|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
jassi007 posted:If you are sure its the real deal hold them. What do you think the odds are an obscure card like that is due for a reprint anytime soon? If it really takes off AND they don't ban it/ban out the decks that use it, I'm sure it'll be reprinted at some point. Of course, given the degree of nimbleness they possess w/r/t reprint schedules, it'll be something like Modern Masters 7. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Well, it's not untrue that if the  RESERVE LIST (and/or other forces working against the supply of Legacy cards) didn't exist, then the pressure for a format like Modern to exist would have been much less, because everyone could just play Legacy for the same sort of "not Standard, and not a lovely format like Extended became" fix.But yeah. As it's shaken out, Legacy and Modern have their own distinct identities. It's silly to complain that one isn't the other.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
The one thing I might not like about actually playing Legacy is that I can see it being rather unappealing watching my opponent rub ponders and brainstorms all over their dick, even if the cards aren't really oppressive by the numbers where the format is concerned. Stuff like Daze and FoW would probably be fine. I think Modern might actually be more fun (for non-blue players) if FoW was legal and Cryptic was not. What people said about it being rear end against fair decks isn't that much of an exaggeration, even if it might not feel that way when your big timmy play gets forced. e: unless we are also assuming that Wasteland is reprinted, I'd think Tron would cum bullets at the thought of a blue player going down card advantage to counter a spell for which you can uncounterably tutor up a replacement on your next turn using Eye of Ugin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Not that they need be absolutely shackled to the past, but if you look at the previous large-small-large blocks, there's been one where they haven't carried over any mechanics (ROE) and one where they carried over one in a relatively minor fashion (AVR). Coupled with the probability that they intend for time travel to significantly change the "present" Tarkir, and I'd put my money on the side of the mechanics not being the same in the third set.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
UberJew posted:I opened a foil Windswept Heath Well, at least you basically got the best-case scenario out of that situation, namely a foil fetch (I guess it could have been a blue fetch but whatever). Now never do it again. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
On the list of sins a Magic card can commit, making people spend thirty seconds on their phone Googling an unfamiliar word is way, way, way down at the bottom.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
I think I get what he's saying, which is that losing a hundred pounds or eating healthy (or whatever) isn't going to suddenly make you a steely-minded Magic player and that if you want to focus on one thing, it's better (for Magic purposes) to live on bags of Cheetos and practice the poo poo out of Magic, rather than the opposite. He even acknowledges that fitness and health are very desirable for their own sake. That said, I'm confused as to why he felt it necessary to mention this at all. He alludes to some "widespread" idea about fitness being related to Magic success, but I can't say I've ever encountered it before. The entire section of the article is completely out of left field. I think he had a pretty good partial point about trying too hard to astroturf the clan names. I mean, I think a lot of decks going forward are going to be called Sultai whatever and that's not necessarily worth railing against, but saying that Justin Gary played "Sultai Oath" in 2002 just sounds ridiculous, like the Magic equivalent of Mormon posthumous baptism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Travis Woo. The guy streams Magic with his shirt off and rambles about how the latest diet is going to make him a perfectly sculpted Magic machine. You'd hope that PV of all people would realize that engaging with TWoo is beneath him, but I guess not 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Entropic posted:There's no disadvantage to playing it face down if you're swimming in mana, but is there any other morph you could conceivably be playing in a mono-black deck? I guess it could be Ruthless Ripper. I think you could remove the morph ability and the card would have exactly the same level of constructed playability. It's interesting how the whole bluff value of morph plummets like a rock in Constructed for pretty much exactly the reason you stated. In Limited it's interesting because one morph could be a 3/1 and the other a 4/4 lifelinker so which one are you gonna burn when they're tapped out? I realize this isn't something that everyone didn't already know, so I guess what I wanted to add is just that it's a shame they didn't do more work to try and make multiple morphs per deck a widespread thing in Constructed too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Chorocojo posted:Basically yeah. They normally only occur in sapient, living things that were born. What about Ob Nixilis? Do I have it wrong that he was a demon planeswalker who lost his spark?