Magic: The Gathering,GO TEAM MS!

[Fate]

hmmm

let me put it this way:

its probably more cost efficient to save up for legacy and then haev ad eck that will always be good with few changes to play with

its more fun efficient to draft and buy/trade a little bit toward your deck each season >___>b

[Thestatusquo]

I wasn't talking about efficiency. I was talking about total cost. And using that rubric its 100% incoherent to say 'I don't play legacy because its too expensive.'

Something like what you just said might be true. I don't know. I do, however, know that the amount of enjoyment I get out of playing legacy is greater than what I get from playing standard by orders of magnitude,

[AGar]

hmmm

let me put it this way:

its probably more cost efficient to save up for legacy and then haev ad eck that will always be good with few changes to play with

its more fun efficient to draft and buy/trade a little bit toward your deck each season >___>b

Boils down to a matter of what you prefer doing at that point.

[Natirasha]

I wasn't talking about efficiency. I was talking about total cost. And using that rubric its 100% incoherent to say 'I don't play legacy because its too expensive.'

Something like what you just said might be true. I don't know. I do, however, know that the amount of enjoyment I get out of playing legacy is greater than what I get from playing standard by orders of magnitude,

It's the classic "new boots" problem. Sure, a nice pair of boots will last one forever, but a nice pair is really expensive. So, instead, a poor person has to buy a cheaper pair of boots that will wear & tear faster because they can't afford the nice pair.

EDIT: That's nothing to say of the various tastes, some people like standard because it is a rotating format and such.

[Sudo_Nym]

Modern is easier to get into, I think, but requires more work keeping up with the various sets. And I find it less fun.

[xRECKONERx]

I like Standard just because it is constantly evolving every few months.

[hasdgfas]

Just had a bit of a frustrating encounter at a work draft, want to see what other people think.

I'm attacking with a 6/3 first strike Kithkin Greatheart and have a Blightspeaker on the field with 5-6 mana up. Opponent has Penumbra Spider token and about the same mana up. He says "Test of Faith, block." At this point, I try to respond to the Test of Faith by rebel-searching in a Bound in Silence to play on the Spider before blocks. At this point, he's insisting that he already blocked, but I said that he played Test of Faith first so I get to respond. We discuss the situation a bit, until he says "it's a casual game, you clearly know what I'm trying to do and should lighten up". Now, this guy and myself are both pretty laid back guys most of the time, so I'm a little taken aback by this. Yeah, it's casual, but I have a couple problems here. First, he clearly said(and acknowledged that he said) "Test of Faith, block", which, to me, is not clear that he's trying to block first. He may want to just be sure that Test of Faith resolved first before he blocked. Secondly, because he said it so quickly, I didn't have the chance to play anything between blocks and Test of Faith if I allowed them to be ordered that way.

At this point, we've discussed it a little bit, and he's not backing down, so I just rewind to after attacks have been declared. I could just rebel search for Bound and put it on spider because I know what's in his hand, but that feels a bit sleazy to me, since I know what he wanted to do at this point, so I let it play out the way he wanted it to. After this, I feel a bit taken advantage of because the situation clearly played out to his advantage as my creature died, and he's ticked because he thinks I'm being too much of a stickler in a casual game. What would others have done in this situation? Was I being unreasonable?

[xRECKONERx]

With casual games, if there's a misplay, I just rewind it and take it back then give the option to act again with new information on the table.

[hasdgfas]

With casual games, if there's a misplay, I just rewind it and take it back then give the option to act again with new information on the table.

Yeah, I do plenty of that also when it's totally clear what's happening. Earlier in the night I let someone take back an entire turn while playing Storm because I was tapped out and couldn't do anything. The difference in this case is that it wasn't clear to me that he was trying to do things the way he was trying to do things, but when I try to respond to what he actually said and did, he tried to change it. If he said "block, test of faith", I would have no issue at all. But he didn't, there are plenty of instances where test of faith before blocking makes sense, and I was holding up mana for rebel search for something exactly along the lines of what he was indicating that he was doing. Communication is just as important in casual as in competitive. Where's the line?

