|
neetengie posted:Here's a recent one, I really don't know the difference between "Fish" and "Merfolk" in Vintage either - it was listed in the "Other Aggro" section along with another recent Merfolk deck. I would imagine that some of those 11 Island Sanctuary are actually copies of Island instead.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
I guess the downside is now you're running the LED version, and hence fold to force entirely instead of being able to Pact through it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:I've been trying out Breakfast Burrito on Cockatrice, and I have to wonder: is there a way to win (via combo) if: I'm going to guess you're running the standard 3/2 split of Narcomoeba and Bridges. Assuming you're forced to use Undercity Informer instead of Balustrade Spy, and don't have anything else (like Wild Cantor) spare to use as Return fodder: - If you have two Narcomoeba in hand you can't go off. Sorry, but them's the breaks. - If you have one Narcomoeba and one Bridge in hand, you can Therapy yourself to discard the bridge, and then use your second Therapy to get yourself up to three zombies. - If you have two Bridges in hand, you can just Dread Return off your three Narcomoeba - or if you really need to Therapy (say you've got a finisher in hand as well), you can first therapy the bridges out of your hand, and then get back up to three creatures with the second one. This is another reason why I prefer the Mimeoplasm kill package - the Underworld Cerberus kill can't make use of either of those double-Therapy lines.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Niton posted:M15 is coming out soon, so I would expect a decent chunk of people playing VMA for the newness factor to switch over. Why would "this weekend" be the last opportunity then, when M15 doesn't appear on modo until the 25th?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:For my part, I hope they unban Deathrite in modern. I never saw why it needed to be banned in the first place. He made three-colour-goodstuff decks pretty oppressive, to be honest. And the problem with goodstuff decks being dominant in a metagame is that they don't have inherent targetable weaknesses that keep them in check when they start becoming too dominant - about the only thing you can do is try and punish their shaky manabase, which is an avenue that Wizards has all-but stripped out of Modern.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
One other thing to remember is that if you have a draw spell in your graveyard at all, digging out a second Wall/Archeomancer also allows you to draw your deck (just flicker both walls, getting back flicker + ponder or whatever). I'd definitely run a 1-of Aethermage as a Teachings target, and one (or maybe two) Archaeomancer for it to fetch. (You don't want more than two, since walls are better to keep you alive while you assemble the rest of your combo). I wouldn't worry about running a tutorable kill condition (unless you can get one that doubles as something else), since going off without casting a single draw spell seems so unlikely. Also I think you mean Sage's Row Denizen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Bugsy posted:e - Chromatic Star is a mana ability right? It has the exact same wording as Chromatic Sphere, and Sphere has a gatherer ruling of being a mana ability. The filtering is a mana ability, the card draw is not. Unlike Sphere, where you draw a card as part of the mana ability.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Couldn't you run Melira + Redcap instead of Reveillark + Fanatic? They seem like more useful cards if you draw them naturally before comboing off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Molybdenum posted:Modern: rain of gore, condemn, devour flesh, PtE, gift of estates, squadron hawk, swords, Bob, lily, IoK, TS. Sound like a deck? I can even run wrath/damnation. Lingering souls... Re-read Rain of Gore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:What the gently caress is this Second Sunrise deck. Like, I know Eggs is supposed to be a thing, but it literally goes nowhere and takes forever to do it. How the hell did someone - even someone as good as Cifka - make it to the finals with it? It doesn't take forever though? When you go off you literally win in the space of a single turn and there's nothing your opponent can do about it. If you're asking how he beat the clock and didn't draw any of those matches ... just play fast.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
PhyrexianLibrarian posted:The big advantage it has over a similar combo deck like Storm or Ad Nauseum is that it's way better at comboing out on turn 3, and it can do it at instant speed which helps it get around most of the hate that people were bringing in against it. A good player can actually play the deck at a reasonable pace; the problem with Eggs is that it was good enough for people to try picking up a list and playing it untested, which caused them to play at glacial speed. Honestly the real problem with Eggs is that you play games 1 and 2, go to time, and then it takes another 20 minutes for the round to end because the eggs player is busy comboing out on turn 4 of turns or whatever. Basically it's banned for loving up tournaments in a way that other combo decks don't, rather than for any power level reasons (the overall power level of the deck is honestly fine for Modern).