Players are drooling over breaking/entering so they can cascade into the breaking side and play the entering side.
Lol, let them. That's a VERY horrible combo. It relies on too many things going on for it to work. They would need to:
1) Find a the Cascade Spell
2) Put a creature of Value in the graveyard
3) Have breaking/entering set up to be cascaded into
4) Cast the Cascade spell with the appropriate mana.
Seems just easier to cast Unburial rites
NB: I'm not taking a poke at modern, just that God awful combo. /post
Divination is a sorcery. being able to cascade at end of their turn into 3 extra cards is huge advantage
This card is unplayable.
1GR
Instant
You may not play cards costing less than 3 mana if you play this card.
Draw 3 cards.
That card is terrible. Ancestral visions in legacy is only playable because when it's blank you shrug brainstorm it away and ancestral recalled yourself with brainstorm anyway. The above spell is barely playable with the text of BALANCE!
AV is only good in Legacy BC you can pitching to FOW so its not dead in your hand or you can brainstorm it away.
There's a horrible instant cascade spell that gives your creatures +1/+0 until end of turn. The card is horrible but the pros are going to make AV great with it.
Unless you're comparing Legacy Doomsday to Modern Jund (when it had BBE), there's no skill difference between the formats. You can flowchart the majority of decks in both formats (If X happens, then do Y).
I feel that this idea of "skill" is only there due to the relatively older player base of Legacy vs Modern, so they feel superior to younger players.
Neither comes close to the skill required to be a successful drafter!
Unless you're comparing Legacy Doomsday to Modern Jund (when it had BBE), there's no skill difference between the formats. You can flowchart the majority of decks in both formats (If X happens, then do Y).
I feel that this idea of "skill" is only there due to the relatively older player base of Legacy vs Modern, so they feel superior to younger players.
Neither comes close to the skill required to be a successful drafter!
While I agree the drafting part of being a draft player is more skilled than say building a legacy deck playing with brainstorm gives you more options than anything else (besides cabal therapy and jace.) It's not a superiority thing it's a mathematically provable fact as long as you agree that more options gives rise to higher skill requirements. Given that brainstorm offers a substantially larger number of choices than any other card besides jace and cabal therapy it's a simple fact.
As for drafting it's easily provable that there are more technical options drafting it than anything but playing it is mechanical only. (14!*14!*14! or 6.625597605491478e+3)
I guess that's where the disagreement is, because while there are more options in the card pool, the actual act of playing the cards is more or less the same.
Using a (silly) analogy, making a sandwich at home I have 5 different things that I can put inside of it; a "sandwich artist" at Subway has 30 different things they can put inside of it. "More options" are there, but the actual skill required to put the sandwich together is the same for both me and the person at Subway.
With the internet as a resource, it's not hard to put magic sandwiches together at all, and most decks pilot themselves despite what people want to believe. There are of course the outlier decks that require planning out possible draws and chances to hit key pieces, but they exist across all formats.
I guess that's where the disagreement is, because while there are more options in the card pool, the actual act of playing the cards is more or less the same.
Using a (silly) analogy, making a sandwich at home I have 5 different things that I can put inside of it; a "sandwich artist" at Subway has 30 different things they can put inside of it. "More options" are there, but the actual skill required to put the sandwich together is the same for both me and the person at Subway.
With the internet as a resource, it's not hard to put magic sandwiches together at all, and most decks pilot themselves despite what people want to believe. There are of course the outlier decks that require planning out possible draws and chances to hit key pieces, but they exist across all formats.
I used to feel the same way but some decks are incredibly difficult to pilot. Forget about actually trying to come up with the idea to put such a deck together. Not all decks have the same degree of difficulty, as hard as that is to admit.
Unless you're comparing Legacy Doomsday to Modern Jund (when it had BBE), there's no skill difference between the formats. You can flowchart the majority of decks in both formats (If X happens, then do Y).
I feel that this idea of "skill" is only there due to the relatively older player base of Legacy vs Modern, so they feel superior to younger players.
Neither comes close to the skill required to be a successful drafter!
I get the feeling you've never played Legacy or just started playing recently. I've played a few modern decks and honestly they're all pretty straight forward to play, even eggs was. Whereas with Legacy there's so many more cards that you have to consider and think out about whether you can go off or delay another turn or whether this spell or that spell is worth countering/discarding.
There's a horrible instant cascade spell that gives your creatures +1/+0 until end of turn. The card is horrible but the pros are going to make AV great with it.
