Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Cut saheeli rai
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Magic: the Gathering |OT13| Ixalan - Port to Sideboard
- Thread starter SigmasonicX
- Start date
I've been thinking about U/R Flyers for sometime now. My general thoughts are:
-Saheeli is fucking garbage as usual. I'll never respect a planeswalker that has no impact on the board or your hand with their + ability.
-Dreamcaller isn't that great unless you have that critical mass of Pirates where you can make sure you get that tap 2 effect every time you cast it. If you've got like 16 Pirates go for it, less than 12 probably not.
-Glorybringer is a must, obviously.
You can also go for a slightly slower deck with Whirler Virtuoso and Energy cards (because making 2/2s at instant speed is fun) with Locus God as a top of the curve ender for even more flyers. If you're got the cash, Chandra would be great here.
If you want a cheap planeswalker for flyers, I think the new Jace looks alright for a fast deck. Flyers will get in more to trigger his looting, and making more creatures, even grounded ones, isn't bad. Works great with Skyship Plunderer too to get fast ults for more Jaces.
Stephen Menedian qutoes about Spyglass in the Ixalan review on So Many Insane Plays (Vintage focused)
-This is worse than Trinisphere
-This might be the thing that forces them to finally restrict Mishra's Workshop
charlequin
Banned
Yeah, on spoil I correctly read that Spyglass would not block Moxen etc. like Revoker, but I missed that it would as a tradeoff let you block non-mana land abilities, like Bazaar, Library... or any fetchland. With that knowledge it's clear to me that this card is going to be insaneo bananacrackers in Vintage.
Also, as mentioned, it's going to cause a lot of table misplay if you are used to being on Magic Online. You can't respond once the card is named!
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Most importantly spyglass dodges mental misstep
charlequin
Banned
....Revoker also dodges Misstep though...?
Spyglass dodges triskelion!
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Revoker is blind
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
I still don't get playmats, seems like such a hassle.
Giving a 3/3 hexproof +2/+2 and flying feels great. As does attacking with a 4/4 flying on turn 2.
My 4 prizepack were great. 3 cards I wanted in the blue and black flip land and a Hostage Taker, only dud was the blue mythic sorcery.
Perilous Voyage is incredible, Scry 2 too good.
Got nearly everything I needed for my merfolk modern deck as well.
went 2-1 destroying my round 2 and 3 opponents by finally drawing well and curving out.
Giving a 3/3 hexproof +2/+2 and flying feels great. As does attacking with a 4/4 flying on turn 2.
My 4 prizepack were great. 3 cards I wanted in the blue and black flip land and a Hostage Taker, only dud was the blue mythic sorcery.
Perilous Voyage is incredible, Scry 2 too good.
Got nearly everything I needed for my merfolk modern deck as well.
I thought they were stupid too until I went to pick up a card from a lacquered surface.
And thanks for posting that deck. I think about about posting them, but they're mostly shitty. Maybe when I finally build one that wins a game. lol
charlequin
Banned
Still don't know what this has to do with what you said the first time!
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
If you're having trouble competing with your decks you could suggest to start a sealed league with your playgroup. Meaning everyone starts with a certain amount of boosters and can add a fixed amount of boosters over time.
I've never played a PTQ period.
Idk why you had to compare it to revoker either. The comparison there is pithing needle which doesn't see a lot of play in vintage.
I forgot about this. And most table are hastily made by people who have no business making tables.
Outside my LGS, I have two people I play with regularly. Maybe I'll give that a shot, though.
Good ol' PVDDR, putting himself at #3 on his personal list of all-time best MTG players: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/top-5-september-2017/
(Not that I disagree with him, but still...)
(Not that I disagree with him, but still...)
Haha, looks arrogant, but he's right. That top 3 is kind of set in stone right now.
What? Paulo isn't top 3 material at all. He played mono red at PT HoD lol
Yeah, he was real bad at PT Hour of Devastation.
So, I was kind of thinking last night: in getting back into Magic/into Magic proper for the first time, the one thing that's throwing me for a loop is just how easy it is to get boned on the whole "no lands" vs "too many lands" thing. Like, obviously proper deck construction helps plenty, and it's not like it always happens... but it's certainly far from impossible.
Just out of curiosity... do other people find the lack of consistency on that matter to be something of a flaw of the design of the game, or no? Like, I almost feel like the game could be smoother/work better for my tastes if, someway or another, lands didn't have to get mixed in with your deck.
Now, obviously I realize at least that it's not something that could be easily fixed (assuming people even felt it should be "fixed", as I'd imagine such a change would be crazy controversial even if it was pulled off flawlessly and worked great), as the game is totally balanced around things as they are, and any such change would definitely alter the flow of things.