[xRECKONERx]

And that's why I go out of my way to declare each time priority passes when I'm playing actual games.

"Entering combat?"

"Attack."

"Declare blocks."

"2nd main."

etc

[Thestatusquo]

The problem is that "casual game" does not mean "don't communicate with your opponent." You should still clearly enunciate everything you're doing and when. If you don't, any and all resulting confusion is your fault. (In this case, your opponents.)

[Fate]

It really all comes down to whether they are dick/there are promo cacklers on the line >___>

I had one guy try to syncopate my rancor for 3 when I had 3 mana up after casting BTE, he forgot BTE gave me mana to cast the rancor, so I let him take it back because that felt like a pretty cheap way to win/get ahead.

But then later it was Game 3 of a really long grindy game against Junk Aristocrats, and he tried to abrupt decay my hellrider, and uh, I let it fizzle becacuse I needed that damn hellrider (and the reckoner I played later that turn <__<) He didn't ask to take it back and there were a bunch of people watching, so I figured he was just more mad at himself for being a dumbass then me trying to "rules lawye"r him for a win.


I do have a problem with people playing to quickly though. Like, if youre playing against a Red deck and try to flicker an augur, fuckin let me respond first to spear the fucker before you pick up the top 3 cards as if it resolved...

[Thestatusquo]

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. It's like if your opponent tried to cast abrupt decay with the wrong mana. The spell wouldn't "fizzle" (an outdated term, btw) it would go back to his hand because it was illegal for him to cast it like that in the first place.

There is a difference in how the game treats targeting something that afterwards becomes an illegal target (say, you give protection to it in response) and how it treats attempting to target something you couldn't target from the beginning, since choosing a legal target is part of casting the spell.

You cheated in this situation. Unintentionally. But the correct ruling would be to untap his lands and return the spell to his hand.

[Fate]

hmmm. I think I knew in the back of my mind thats how it worked too...now that you say it I remember a judge in Vegas making someone put their mizzium mortars back in their hand after they targeted one of their own creatures with it


WALP

GOTTA DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO FOR THE PROMO CACKLERS.

[Thestatusquo]

Nominate Fate for

Mike Long

[chamber]

Just had a bit of a frustrating encounter at a work draft, want to see what other people think.

I'm attacking with a 6/3 first strike Kithkin Greatheart and have a Blightspeaker on the field with 5-6 mana up. Opponent has Penumbra Spider token and about the same mana up. He says "Test of Faith, block." At this point, I try to respond to the Test of Faith by rebel-searching in a Bound in Silence to play on the Spider before blocks. At this point, he's insisting that he already blocked, but I said that he played Test of Faith first so I get to respond. We discuss the situation a bit, until he says "it's a casual game, you clearly know what I'm trying to do and should lighten up". Now, this guy and myself are both pretty laid back guys most of the time, so I'm a little taken aback by this. Yeah, it's casual, but I have a couple problems here. First, he clearly said(and acknowledged that he said) "Test of Faith, block", which, to me, is not clear that he's trying to block first. He may want to just be sure that Test of Faith resolved first before he blocked. Secondly, because he said it so quickly, I didn't have the chance to play anything between blocks and Test of Faith if I allowed them to be ordered that way.

At this point, we've discussed it a little bit, and he's not backing down, so I just rewind to after attacks have been declared. I could just rebel search for Bound and put it on spider because I know what's in his hand, but that feels a bit sleazy to me, since I know what he wanted to do at this point, so I let it play out the way he wanted it to. After this, I feel a bit taken advantage of because the situation clearly played out to his advantage as my creature died, and he's ticked because he thinks I'm being too much of a stickler in a casual game. What would others have done in this situation? Was I being unreasonable?