Yeah, when pigs fly.
All cards are horrible to a certain group of players, until another group of players show that first group how to play with them...
All cards are horrible to a certain group of players, until another group of players show that first group how to play with them...
Except that that card will NEVER see competitive play ever again... there was a semi-competitive build in Alara Block Standard that used that card, and it lost 80% of the time...
Trust me, AV wouldn't be "broken" with it...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
I used to feel the same way but some decks are incredibly difficult to pilot. Forget about actually trying to come up with the idea to put such a deck together. Not all decks have the same degree of difficulty, as hard as that is to admit.
I can vouche for this.
LBS and I have had one of the most dramatic battles on this subject. I recall him calling me a legacy elitist at one time or another
Clearly LBS and his 27 Legacy decks is living testimonial that if you actually try the format it just might open your eyes.
I don't know why those who haven't seriously tried the format have such a critical opinion of it.
LBS and I have had one of the most dramatic battles on this subject. I recall him calling me a legacy elitist at one time or another
Clearly LBS and his 27 Legacy decks is living testimonial that if you actually try the format it just might open your eyes.
I don't know why those who haven't seriously tried the format have such a critical opinion of it.
In fact, you know what I've discovered. Even though their shells are very similar, you have to play Hive Mind and OmniTell completely different. Hive is more a luck sac deck and you really have to take more chances with it. You can't hope for things to fall into place as well as they do with Omni because the pacts actually dilute the consistency of the deck.
LBS and I have had one of the most dramatic battles on this subject. I recall him calling me a legacy elitist at one time or another
Clearly LBS and his 27 Legacy decks is living testimonial that if you actually try the format it just might open your eyes.
I don't know why those who haven't seriously tried the format have such a critical opinion of it.
Other than this whole post reeking of arrogance, why is a format being more skill-intensive a necessary positive?
I could correctly make the argument that chess is far more skill-intensive than all of Magic, INCLUDING Legacy. Yet I will argue that chess is not as "fun" of a game BECAUSE of its skill-intensivity.
Is the reason that you consider a more skill-intensive format a "better" format because it makes you feel superior to your opponent when you win? Doesn't this kind of attitude breed elitism and more of a sense of competition than one of camaraderie? Without randomness, all that is left is two people trying to fiercely display their dominance over one another. Even apart from this, you're making the learning curve high, which also alienates "fresh blood", does it not?
I've tried Legacy, and I feel it has more decision trees than Modern. While I'm not sure if this is a correct measure of "skill", even assuming that it is a more skilled format, why does that make it a better one?
And before people start trying to disenfranchise my arguments by saying I'm a terrible player who's never played Legacy, let me set the facts straight. While I would never go as far as to call myself an "expert", I would say that I am a competent player. I have tried Legacy before, and I cannot honestly say I prefer it to Modern. I feel the formats are altogether too different to do a direct comparison, though I generally like the attitude that players have that play Modern than the players who play Legacy.
Other than this whole post reeking of arrogance, why is a format being more skill-intensive a necessary positive?
I could correctly make the argument that chess is far more skill-intensive than all of Magic, INCLUDING Legacy. Yet I will argue that chess is not as "fun" of a game BECAUSE of its skill-intensivity.
Is the reason that you consider a more skill-intensive format a "better" format because it makes you feel superior to your opponent when you win? Doesn't this kind of attitude breed elitism and more of a sense of competition than one of camaraderie? Without randomness, all that is left is two people trying to fiercely display their dominance over one another. Even apart from this, you're making the learning curve high, which also alienates "fresh blood", does it not?
I've tried Legacy, and I feel it has more decision trees than Modern. While I'm not sure if this is a correct measure of "skill", even assuming that it is a more skilled format, why does that make it a better one?
And before people start trying to disenfranchise my arguments by saying I'm a terrible player who's never played Legacy, let me set the facts straight. While I would never go as far as to call myself an "expert", I would say that I am a competent player. I have tried Legacy before, and I cannot honestly say I prefer it to Modern. I feel the formats are altogether too different to do a direct comparison, though I generally like the attitude that players have that play Modern than the players who play Legacy.
I'm going to say something that is going to surprise you.
Legacy is NOT better than Modern. It is just different. And it's a personal taste and preference for each person who plays it.
Personally, I bore easy. When I play Standard (which I only do because I really love my friends) I find little challenge, which may be why I'm so bad at it. For me, dropping a creature, turn after turn, is boring. It just doesn't excite me. I'm not saying creature based decks are bad. They're just not what I want to play.