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Pro tip is to white-border all your basics and shocklands, to cut down on time you spend searching your library after cracking a fetchland. White-bordering your fetchlands just seems like effort for no benefit, unless you often play against people who really hate white borders and you want to put them on tilt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Mondrian posted:I also considered Simian Spirit Guides to make it easier to go off T2, but makes it much riskier, as the card draw is not as good and your combo pieces can get stranded, so I think the Goblin Lores are better. Since you're not on the Storm plan, Spirit Guide is probably a straight improvement over Pyretic Ritual.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the judge is correct there. You're not required to point out your triggers when they go on the stack. Triggers only count as missed if you take an action past the point where they have a visible effect on the game state. If your opponent passes priority after casting a spell, you're not required to let them take that back after you point out the existence of the trigger. If your opponent casts a spell, you give them a second or two to hold priority (and supposing they don't), then you resolve your triggered ability and tell them they're taking 2. If they try to back up the game state to the point where they have priority you call a judge, because the rules are pretty clear that takesy-backsies aren't allowed and you have to stick with what you've announced once you've seen your opponent's response.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:As long as the ponder play makes no indication he is passing priority back, he still has it after you put the eidolon trigger on the stack. This is incorrect. If you play a spell, and make no indication that you're holding priority, it's assumed that you've passed priority after putting the spell on the stack. Jabor fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:You are incorrect. Afer Player A, burn player puts eidolon on the stack, player B, ponder player then has priority unless the burn player indicates he is holding it. I am saying in my above example, player B gets priority after the burn player puts the Eidolon trigger on the stack, and as long as he just sits there thinking, he has priority. He hasn't taken the damage from the Eidolon, or started resolving his ponder, if he does nothing the stack is still unresolved. It is the exact same thing as when it is an active players main phrase, he doesn't have to do or say anything to have priority in his main phase. It is probably better if he makes some indication like "thinking" or "just a minute" but as long as Player B ponder player doesn't agree he's taken the 2 dmg from the Eidolon trigger and/or doesn't start resolving his Ponder, he has priority and the stack has not resolved. This is incorrect. The Eidolon player doesn't explicitly need to put the trigger on the stick - the MTR is quite clear that it only needs to be acknowledged when it causes a visible impact on the game (i.e., when it resolves). If you cast a spell, and you don't explicitly hold priority, it's assumed that you're passing priority to give your opponent a chance to respond. This is a fundamental tournament shortcut. The sequence of actions that happens is as follows: 1. Player A casts Ponder. The eidolon trigger goes on the stack. 2a. If Player A has indicated they held priority, player A has priority and can respond to either the Ponder or the Eidolon trigger. 2b. If Player A has not indicated that they have held priority, it is assumed they have passed in order for their spell to resolve. Player B now has priority. Once Player B has priority, they can pass back and resolve the Eidolon trigger, and Player A doesn't get to say "hang on, I have a response". You're not allowed to carry out fishing expeditions, once you've indicated a course of action you have to stick to it if your opponent doesn't respond.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Ok so I cast ponder. The trigger is put on the stack (rule 116.5). Then the player who would receive priority, burn player gets it. The Ponder player is the one who receives priority after casting the spell. Then it's assumed that they pass it, after any triggers have been placed on the stack. This seems to be the fundamental misconception here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Wait a sec. Player A already passed without taking an action, when they first received it after Ponder and the Eidolon trigger were placed on the stack. The typical priority sequence when a spell is cast is as follows: 1. Player A has priority. Player A casts a spell. 2. Player A gets priority, and passes (it's assumed they do this unless the explicitly hold it). 3. Player B gets priority, and passes. 4. The top item on the stack resolves. The presence of a triggered ability doesn't change any of that - the only difference is that the "top item on the stack" is one of the triggered abilities, not the original spell.