But still, it got me curious. I tried to think through on what could kind of function without trashing the game. Obviously Hearthstone has the setup it does precisely for this reason (with the class specific cards taking the role of colors), but I don't think that works 1:1. Like, even if you tried to say "well, make it so you have an ever-increasing all-color mana pool, then the players have to pick two colors for their deck" or something, it still doesn't feel right. The one thing I did think, though... is what about something like make a seperate land deck that you could tinker as you will, and you always get a single, seperate, additional draw from that each turn? From there, I'd assume you'd end up decreasing your normal deck size, and probably tweak starting hand size or something, and you'd in turn have a quicker paced game, probably.
I'd imagine it'd still end up breaking the game horribly for all kinds of reasons I'm not seeing, both because (as mentioned before) the game's not built around it, and also because I am an absolute rookie with no proper knowledge of the game to actually fully think it through. But I'd still be kind of interested to see how it plays.
Actually, are there any actually functional (aka not super easy to break) alternate rulesets that people have come up with to make the whole "land-screwed" "non-land-screwed" thing less of an issue?
(Sorry for the rambling, and if I overstated how much of an "issue" that needs to be "fixed" it is. But I just find it kind of an interesting topic.)
Just out of curiosity... do other people find the lack of consistency on that matter to be something of a flaw of the design of the game, or no? Like, I almost feel like the game could be smoother/work better for my tastes if, someway or another, lands didn't have to get mixed in with your deck.
Now, obviously I realize at least that it's not something that could be easily fixed (assuming people even felt it should be "fixed", as I'd imagine such a change would be crazy controversial even if it was pulled off flawlessly and worked great), as the game is totally balanced around things as they are, and any such change would definitely alter the flow of things.
But still, it got me curious. I tried to think through on what could kind of function without trashing the game. Obviously Hearthstone has the setup it does precisely for this reason (with the class specific cards taking the role of colors), but I don't think that works 1:1. Like, even if you tried to say "well, make it so you have an ever-increasing all-color mana pool, then the players have to pick two colors for their deck" or something, it still doesn't feel right. The one thing I did think, though... is what about something like make a seperate land deck that you could tinker as you will, and you always get a single, seperate, additional draw from that each turn? From there, I'd assume you'd end up decreasing your normal deck size, and probably tweak starting hand size or something, and you'd in turn have a quicker paced game, probably.
I'd imagine it'd still end up breaking the game horribly for all kinds of reasons I'm not seeing, both because (as mentioned before) the game's not built around it, and also because I am an absolute rookie with no proper knowledge of the game to actually fully think it through. But I'd still be kind of interested to see how it plays.
Actually, are there any actually functional (aka not super easy to break) alternate rulesets that people have come up with to make the whole "land-screwed" "non-land-screwed" thing less of an issue?
(Sorry for the rambling, and if I overstated how much of an "issue" that needs to be "fixed" it is. But I just find it kind of an interesting topic.)
Imperfected
Member
The ways Lands work in Magic is almost certainly not something anyone would choose to design into the game if they were starting fresh from today. Unfortunately, it's been too deeply integrated into too many of the game's systems to honestly do anything about it today.
Part of me does think that digital clients should take advantage of the fact that shuffling is nearly zero-cost in them and just auto-shuffle until it provides the player with a hand that contains a minimum number of lands based on the ratio they have in their deck. That retains most of the meaningful complexity and deck-building considerations (because you still have to have enough land to meet the threshold, you can't use run a 3-land aggro deck), without all the needless frustrations.
Part of me does think that digital clients should take advantage of the fact that shuffling is nearly zero-cost in them and just auto-shuffle until it provides the player with a hand that contains a minimum number of lands based on the ratio they have in their deck. That retains most of the meaningful complexity and deck-building considerations (because you still have to have enough land to meet the threshold, you can't use run a 3-land aggro deck), without all the needless frustrations.
SigmasonicX
Member
It was a big enough problem that Mark Rosewater, the head designer of Magic, tried to solve it in Duel Masters, which allows you to play any card as a resource. It turns out the inconsistency of lands is hugely important to the game. He wrote an article about this, which I'll find in a bit.
EDIT: Mana Action
EDIT: Mana Action
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Magic's mana system isn't perfect but I've also never encountered another method that I'd say is superior. Heck I complained about getting screwed just today in this threat but dems the beats.
Hex a mtg copy cat with an actually decent client does this by eliminating the most resource heavy and resource scarce hands and also including top deck manipulation as a basic attribute.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
didn't he win
I always figured the inconsistency of lands was critical to making sure that every deck didn't just curve out perfectly every game, meaning that slower decks have more of a chance to thrive when there's a chance their opponent won't go 1 drop, 2 drop, 3 drop every game. I imagine there wouldn't be anything like a control deck in a game without lands, because aggressive players would never stumble and give control players breathing room to set up.