When I play TES or ANT or Doomsday in Legacy, I am more personally challenged. I have to do a lot of calculating as to when it's safe to go off. I have to defend against counters or discard. It's tough. And I enjoy it. And ironically, I am a much better Legacy player than I am a Standard player.
Modern, for me, is just not much removed from Standard. It doesn't have the complexities of Legacy. That it doesn't have Brainstorm alone makes it that much simpler.
It isn't worse. It's just not my cup of tea.
Conversely, I understand players not liking Legacy for whatever reasons. I would never force anybody to play it. If somebody is interested, I'll introduce them to it and let them make up their own mind. Legacy isn't for everybody, and this has nothing to do with the cost of cards.
I don't consider myself an elitist. I just consider myself someone who enjoys a format that is more challenging for me, makes me concentrate harder, and ultimately makes me a better player. My Legacy record is far better than my Standard record. So there must be something to it.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question and/or addresses your point.
why bother picking up a hobby (and playing a competitive format) if you're not going to try to become good at it. this "trophy for participation" culture is a terrible thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
why bother picking up a hobby (and playing a competitive format) if you're not going to try to become good at it. this "trophy for participation" culture is a terrible thing.
First of all, this post is dangerously close to "no true Scotsman", and probably would be had it not been worded in a rhetorical question.
Can one not try to become good at a format even if it's not the "most skill-intensive"? I am not trying to argue for a complete lack of skill, but rather one where skill may not take as high of a role. As I said before, why not play chess if you're merely seeking to assert your dominance?
I have no idea how you got "trophy for participation" from my post - I was merely asserting randomness as an admirable quality for a game. It is what leads to a sense of players being able to laugh (in a non-derogatory fashion) about plays and topdecks, rather than always having to inspect them for "34.Qh8#!!" As I play Magic, I want to be challenged to be able to make the right play, but even more importantly I want to be having a good time. In fact, having a good time is my ONLY objective; if I want to be challenged, it is only because through being challenged I expect to have a good time. I (and certainly no one I've ever heard of) am not expecting to obtain any other outcome from this game other than one that overall ends with my pleasure (even if it isn't pleasant 100% of the time). Otherwise, I would not be spending my time playing it.
Let's say I am an amateur fisherman, and I enjoy fishing. Even if I never become "good" at it, if I have fun, is that not enough for me? Can I not be satisfied by my personal enjoyment and the company of others because you say we have to cut each other's throats in order to be "real Magic players"?
First of all, this post is dangerously close to "no true Scotsman", and probably would be had it not been worded in a rhetorical question.
Can one not try to become good at a format even if it's not the "most skill-intensive"? I am not trying to argue for a complete lack of skill, but rather one where skill may not take as high of a role. As I said before, why not play chess if you're merely seeking to assert your dominance?
I have no idea how you got "trophy for participation" from my post - I was merely asserting randomness as an admirable quality for a game. It is what leads to a sense of players being able to laugh (in a non-derogatory fashion) about plays and topdecks, rather than always having to inspect them for "34.Qh8#!!" As I play Magic, I want to be challenged to be able to make the right play, but even more importantly I want to be having a good time. In fact, having a good time is my ONLY objective; if I want to be challenged, it is only because through being challenged I expect to have a good time. I (and certainly no one I've ever heard of) am not expecting to obtain any other outcome from this game other than one that overall ends with my pleasure (even if it isn't pleasant 100% of the time). Otherwise, I would not be spending my time playing it.
Let's say I am an amateur fisherman, and I enjoy fishing. Even if I never become "good" at it, if I have fun, is that not enough for me? Can I not be satisfied by my personal enjoyment and the company of others because you say we have to cut each other's throats in order to be "real Magic players"?
You're absolutely right. You can play Magic just to have fun. I do it at FNM by playing stupid decks like Battle of Wits.
Except that that card will NEVER see competitive play ever again... there was a semi-competitive build in Alara Block Standard that used that card, and it lost 80% of the time...
Trust me, AV wouldn't be "broken" with it...
Living end players would like a word....:rolleyes:
Quote from Ignithas »
Then show us the list that breaks AV... oh wait, you never proved anything.
I shouldnt have to. History has shown cascade has abused suspend cards.
Living end players would like a word....:rolleyes:
Building a deck around cascading into something that wins you the game is a lot different than building a deck around cascading into something that draws you a few cards.
Not to mention that Living End is a fringe deck anyway...