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:My thought was that maybe they would do something similar to what they did w/ the RTR cycle where you have half in the first set, half in the second, and then all of them in the 3rd at reduced chances or whatever it was. Well, in this block's case it would be all of them in the 2nd, which actually would fit perfectly well IMO (dunno if they'd want to do it, though).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:I don't think anyone in here ever said Fetches wouldn't get to $10 or less. I'm not going to go back into the previous thread hunting for the quote but I'm 99% sure that on the night when fetches were spoiled, I said they'd get down to $10 apiece and someone else said lol, no, they won't go below 15-20.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:You should see it in the Jeskai Ascendancy Deck, I think in Channel Fireball's latest video Sam Pardee ends up casting 3 cruises in 1 turn, on turn 3. Well, that is a deck that can by design cast indefinite numbers of 1-mana cantrips once it starts going off (not to mention having a looter built into the engine, so each Sleight of Hand or whatever is actually +2 for Delve). Most decks will have to do more work for the second or third Cruise. I don't know that Cruise is a problem in Modern in fair decks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
In an alternate universe, goons are bemoaning the decision to take a fatty that has flash, uncounterability, and dodges removal (albeit in a resource-limited fashion) and give it immunity to being meaningfully chump blocked as well. I mean, it seems obvious in hindsight that they could have pushed it a little bit more, especially at 7 mana and with you being able to return it to hand once, maybe twice in a reasonable game, but I can see Wizards not wanting to tickle the tiger's tail in that department. As Myriad Truths said, push it a little too far the other way and you get Aetherling.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:it basically rewards an ever-escalating sequence of dick moves I love this because it basically slam-dunks the reasons why Treasure Cruise is probably a lot worse for the formats than the other "Ancestral, but with an added cost" variants. Take Visions, for example, as the other really playable one--you need to either wait out the suspend, get lucky on a cascade, or set up a cascade. Sure decks can do it for value, which is why it's still a good card, but it's not trivial, nor are the mechanics by which you end up casting it inherently toxic-feeling, unless I guess you hate cascade more than I do. Treasure Cruise, on the other hand? More than anything else, rewards you for incidentally rubbing blue cantrips all over your dick, and/or fixing your mana (with lots of shuffling!). Both things we ought to walk back the amount of incentive for doing, not increase it. Okay, Ancestral Visions in cascade decks also synergizes well with Brainstorm, Ponder, etc., but it doesn't get cast that way anywhere near all the time, whereas casting a 1-mana blue spell to lovingly fondle the top of your library will always make your inevitable Cruise that much more castable. I say this as someone who enjoys being the guy casting card selection spells (who wouldn't?) but realizes that they're probably a lovely thing for the game at their current density. Also, repostin' just cuz
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Suicidesteve's opponent didn't identify what he was fetching for, though, only suicidesteve himself. Because, of course, steve's own fetch has to resolve before he has mana to stifle the opponent's fetch. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:heist of saint Traft Want dis card name in Return to Innistrad But seriously, what am I reading about here? Your friend decided to buy a Geist from a position of complete ignorance about the card's value or price history, saw that the lowest price was $100 and went for it anyway? Or the price was spiking because of a frenzy of hype and your friend was part of the frenzy? JerryLee fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:I'm not certain I follow but I'm going to read some articles and see if I can find some examples to work with Look for articles by Alex Bertoncini.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Is it possible they changed the rules on Pauper, or maybe they plan on changing them but it got implemented too soon by mistake? Yeah I was going to say, having them change it to sync up with the cardboard legality would be a pretty cool move on their part, only if that's what they were trying to do then they forgot the "ban stuff" step.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Not that this defends the decision to print it but the thing that turned Memory Jar from "combo piece" into "emergency ban combo piece" was probably all the artifact mana available in Urza block and in the environment generally, plus Tinker. Another pseudo-Wheel for combo decks to use whilst going off? Eh, whatever. Being able to use some combination of Petal, Diamond, Monolith, Mana Vault and Voltaic Key to cast and/or Tinker for it and crack it turn 1 or 2, drawing into more mana/jars/tinkers/Megrims? Okay, now you're in  territory.