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:Also, indicating that you have held priority can be as simple as not actively resolving Ponder and showing clear knowledge that the Eidolon trigger is on the stack and has not yet resolved - you can say Eidolon trigger on the stack or wait, or any number of things to demonstrate awareness of the trigger and that you have not passed priority. Saying nothing can be construed as passing priority or, in some situations, fishing for a reaction. You do have to do something to affirmatively indicate that you still have priority. The Tournament Rules detail a bunch of conventional shortcuts, and requires that a player be explicit if they wish to deviate from them. Among those shortcuts is: quote: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. -- It's also worth noting that the original judge was in fact wrong in one manner in the original statement - who's turn it is doesn't actually matter for this particular case. After casting a spell when you have priority, the player casting the spell gets priority first, so the exact same situation arises if it's an end-of-turn Brainstorm instead of a mainphase Ponder.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:So really its just a silly judgement call of how long after you cast a spell do you have to say "wait a sec" You know whether you want to hold priority or not when you cast the spell, so there's really no excuse for "fishing" to see if your opponent snaps off a Force on your Infernal Tutor or whatever before your break your LED. You just say that you're holding priority as you put the card down on the table or whatever. If you're apparently thinking hard about something, then you'd probably get away with a warning and the game rolled back to let you properly hold priority (except maybe at pro REL). If you appear to be waiting for your opponent to do something, then I'd expect a judge to hold you to having passed priority there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Not to mention he still gets all his triggers through the spells I counter with the Chalice. He would have gone off last night through Chalice easily. Wait, how do you go off through Chalice when you have (at best) 7 cards to cast, and you aren't getting any more because your cantrips aren't actually replacing themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Young Peezy and Taylor Swiftspear don't care if your spells resolve only if you cast them. I've beaten people through a resolved Chalice Yeah, but that's just casting things for value rather than "going off", especially in the context of the deck. Like when Storm in Modern wins through Bolts + Electromancer beats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Maybe you guys should play Modern if you want an eternal format built around fair decks without much in the way of combo. Like, I'm not being facetious, this is basically Wizards' goal for the format, so if it aligns with what you want out of the game you should definitely consider it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I've thought about Lotus Petal to play off the top with Future Sight, but Mox Diamond is a lot more awkward because I need a land in hand to do anything with it off the top. You still get to put it into your graveyard for free 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Pod would have been way cooler if you had some more tutors and could go all-in on the toolbox plan instead of having to play mostly a midrange goodstuff deck where the creatures have synergy with pod. Because that's really the problem, right? "Goodstuff" is a boring (and oppressive, when it's dominant) deck archetype. It's the same problem Jund had.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Mezzanon posted:What's my strategy as bogles against storm? Lose G1 and hope I see leyline and rest in peace after? Basically you just want to make them go for it in a suboptimal situation and hope they don't quite get there. You want a fast clock so they don't get time to set up their hand, and lifelink can also help because it forces them to go deep instead of just crawling their way up to 20. Game 1 is all about whether they fizzle out when they try to go off, it's basically your job to improve the odds of that happening as much as you can.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Big Anime Fan Here posted:I'm not sure why you would splash green for skullcrack It fits much better in Modern burn, where you're already splashing green for Destructive Revelry, and have more creatures that can make it 4+ damage for 2 mana. It probably doesn't quite fit into Legacy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Keep in mind that individual Mythics are about as frequent as Rares were back in the days of, e.g., Tempest. The introduction of Mythics was basically to allow them to shrink set sizes (for a more consistent experience), while still having the rarest cards show up about as often as before. Large sets today have 121 cards on the rare sheet - older sets, at least once they'd stopped printing various non-rare cards on the rare sheet, had 110. Individual large set rares about twice as common now, while individual mythics are only negligibly less frequent than rares used to be. Small sets, on the other hand, have actually been getting bigger over time - they used to have 44 rares for a while, and then got bumped up to 55 rares at one point. (Have you figured out that the MTG printers are 11 cards wide yet?). Then Dissension bumped things up to 60 rares, and small sets have stayed on multiples-of-10 ever since (while large sets have remained multiples of 11). It would be interesting to learn what was up with that. Post-Mythic small sets have 80 cards on the rare sheet, so your Tasigur shows up in 1/40 packs, while Ugin shows up in 1/80. This is a bit of a bigger change compared to your 1/60 Future Sight packs containing a Tarmogoyf.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Do you store your cards rubberbanded to a soda can or something? If they +2 Jace 5 times, then ult, they're still going to have 6 cards in library against their opponent's 7.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
