we're not going to do it. judge 2: oh that sucks, oh well i guess i have to pay it. end scene
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
really im hoping that enough judges would be unwilling to do it and the entire judge program falls down and then WOTC actually has to hire people to judge and stuff but realistically yeah enough people will just pay for the right to work free labor
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
The majority of local judges are college kids or newly graduated people with a healthy chunk of debt. If a store tells them to pay the $80 for a reasonable background check or they can't volunteer (for free) to manage idiots slinging cardboard on a Friday night they'll say to find someone else. I do volunteer work with a lot or kids, for a lot of activities. We fundraise to pay for background checks. The volunteers never pay out of pocket. Because if we charged them we wouldn't get volunteers. If you're a judge, don't pay. The stores want to maintian their WPN. You're providing them a service. Make them pay. Watch as it crashes the L1 judge ecology as stores don't want new judges. Same if you're an employee. Don't let your employer convince you to pay for your background check. Yes, it's bullshit for the store to have to pay for it but it's more bullshit if they expect employees to cover the cost. So not fold. Folding will hurt you. It will hurt others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
yes it is obviously bull poo poo but i don't think that means its not going to happen, especially because as is the judge program appears to be somewhat based around accumulating a collection of people that will put up with collective bullshit for their ~love of the game~ i mean this doesnt just apply to the judge program, a lot of bullshit flies at wotc because you do LOVE the game, dont you? i also think it will be pretty easy for predatory owners to just say "oh well if you're against background checks," i mean listen, i am not saying this is what should happen. i am saying that based on the culture of the game and the baked in exploitation inherit to the role already mixed with my experience with game stores and wotc i think that overwhelmingly this is going to be the experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Hasbro/WotC should just subcontract to Uber to find fresh bodies for the judge program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Anyone bookmaking odds for the B+R announcement tomorrow? I will cover pretend bets for purely hypothetical amounts at the following: Attune 1/5 Refiner 1/3 Hub 1/1 Scarab God 7/1 Ramanup Ruins 10/1
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
I thought banning a 4 Mana 1/4 would be the most embarrassing ban possible but now that it could very well be attune or hub is just like, what the heck
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
My money is on Attune and I'm gonna put a long odd on Sunscorched Desert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Did another prerelease event, this pool had way more bombs in it. Promo was the elder black dino, tendershoot dryad, treasure map, the 5 cost draw cards equal to the amount of vamps you control, 3 drop 5/5 extra land drop dino, ton of life gain, decent amount of removal between black and white. Blue was mediocre but red more or less was trash outside of the deal 3 / raid deal 6 removal. Ended up in base black, some green, light white splash for removal. 2-0’d all my opponents and 2-1’d my opponent in the finals. Store was very generous with extra promos so everyone left happy
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:I thought banning a 4 Mana 1/4 would be the most embarrassing ban possible but now that it could very well be attune or hub is just like, what the heck Cat was a way less embarassing ban than Smuggler's Copter (banning a card in the first ban announcement after it was released) or Reflector Mage (which only made sense as a ban because it would have turned Cat Combo into a straight up unbeatable monster) but banning Cat when they did was more embarassing than just retroactively adding it to the banned list when people saw the spoiler and pointed out that it was straight up Splinter Twin. I'm predicting Attune and Ruins bans. I don't think WotC are forward thinking enough to preemptively ban Hub to stop Grixis Energy, and I think they'll ban Attune to stop Temur Energy and Ruins to weaken Red. I do not believe they'll ban Hazoret for the same reason they didn't ban Saheeli over Cat (it's a marquee card) and I think banning Ruins would remove the absurd reach that Ramunap Red gets over control decks for no deckbuilding cost and limited ingame cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:Anyone bookmaking odds for the B+R announcement tomorrow? This standard could have been easily fixed with path to exile, ancient grudge and lightning bolt. (Edit: all these would even work flavorwise in Ixalan) Aside from marvel and emrakul the rest is just stupid cards. Smugglers copter is a big whatever with bolt or grudge. Reflector mage was annoying but not oppressive. Scarab God and energy are dumb but with enough decent removal they would be fine. The only card that would get out of control would be the Hydra but hell hexproof is always annoying. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
I predict nothing will be banned in Standard. After the last couple rounds of bannings Standard turned into a lovely expensive months-long version of whack-a-mole as second-tier decks filled the empty void and made life just as bad as the previous frontrunner. I would like to think WotC have figured out they're not banning their way out of this mess and the only way to course correct is to print new cards that address current issues. Of course having said that watch the correct answer be "All of the above".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Alris posted:I predict nothing will be banned in Standard. After the last couple rounds of bannings Standard turned into a lovely expensive months-long version of whack-a-mole as second-tier decks filled the empty void and made life just as bad as the previous frontrunner. I would like to think WotC have figured out they're not banning their way out of this mess and the only way to course correct is to print new cards that address current issues. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
They'll likely ban something from energy, the question is which card and if they will ban something from a non-energy deck (RR) so it doesn't just replace energy as enemy #1
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Enter How does this address the problem of not having cheap instant speed interaction to stop all of the dumb things that have needed bans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Aside from marvel and emrakul the rest is just stupid cards. Smugglers copter is a big whatever with bolt or grudge. Reflector mage was annoying but not oppressive. Reminder that Veteran Motorist made Smuggler Thopter into a 4/4 when it was animated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Do you guys have any suggestions for a pauper angel deck for a 7 year old girl? I've decided to teach my daughter how to play. Probably take her by a game shop in a couple weeks and see what strikes her fancy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
My fake money is on Hub and Attune and thats it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:How does this address the problem of not having cheap instant speed interaction to stop all of the dumb things that have needed bans? They're banned, Goatnapper isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:How does this address the problem of not having cheap instant speed interaction to stop all of the dumb things that have needed bans? Patrick Chapin pointed out the problem that Wizards has made too many cards that snowball. There are too many threats that say "answer me this turn or you lose" in standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
Blizzy_Cow posted:Do you guys have any suggestions for a pauper angel deck for a 7 year old girl? I've decided to teach my daughter how to play. Probably take her by a game shop in a couple weeks and see what strikes her fancy. There are no good angels at common, or do you mean just cheap?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
Blizzy_Cow posted:Do you guys have any suggestions for a pauper angel deck for a 7 year old girl? I've decided to teach my daughter how to play. Probably take her by a game shop in a couple weeks and see what strikes her fancy. Most angels are rare, so making a pauper deck is going to be difficult. There are only four angels that cost less than 4 and are common or uncommon. All but one are pretty bad, and the remaining one is blue of all things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Blizzy_Cow posted:Do you guys have any suggestions for a pauper angel deck for a 7 year old girl? I've decided to teach my daughter how to play. Probably take her by a game shop in a couple weeks and see what strikes her fancy. Not sure what you're asking us to do, but I'd start by just doing a search for all the common angels so you know what you've got to work with. There are some O-ring effects at common for removal as well. It's not like there's any pre-existing pauper angel deck (or really any preexisting mono-white midrange deck, which is essentially what this sounds like) so I'm not sure what else anyone could tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Hellsau posted:They're banned, Goatnapper isn't. What I mean is that Chupacabra doesn't do anything to make the best decks less dominant the way that having Path and Doom Blade and Bolt and Mana Leak would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 06:00
|
|