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:"Tossed a couple lands on the table after deckbuilding. Person across from me was (unbeknown to me) hit and felt aggressed. During turn 3 of game 1, I get pulled out and told my tournament is over. Zero tolerance policy for potentially aggressive behavior. Intent is not taken into consideration." This is the end of the slippery slope of not being able to take pictures of people showing off their asscracks in a public venue. Where is this from?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I was hoping it was some anecdote from FNM or something with a tinpot dictator store owner. If tossing cards onto a table and accidentally hitting someone is cause for ejection from the Pro Tour then we really have passed into the realm of self-parody. e: I would say that whoever narced on him should be shunned Wescoe-betting-style, but they may genuinely have just wanted someone to tell him not to do that anymore, I have no idea. e2: I mean it's also not outside the realm of possibility that we'll find out that the dude actually spiked the cards directly at someone else on purpose and he's trying to spin it a different way. I guess I should withhold judgment. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
The real star of that match was Brad Nelson's giant bottle of water.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
^^^ I'm positive you could find quotes of people bitching about Ponder/Preordain getting banned in Modern too, or people arguing that Ancestral Visions should be unbannedAttorney at Funk posted:Luis Scott-Vargas @lsv *Wizards immediately ejects LSV from the tournament for aggression*
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Honestly? Wizards likes having a "heel" around. Maro has come right out and said that he thinks Mike Long was great for the game even though he was a blatant, unsportsmanlike cheater because he gave people a villain. I don't think they're "encouraging" Bertoncini to cheat but I don't think they see it as big a problem as we do. On the other hand they DQ someone for throwing cards in someone else's face. Yeah, I read the report and it sounds like after interviewing everyone it was concluded that he actually threw the cards in the guy's face which is definitely intolerable but probably does a lot less harm to the game qua game than a notorious cheater never being effectively dealt with. I don't remember the Maro Mike Long comment but did his opinion basically at all take into account the fact that the Long era was basically the wild west of Magic compared to today? Chris Benafel, PTR, probably lots of other bad boys I don't remember were also playing around that time. It was a different era as far as quality of cheating enforcement and expectations of sportsmanship at the Pro Tour level. There's plenty of room for rivalry stories like between top teams, but I don't think we have to go back to people being toxic on the tournament floor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:No he's just saying that 'fame' doesn't have a moral component (which is true) and that therefore neither should the HoF (which is contentious and generally disputed) Ahh, okay, so he was talking more about the Hall of Fame rather than who should be actively playing in competitive Magic right now? That makes sense. But then I still don't know that it has any direct application to the Bertoncini case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Just about everything I read about SCG tournaments, and PTQs for that matter, makes them seem like really unfun hellholes. I know it's probably confirmation bias on my part, but it just seems like someone made a club for all the sociopathic tryhards who can't actually hack it at the pro level consistently, and it makes me wonder why I would want to go to one of those things even if I had the chance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Aisar posted:I feel like that's a tacit admission that LotV is too strong to reprint in standard. Haven't they come out and said that they would have printed LotV in this current standard (that is, M15) if it weren't for black already being too strong contextually, in this specific standard? Basically "You could have had this, but you already have Thoughtseize (etc.)."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
qbert posted:Pearl Lake Ancient. Ugh, don't they know it can be chump blocked? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
meanolmrcloud posted:Pretty excited for this final. I don't really get the hate for Jeskai, I think its a lithe, interactive burn deck that places a ton of emphasis on making the right decisions. Abzan is a little clunkier of a deck, but it still had a ton of power. I somewhat get (and share) the disdain for Jeskai because it seemed so flavor-of-the-month going into the Pro Tour, but
