Magic: The Gathering,GO TEAM MS!
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 4855, Klazam wrote:I dont think that wizards can actually balance graveyard cards. Theyre straight up binary- either crap or uberbroke.
Eh, the future sight delve cards were pretty well balanced(I know stalker had is day in legacy but that day is gone). I think the 5 mana removal spell is pretty well balanced too.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Instant (blue)
target opponent may put up to three cards from hand onto the battlefield
Converted mana cost: 3
Enchantment - Aura (black)
Enchant permanent
Enchanted permanent gains ''1, Discard a card: destroy target Beast''
--Her forest made of border flees a single toe yet blesses more effectively than the riddle
– Vitenka, the black
Converted mana cost: 3
Sorcery (red)
Choose one: clash with an opponent. If you win, add B to your mana pool for each card in your graveyard; or add R to your mana pool for each card in an opponent's graveyard
Entwine 3
Converted mana cost: 3
These are actually pretty interesting cards.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 4902, Sudo_Nym wrote:In post 4897, Oman wrote:Went to my local gaming store for card sleeves. There was a sign, rule 4 and 5 were "Please shower before attending" and "Remember to use deoderant".
What the fuck, gaming nerds. What the fuck is wrong with us.
There's a certain subset of nerd who believe that being a nerd makes them an enlightened creature of intelligence and therefore above base physical needs like showering. It's certainly off-putting.
I think a big part of it is also just that most other hobbies don't have you sitting in confined spaces for hours-whole days at a time. It really shows a lack of personal hygiene more than other activities like sports where you sweating and smelling is expected.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 4993, Shanba wrote:In post 4992, chamber wrote:I don't know, looks like its just sloppy shuffling to me.
It very well could be. With Trevor, the fact that he was clearly watching the bottom card made it pretty definitive, but without being able to see his head I really can't say for sure. The only times, where he's shuffling zoomed out, it looks like he's looking away, but he could be like, looking out fo the corner of his eye idk.
You could also see him periodically moving cards to the front. His case was a no brainer. This one -could- be cheating. I'd suggest the guy clean up his shuffling habits, but I wouldn't be willing to condemn him for it. Thats all I can say.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
I don't know the guy but it sounds like his major fuck up was saying that he cheated on the form that was submitted (true or false).
I think it's ok for them to take into consideration how repentant you are being. It doesn't really sound like that's what they did in his case.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Everyone makes thought mistakes like that sometimes, even the streamers themselves. The problem is that when you have 1000 people watching you play, 1 of them is going to think you're an idiot for not making the play they think is right, which they only think is right because they made a dumb fuck up. On like every play SOMEONE suggests something really stupid.
The solution is that as someone participating in chat, you really need to run what you are about to say through a filter. (this normally means someone that doesn't mentions it first, but sometimes they don't) Thus explaining why I make a comment in a twitch chat like once a month.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5055, Sudo_Nym wrote:Brainstorm is really only great if you have a shuffle.
Treasure cruise is only good with fetches too though, just for a different reason.
The cards to pretty different things. Brainstorm is actually usable on turn 2. I think treasure cruise is probably worse? not confident though which is really telling about just how busted treasure cruise is.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5162, Klazam wrote:In post 5158, bv310 wrote:Wizards didn't ban anything, his LGS did. Sounds like a bunch of whiny players got it house-banned.
Is there a provision allowing tournament hosts do this for sanctioned tournaments?
As I understand it, you couldn't do this at FNM. But you can sanction any format as a casual event I believe (even one you make up yourself).Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Shrug, that wrath could easily be worth 5 mana if you are running dragons and they aren't.
I'm also happy we are experiencing a 5 mana wrath format. Wrath in standard has cost 4 for too long. It's possible the lack of a good 4 mana wrath will make things terrible, but I don't think this format has suggest that yet.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5183, Thestatusquo wrote:It makes control basically unplayable?
I'm really not sure that's true at all. It means control has to be more spot removal heavy, but they have very powerful card draw options to make up for the lack of CA from wraths. Wraths being massive tempo and CA was always a little bullshit (mitigated by the fact that your opponent can play around it a bit, but bullshit none the less).Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5197, Klazam wrote:In post 5196, Sudo_Nym wrote:I don't think five mana for a wrath is unreasonable, but I wish the would include a no-regeneration clause. How else am I supposed to kill Rakshasha?
wait until they spend 8 mana on it all at once to pump it, then point a magma jet at it. True story, happened last friday. won the game off that
In post 5198, Natirasha wrote:They're stupid for holding priority between each activation.
In post 5199, hasdgfas wrote:Yeah. There's a reason that I tend to pump once, let them confirm it to show they're passing priority to let it resolve, and then pump again. If you pump all at once you just get blown out.