Then there's how the inconsistency helps less skilled players by making so that there's a chance higher skilled players lose regardless of skill. There're always going to be those games where a clearly worse player wins because of mana flood/screw, and making it so that less skilled players have a chance of winning is important for player retention.
Then there's how the inconsistency helps less skilled players by making so that there's a chance higher skilled players lose regardless of skill. There're always going to be those games where a clearly worse player wins because of mana flood/screw, and making it so that less skilled players have a chance of winning is important for player retention.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I have no respect for anyone that thinks they should try to make a living playing Magic
Meaning, that list is basically just Jon Finkel. And LSV for being the only person ever to get a super hot girlfriend by virtue of being good at Magic.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Oh shit GabyxLuis talk? Luis fucking killed it cleaning up his actbody the last couple years. Dude went from having no neck to looking tight in a suit.
Infinite Stars
Member
Yeah, Eternal's system would be great in Arena for the casualification.
I'd like to see something similar Esque in Magic proper, but that's just way too iffy to do. Serum Powder Esque, but reveal all your lands? Idk
SigmasonicX
Member
Correct. No more Gideon tribal.
Thanks.
Fresh rotation smell!
charlequin
Banned
i'm confused why anyone would ever think a discussion of a vintage playable artifact would involve mentioning pithing needle for any reason
Like fifty games have set out to "fix" this problem and every one of them is a much worse game than Magic. Hearthstone had to eliminate almost all unlimited-choice mechanics and add tons of RNG into the cards at every level just to deal with the loss of variance you get from automatically ramping each turn.
Jon Finkel is smart enough to actually make his money playing poker and stocks and LSV presumably managed the latter by being twenty times funnier and more personable than everyone else around him so I think the contents of both lists is still zero.
(Also I hope no one is seriously arguing with PVDDR as #3... right?)
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah the land system is flawed but it's a problem noone else has really cracked yet (well...games like Netrunner have very different resource systems)
EDIT: the "worse players can beat better players sometimes" is probably the most important function of variance for any game with more than niche aspirations
EDIT: the "worse players can beat better players sometimes" is probably the most important function of variance for any game with more than niche aspirations
charlequin
Banned
Honestly, even, phrasing it this way makes it sound worse than it is. Having innate variance also helps ensure that there's a smooth skill-comparison curve (i.e. getting a little bit better makes you a little more likely to beat your opponent, not a ton more) and that any given matchup can have a wide range of possible outcomes so metagames aren't deterministic RPS. Letting worse players sometimes win makes sure the game isn't absolutely miserable for 99% of players like, say, chess, but variance does more work than just that.
Top 5 Olive Garden items
Dragoshi1
Member
Quick question;
During Commander, the official rule states "If a player has been dealt 21 points of combat damage by a particular Commander during the game, that player loses a game."
Am I reading this as if the enemy's commander themselves deal 21 damage or more, it's auto-loss for the one they attack if the damage makes it through?
Or, is it a grand total of 21+ damage dealt by assorted creatures, sans the commander?
Asking because someone at my LGS was OHKO'ing everyone, but I don't think their commander was in play. I just caught up on Commander format rules, so I recalled this just now.
During Commander, the official rule states "If a player has been dealt 21 points of combat damage by a particular Commander during the game, that player loses a game."
Am I reading this as if the enemy's commander themselves deal 21 damage or more, it's auto-loss for the one they attack if the damage makes it through?
Or, is it a grand total of 21+ damage dealt by assorted creatures, sans the commander?
Asking because someone at my LGS was OHKO'ing everyone, but I don't think their commander was in play. I just caught up on Commander format rules, so I recalled this just now.
21 damage by the commander to each player.
Most decks do t go through the trouble. Voltron decks are the most likely to actually have it happen, but even that is unlikely because of the target it puts on the player.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
it also works when your own commander does 21 damage to you funnily enough and when your commander is turned face down for whatever reason it still does commander damage.
I really don't know if you're joking or not. I hope you are.
Dragoshi1
Member
Okay, I'll have to fact check with the people I played with, I was told in general 21+ is a OHKO, good thing I read the rules. Thanks for clarifying it more for me.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
We both know that one of the strengths of shops is that it completely strands Mental Misstep, that's what disqualifies pithing needle not that shops wouldn't run more than 4 of these types of effects.
Considering Mental Misstep is banned in any other format this conversation would actually not happen anywhere else.
the damage is counted cumulative not single instance.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its not just OHKO its also cumulative. a 7/7 Commander hitting for 21 damage over 3 turns is a loss