I don't like legacy both because of the $$$ it costs, and cards like brainstorm, wasteland, fow, and fast combo being the cornerstones of the format (very blue dominated format).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGO Modern Player
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lol, let them. That's a VERY horrible combo. It relies on too many things going on for it to work. They would need to:
1) Find a the Cascade Spell
2) Put a creature of Value in the graveyard
3) Have breaking/entering set up to be cascaded into
4) Cast the Cascade spell with the appropriate mana.
Seems just easier to cast Unburial rites
NB: I'm not taking a poke at modern, just that God awful combo. /post
Divination
3 Mana to draw 2 cards and you're not loading up your deck with 4 crappy cards.
What happens when you cascade into AV and one of the 3 cards you draw is one of the remaining 3 crappy cards you have in your deck?
So you end up wasting 2 cards to draw 2 good cards where with Divination you could have just played 1 card to get 2 good cards.
Anybody who supports playing crappy cascade cards just to play AV is a crappy Magic player.
There, I said it.
They're not as good. What if you don't have an artifact or a land card to discard? You're then only getting one card.
Divination is a sorcery. being able to cascade at end of their turn into 3 extra cards is huge advantage
You're still paying 3 mana for a crappy card to MAYBE get a good card out of it.
It's still bad Magic any way you look at it and I dare anybody to put together a winning deck using this horrible combo.
It is certainly not back breaking Magic and has no business being on the banned list.
This card is unplayable.
1GR
Instant
You may not play cards costing less than 3 mana if you play this card.
Draw 3 cards.
That card is terrible. Ancestral visions in legacy is only playable because when it's blank you shrug brainstorm it away and ancestral recalled yourself with brainstorm anyway. The above spell is barely playable with the text of BALANCE!
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
How are you cascading into this at instant speed?
AV is only good in Legacy BC you can pitching to FOW so its not dead in your hand or you can brainstorm it away.
There's a horrible instant cascade spell that gives your creatures +1/+0 until end of turn. The card is horrible but the pros are going to make AV great with it.
Yeah, when pigs fly.
Unless you're comparing Legacy Doomsday to Modern Jund (when it had BBE), there's no skill difference between the formats. You can flowchart the majority of decks in both formats (If X happens, then do Y).
I feel that this idea of "skill" is only there due to the relatively older player base of Legacy vs Modern, so they feel superior to younger players.
Neither comes close to the skill required to be a successful drafter!
While I agree the drafting part of being a draft player is more skilled than say building a legacy deck playing with brainstorm gives you more options than anything else (besides cabal therapy and jace.) It's not a superiority thing it's a mathematically provable fact as long as you agree that more options gives rise to higher skill requirements. Given that brainstorm offers a substantially larger number of choices than any other card besides jace and cabal therapy it's a simple fact.
As for drafting it's easily provable that there are more technical options drafting it than anything but playing it is mechanical only. (14!*14!*14! or 6.625597605491478e+3)
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Using a (silly) analogy, making a sandwich at home I have 5 different things that I can put inside of it; a "sandwich artist" at Subway has 30 different things they can put inside of it. "More options" are there, but the actual skill required to put the sandwich together is the same for both me and the person at Subway.
With the internet as a resource, it's not hard to put magic sandwiches together at all, and most decks pilot themselves despite what people want to believe. There are of course the outlier decks that require planning out possible draws and chances to hit key pieces, but they exist across all formats.
I used to feel the same way but some decks are incredibly difficult to pilot. Forget about actually trying to come up with the idea to put such a deck together. Not all decks have the same degree of difficulty, as hard as that is to admit.
I get the feeling you've never played Legacy or just started playing recently. I've played a few modern decks and honestly they're all pretty straight forward to play, even eggs was. Whereas with Legacy there's so many more cards that you have to consider and think out about whether you can go off or delay another turn or whether this spell or that spell is worth countering/discarding.
All cards are horrible to a certain group of players, until another group of players show that first group how to play with them...
Except that that card will NEVER see competitive play ever again... there was a semi-competitive build in Alara Block Standard that used that card, and it lost 80% of the time...
Trust me, AV wouldn't be "broken" with it...
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
Please Visit my Alterations Page!
My Alters Sales Thread
Want a FREE Playset of Foil Baneslayer Angels?!?:
I can vouche for this.
LBS and I have had one of the most dramatic battles on this subject. I recall him calling me a legacy elitist at one time or another
Clearly LBS and his 27 Legacy decks is living testimonial that if you actually try the format it just might open your eyes.