They'd have to explicitly hold priority. If they just said something like 'pump rakasha 4 times' It's an accepted shorthand for 1 pump it once, then if the first resolves I pump it again, then if the 2nd resovles, I pump it again, etc. You couldn't magmajet it to kill it.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Code: Select all
716. Taking Shortcuts 716.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes. 716.1a. The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable. 716.1b. Occasionally the game gets into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated indefinitely (thus creating a “loop”). In that case, the shortcut rules can be used to determine how many times those actions are repeated without having to actually perform them, and how the loop is broken. 716.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure. 716.2a. At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut. Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond, which grants the creature the ability “T: Put a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token onto the battlefield,” and another player controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, “Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, untap all creatures.” When the player has priority, he may suggest “I’ll create a million tokens,” indicating the sequence of activating the creature’s ability, all players passing priority, letting the creature’s ability resolve and put a token onto the battlefield (which causes Intruder Alarm’s ability to trigger), Intruder Alarm’s controller putting that triggered ability on the stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm’s triggered ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence 999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability resolves. 716.2b. Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence. Example: The active player draws a card during her draw step, then says, “Go.” The nonactive player is holding Into the Fray (an instant that says “Target creature attacks this turn if able”) and says, “I’d like to cast a spell during your beginning of combat step.” The current proposed shortcut is that all players pass priority at all opportunities during the turn until the nonactive player has priority during the beginning of combat step. 716.2c. Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.
My interpretation would be that he was proposing a shortcut, not putting them all on the stack at the same time, because he didn't explicitly say that.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
The whole point of shortcuts is to save time when everyone knows whats going on anyway. Declaring that you are taking a shortcut each time would add time.
I grew up being explicit about it too because I was burned by rules lawyers when I was in grade 4 or w/e. That doesn't mean its the proper way, or the way it should be. Name a situation where it makes sense for him to put them all on the stack at once. This is like the prototypical example of where a shortcut saves everyone time.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5219, Sudo_Nym wrote:That said, why wouldn't you always hold up regen mana if you have it available?
If you are playing against a deck with only burn as removal being a 10/10 is probably sufficient? Maybe it being a 10/10 was lethal.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
Basically it does a random action repeatedly that results in a known deck configuration. It seeks to setup the deck x way. If you could do it any number of times in theory you could choose the order of the deck, and the rules don't let you short cut to it. If you attempt to do it the real way, if you ever end up at a back to back repeat board state you can get a slow play warning.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5319, beeboy wrote:In a deck like heroic is scry (god's willing) considered better than power (feat of resistence)
1 mana is huge.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5391, Thestatusquo wrote:In post 5389, Knight of Cydonia wrote:when in doubt, go 4/5 colour control
I mean, I think people misunderstand five color. I think a 2 color deck with 1-3 small splashes is viable, mainly if you can make splash colors be mostly late game bombs and morph creatures.
I don't think you want to have more than (at most) 3 (but preferably 2) types of basic land in your deck.
Really depends on the pool in this format. Sure ideally you only have 2 but I doubt you open a pool where that is the best build.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
I'm saying you are going to get like 1/50 pools that lets you run that manabase.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
If I'm talking about his pool I think he built it poorly. I think his manabase is closer to how manabases end up in this format than what you are saying though. I've seen like a dozen pools opened on streams give or take and 1 had a manabase like the one you want. I don't think any of the others were even close to a deck that could both win and have a manabase like that. Fuck, most of the time you don't even open the lands for it.
I'm pretty sure I'd cut the non multicolor blue spells from his pool and play the solid white playables that he isn't as well as armament core, that lets you cut the island for a plains. I also cut at least 1 more mountain for a plains.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5456, Thestatusquo wrote:Evasion is just so good in this format.
It's for that same reason a 1/1 deathtouch is good though, a lot of the threats are on the ground.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 5600, hasdgfas wrote:Was Canada or Japan the bigger shock to fail to get to Day 2? (And who's the biggest surprise if it's not one of those two?)
Is canada not day 2ing that big of a surprise?Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 6255, Knight of Cydonia wrote:Rare redrafting is just such a kick in the teeth. "oh you're happy you opened that neat thing? Well screw you, Spike McPlaysMore gets it because he's been drafting this set nonstop since it came out online, if you want nice things you should just GET GUD NERD" (and to be clear, this is coming from the perspective of a guy who would probably be Spike McPlaysMore in this scenario)
Rare redrafting tends to have a flatter prize structure. Unless some super mythic is opened the 4 packs or w/e first place is getting is probably more valuable than the cards opened. It's also cheaper so that more drafts can be done. I truly think the 15 dollar draft that pays out 5-3-2-2 or w/e is worse for new players overall. I can't speak to their perception of events though.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 6398, hasdgfas wrote:In post 6397, PeregrineV wrote:Bought the Eldrazi v Zendkiar duel decks this Friday. Played 4 games. Eldrazi won all 4 pretty handily. They have this thing called removal that removes whatever Zendikar tries to put on the board. Will do more testing, but definitely not seeing the balance in the two decks.
hint: duel decks are never balanced, you just have to hope it's not a COMPLETE mismatch.
For instance, Elspeth waswaybetter than Kiora
I haven't seen one that wasn't terribly mismatched. I wonder if it isn't a feature.Taking a break from the site.-
-
chamber Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Cases are scummy
- Posts: 10703
- Joined: November 20, 2005
In post 6404, Natirasha wrote:Scars of Mirrodin was far more interesting than Mirrodin was.
I completely disagree.Taking a break from the site.