If I was cubing with my friends and this came up, I'd let them have blocked first unless there was a clear strategic upside to having test of faithed first. In this instance I can't think of any, so you are just punishing him for trying to play quickly and short cut in a casual setting which likely benefits from those things.


edit: like if you had blue mana up, maybe its less reasonable to let him block first, because then his test getting countered is a real worry. Its still fair to have to conversation about clear communication. And you could have tried to clear things up before going for the bonds 'ok, so you are test of faithing before blocking?' etc.

[Natirasha]

Okay, scgiq next Saturday. Being the first day M14 is really legal, what do you all think is gonna be big? My group is saying Xanthrid Necromancer-Aristocrats is the sleeper that's gonna take the tournament, but I'm unsure. I suspect a downturn in rites due to Lifebane Zombie and the Ooze, but otherwise open. Hexproof is also getting huge with Gladecover and Witchstalker to a lesser degree, but my meta is distinctly full of the type of people who hate hexproof. Revelation has been dormant in my meta, and I kinda suspect it to stay that way. Jund is Jund is Jund and is probably my #1 enemy.

Im thinking a black-based control deck might work well. Doom Blade is obvious, of course, but other cards of interesting value are Burning Earth, Corrupt, and Lifebane Zombie. I think the meta will be slow to adjust to Burning Earth, and mono black is the only deck positioned well enough in the format as of now to actually utilize the card. Lifebane is sick, of course, since like every deck that plays creatures plays green or white ones--even hits Ghor-Clans in RG. Corrupt is a bit much odd, but one of the problems with Mono-black in the past year is that it's a control deck that has to win with creatures, meaning it has a lot of the same weaknesses that the aggro and midrange decks did. Corrupt will likely just hit for infinite. In short, I'm think a revise of Conley Wood's PTGTC list. If hexproof flares up like I think, this is the only deck in the format that can actually main deck Lililana without hating itself. Him...

The other deck I'm considering is a ur Epic Experiment deck. Now, I'm not one to hop on these tacky combo decks, but Young Pyromancer is a hell of a card and really enables Infernal Plunge and Battle Hymn, which fixes some of the problems with the deck. The decks hits an awkward spot in the meta where no oneis really prepared for it , and the dearth of counter spells due to Cavern means most won't be able to interact really at all. Win condition is either Burn at the Stake or having Young Pyromancer do his best Empty the Warrens impression.

[kdowns]

Eh Hexproof will win most likely.

[Fate]

dunno if I'd say no one is prepared to deal with young pyromancer combo... I'm pretty sure that deck has no chance against Jund.

I also don't know why you think only Mono Black can use Burning Earth effectively..

[Fate]

dunno if I'd say no one is prepared to deal with young pyromancer combo... I'm pretty sure that deck has no chance against Jund.

I also don't know why you think only Mono Black can use Burning Earth effectively..

[Natirasha]

Alright, like a two-color aggro shell can utilize Burning Earth. Perhaps a better statement would be the only control shell. Uwr and Jund can't run it.

[dramonic]

Ruling questions!

If I copy a legendary creature with Progenitor Mimic, can I destroy the original monster before the legendary rule kills them both?
If I copy a token creature with Progenitor Mimic, can I still do its effect? I had a 27/27 ooze and I wanted more of it ._.
Does Miming Slime make token with X 1/1 counters on them or a base value of X/X? I assume it's the latter?

[InflatablePie]

1) There's no legendary rule anymore as of the past 24 hours ish. Or, it's changed: if you copy an opponent's legendary, you both keep it. If you copy your own legendary, you choose one to destroy.

2) You copy the token (Progenitor Mimic does not become a token). The ProMimic then creates a token copy each upkeep. So 27/27 Ooze -> 27/27 Ooze + 27/27 ProMimic-Ooze -> 27/27 Ooze + 27/27 ProMimic-Ooze + 27/27 ProMimic-Ooze-Token -> etc.

3) The latter.

(I think these are right...)

[Thestatusquo]

This format seems stupid. Bulletins at 11.

[Natirasha]

Yes, we know. Did M14 make it worse for you? I think it made the format better.