 Kinda want to see someone in a feature match playing only these, just to see the commentators try and talk awkwardly around it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
The best-case scenario for lotus petal is dealing one extra damage from a swiftspear at some point. I'd have to think that Barbarian Ring is a better way to get extra damage out of your mana sources.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:And they have no way to interact with Price of Progress. ...except, you know, Glacial Chasm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Even if you ban Twin, people still have to play around the same combo but with Kiki-Jiki. The big change is now your combo is slow enough that fast decks get to race you instead, and it takes a bit longer before slow decks need to think about holding up two bits of disruption.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
With only five effective green sources, actually being able to play your sideboard cards doesn't really seem like a sure thing. Taiga might be a little expensive (guides would definitely be a bigger improvement for similar cost), but even a 1-of Stomping Ground might be worth considering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
You'll lose more post-board games to not being able to find your green source than you'll lose to fetching for it, casting your hate card, then getting it wasted but you still want to cast another thing with it. I could see an argument for two green sources if you want to be more sure you get to play your sideboard cards, but the more you add the worse Price of Progress gets, and the more likely you are for Wasteland to actually hurt you game 1. I definitely wouldn't go to 4, and I still wouldn't play an off-colour basic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Kraus posted:Duals: Here's the crux of it all: would shocks be adequate? Or would lots of things die? Lots and lots of things would die, to Burn.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah I guess. The thing I hated about it was feeling like that, in certain matchups, I just had ZERO chance to win no matter how well or poorly I played or the skill level of my opponent. Usually this is because your opponents are playing well. What matchups do you think are unwinnable even if your opponent is just taking braindead obvious lines?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
You can't go wrong with some good old-fashioned colour hosing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Four horseman can go off just fine without hitting the slow-play condition ("you've shuffled your library and are back where you started without advancing the game state at all"), the problem is that you're giving up one of the decks major edges (its resilience against removal) by doing so. If you have no fear of anything, you just flip until you hit a narcomoeba (if you hit emrakul first, just keep flipping in response to the trigger), put it into play , sac it to blasting station, then (flipping until you hit emrakul if necessary) reshuffle. You're always advancing the game state, since every loop your opponent has less life than before. The problem is if your opponent has surgical extraction, they can wait until you have both emrakul triggers on the stack at once, then cast surgical extraction to get rid of your combo. Without the possibility of slow play warnings, you wait until you have spare mana to go off (so you can untap monolith again if they cast surgical in response to an untap), always reshuffle after a single emrakul, and so if your opponent casts surgical extraction you just keep flipping to your second one. Similarly, you can play around Swords to Plowshares (when you're going off without blasting station) by never actually letting a narcomoeba trigger resolve unless it's only the one trigger and you already have a cabal therapy in the yard. With slow play warnings, though, you have to get your resilience by advancing the game state in other ways until you can resolve a Cabal Therapy. Jabor fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Your friend is either a very-full-of-himself Elves player or a literal idiot. I once watched a twitch stream of someone playing Elves, and they kept loving up because they planned out and started executing a line that involved using Wirewood Symbiote as one of the three creatures for Heritage Druid. Like, not just once, but multiple times in the same game. This doesn't really have much to do with the rest of your post, just saying that there are elves players who struggle with things that you or I might think are headsmackingly straightforward.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 15:55
|
|