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:The real fear is how long they let Treasure Cruise stick around, games have consistently come down to who can Cruise earliest and most often no matter what deck I'm matched against. Thankfully this delver build tends to be geared towards the quickest and most relevant Cruises so it wins more often than not. I'm watching the channel and it says live but I'm not seeing anything, just a black screen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Someone who complains about the very idea of netdecking has no clue what collaboration goes into any successful Magic deck. The eternal thread credits me with inventing Breakfast Burrito, but there was tons of work put in by Oldsrocket, and a bunch of other goons who suggested we test certain cards or did the math for some matchups. I'm pretty sure that any reasonable definition of netdecking gives a pass to the people who actually collaborated on the deck, or at least on their own distinct variant. (People might still accuse you of it in ignorance, of course.) The point is that you're not going to convince me that your average dude at FNM last year brewed and tested mono-black devotion by himself. I think that actually blaming people who "netdeck" goes overboard a lot of the time, but not inexplicably so. The people who borrow decklists from the internet are a convenient scapegoat for people's (valid, understandable) frustrations with the very easily and quickly 'solved' nature of current Magic metagames in general.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:I ran into this a few months ago at a legacy IQ. The guy was playing slivers. Actual slivers. And not good slivers with 20 lords and Crystalline. No disruption, no Aether Vial, no spells at all that I saw. not even good lands; just 5 color slivers and stuff like Rupture Spire. He knew that if he wouldn't have had mana problems in our games (it turns out spending your first 2 turns to play a tapped rainbow land is bad) he would have wiped the floor with me. He didn't have a single creature successfully attack in either game. This is the same guy that tried to call a judge on my Delver checklist card because proxies aren't allowed, and who I explained my "cast probe for life, tap land, daze probe, replay land" (I was mana screwed and had just drawn a Confidant) half a dozen times before he pretended to understand. Clearly a master brewer. I don't remember his exact words regarding Delver netdecks, but I do remember being moderately insulted, which is quite the accomplishment, and that I could have gotten him DQ'd if I'd felt like it. But it was the last round, so screw it. Also of note, I was playing Grixis Delver which was both bad and not a net deck. I realize you were just adding your own voice to the conversation, but I have to say I didn't expect for you to end it by saying you were playing a brew yourself (granted, with actual Good Cards in it). It's almost like being a bad, toxic shithead is orthogonal to whether one brews one's own decks or not, and doesn't have anything to do with whether having a solved format crowding brews out of real competition (for most practical purposes) is good or bad for the game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Yeah, Treasure Cruise or a particular game state are red herrings--there are any number of reasons why it could give you an incremental advantage to "forget" to actually exile a card when your opponent Deathrites it, and it's exactly the sort of thing that someone who consistently makes minor cheats for value would do. If you cast four Brainstorms in a game, and three times you put back two cards but one time you "accidentally" put back one, that doesn't make it not a cheat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Ken Nagle is the reification of the jokes we'd been making for years about designers trying to kill Magic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:Once I had a guy call a judge on me for accidentally misrepresenting my life total as lower than it actually was v Uh... why wouldn't that be a judgeworthy thing? If you represent it as lower than it is, it could cause them to make different decisions, potentially to their detriment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 00:43
|
|
v
|
Bugsy posted:Consider how bad the white and green ones are. They really didn't. The green one was actually fairly legit in stompy decks for a long time, though obviously by this era it's been power creeped out of contention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Spergy rant: Something that really bugs me about Khans is how they insisted on making a new creature type, Naga, for the snake people instead of just saying they're snakes like every other time Magic has had snake people, but all the Ainoks are hounds. Come on, Wizards, at least be consistent! It's not that bad of a deal, "naga" is a concept/species that already has a great deal of currency in fantasy bestiaries. Notably, they can use it outside of Tarkir, which they couldn't really do with "Ainok" for dog people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Treasure Cruise talk: It needs to be banned. I'm 16/19 in modern matches with my new deck playing against Treasure Cruise decks (13 UR Delver, 1 UR Solitaire, and the same UWR Delver guy twice, the others being Zoo, GR Tron and Scapeshift playing Dig.) I used to play against other decks. Now I just beat down on Delver. It's nice because free packs, but it's so boring. I was at the point last night where if I played 1 more Delver deck I was quitting modern until Cruise was banned. Which segues nicely into.. Unless Modern Cruise is actually overly strong--which your experiences seem to suggest is not the case, though on the other hand LSV just basically clowns on everyone with it in his videos--I'd rather not see the card banned in Modern soon, or at all. It seems like it might just be everyone jumping on a bandwagon, which is a problem that can solve itself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 19:33
|
|