I don't know why those who haven't seriously tried the format have such a critical opinion of it.
In fact, you know what I've discovered. Even though their shells are very similar, you have to play Hive Mind and OmniTell completely different. Hive is more a luck sac deck and you really have to take more chances with it. You can't hope for things to fall into place as well as they do with Omni because the pacts actually dilute the consistency of the deck.
Yes, I've learned a lot the last few months.
Other than this whole post reeking of arrogance, why is a format being more skill-intensive a necessary positive?
I could correctly make the argument that chess is far more skill-intensive than all of Magic, INCLUDING Legacy. Yet I will argue that chess is not as "fun" of a game BECAUSE of its skill-intensivity.
Is the reason that you consider a more skill-intensive format a "better" format because it makes you feel superior to your opponent when you win? Doesn't this kind of attitude breed elitism and more of a sense of competition than one of camaraderie? Without randomness, all that is left is two people trying to fiercely display their dominance over one another. Even apart from this, you're making the learning curve high, which also alienates "fresh blood", does it not?
I've tried Legacy, and I feel it has more decision trees than Modern. While I'm not sure if this is a correct measure of "skill", even assuming that it is a more skilled format, why does that make it a better one?
And before people start trying to disenfranchise my arguments by saying I'm a terrible player who's never played Legacy, let me set the facts straight. While I would never go as far as to call myself an "expert", I would say that I am a competent player. I have tried Legacy before, and I cannot honestly say I prefer it to Modern. I feel the formats are altogether too different to do a direct comparison, though I generally like the attitude that players have that play Modern than the players who play Legacy.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
I'm going to say something that is going to surprise you.
Legacy is NOT better than Modern. It is just different. And it's a personal taste and preference for each person who plays it.
Personally, I bore easy. When I play Standard (which I only do because I really love my friends) I find little challenge, which may be why I'm so bad at it. For me, dropping a creature, turn after turn, is boring. It just doesn't excite me. I'm not saying creature based decks are bad. They're just not what I want to play.
When I play TES or ANT or Doomsday in Legacy, I am more personally challenged. I have to do a lot of calculating as to when it's safe to go off. I have to defend against counters or discard. It's tough. And I enjoy it. And ironically, I am a much better Legacy player than I am a Standard player.
Modern, for me, is just not much removed from Standard. It doesn't have the complexities of Legacy. That it doesn't have Brainstorm alone makes it that much simpler.
It isn't worse. It's just not my cup of tea.
Conversely, I understand players not liking Legacy for whatever reasons. I would never force anybody to play it. If somebody is interested, I'll introduce them to it and let them make up their own mind. Legacy isn't for everybody, and this has nothing to do with the cost of cards.
I don't consider myself an elitist. I just consider myself someone who enjoys a format that is more challenging for me, makes me concentrate harder, and ultimately makes me a better player. My Legacy record is far better than my Standard record. So there must be something to it.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question and/or addresses your point.
First of all, this post is dangerously close to "no true Scotsman", and probably would be had it not been worded in a rhetorical question.
Can one not try to become good at a format even if it's not the "most skill-intensive"? I am not trying to argue for a complete lack of skill, but rather one where skill may not take as high of a role. As I said before, why not play chess if you're merely seeking to assert your dominance?
I have no idea how you got "trophy for participation" from my post - I was merely asserting randomness as an admirable quality for a game. It is what leads to a sense of players being able to laugh (in a non-derogatory fashion) about plays and topdecks, rather than always having to inspect them for "34.Qh8#!!" As I play Magic, I want to be challenged to be able to make the right play, but even more importantly I want to be having a good time. In fact, having a good time is my ONLY objective; if I want to be challenged, it is only because through being challenged I expect to have a good time. I (and certainly no one I've ever heard of) am not expecting to obtain any other outcome from this game other than one that overall ends with my pleasure (even if it isn't pleasant 100% of the time). Otherwise, I would not be spending my time playing it.
Let's say I am an amateur fisherman, and I enjoy fishing. Even if I never become "good" at it, if I have fun, is that not enough for me? Can I not be satisfied by my personal enjoyment and the company of others because you say we have to cut each other's throats in order to be "real Magic players"?
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
You're absolutely right. You can play Magic just to have fun. I do it at FNM by playing stupid decks like Battle of Wits.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Living end players would like a word....:rolleyes:
I shouldnt have to. History has shown cascade has abused suspend cards.
Not to mention that Living End is a fringe deck anyway...