2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • 1

    posted a message on [Primer] G/W Auras (Bogle)
    Quote from Pedro Rocha »
    Hello Bogle guys!!
    I am considering to play this deck during 2019.
    Do you think is it well positioned in the current metagame

    Bogles isn't that much of a Tier 1 or 2 nowadays. Maybe it's better to wait till the full spoilers of Modern Horizons to decide.

    With War of the Spark previews almost over, it't will be interesting to see what, if anything, Bogles could get in Modern Horizons.

    I think most people agree not to go with a Bant build for Bogles, some challenges being:

    - You have to play all forest-fetches, no Flood Plain.
    - Half your hexproof creatures are mono-Green.

    But Blue does bring Curious Obsession and Stubborn Denial.

    If there were a 1/1 mono-blue version of Gladecover Scout, would you consider a Bant build as being more viable, or does Daybreak Coronet's double white still push against a Bant build?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • 1

    posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance Speculation
    Quote from Dom4419 »
    I didn't follow the lore of the previous ravnica blocks, so would someone be kind enough to tell me what's going on with Rakdos, Lyzolda, Borborygmos, Momir, Zegana, Vorel, Teysa, the Obzedat and any other characters i might have missed? Which ones we might see in this set?

    Based on Guilds of Ravnica, we'll see the Bolas aligned Planeswalkers, and then one Guild leader/Guild champion, and the Guilds without a Planeswalker will have two Legendaries, one representing the Guild Leader and the other representing a number two. I think other than Isperia, all previous Guild leaders could show up again. Niv-Mizzet showed up as a card and doesn't seem to have been killed, while Vraska does appear to have gotten rid of Jarad (although not clear since the cards aren't fleshing out the storyline, yet). Reading between the lines, it does seem like Izoni is probably a leader of the anti-Vraska faction, like Niv-Mizzet still resisting Ral in some way or another.

    So it's possible some of the Bolas Planeswalkers, like Domri Rade, will still see their Guild leaders, like Borborygmos, show up, or a "resistance" like figure.

    For storyline purposes though I'd highly suspect that if Kaya shows up, we'll see a Teysa card instead of the Obzedat.

    Lyzolda is dead, Exava was the Rakdos maze runner, and I don't see a strong narrative pushing to have Exava return versus a new character.

    Momir Vig is dead, Zegana is the last Simic Guild leader, but I don't know if the narrative is strong enough to keep Zegana versus a new Simic guild leader.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 2

    posted a message on Limited Archetypes: Best Of, Most Different?
    So I just wrote up a long, long post about limited archetypes over time, and then the site ate it because the site was in read only mode!


    Well, I wasted a lot of time and energy into it, and I really just wanted to spark a conversation about limited archetypes over time. So take two. I was inspired by the Green-Blue Defenders Archetype in the new Iconic Masters set. And in its throwback to the Defenders deck from original Zendikar, I was reminded how much I loved the Red-White Defenders Archetype in original Conspiracy. Absolutely love Flamewright and wish for a Boros Defender-Theme Legend for EDH ...

    Anyway, some color pairs are almost always doing the same thing in Limited (Red-White Aggro, which is why the deviation into Defender was so fun) and other decks move around a lot (White-Black is usually a midrange deck with recursion and lifegain, but it's had a few aggro tribal archetypes like Amonkhet or the Warriors theme in Tarkir).

    Trying to identify and rank the pairs, this is what I see:

    White/Blue: Usually Fliers. Even when it has some mechanic outside of flying (like ETB) it's often stapled on fliers or a mechanic that helps hold the ground so you win with fliers. It's usually more on the Control side though.

    Blue/Black: Control. Simple. Mechanics can have some artifact synergies, or throw in some efficient card drawing.

    Black/Red: Aggro. Fast. Removal/Burn. Has had some good tribal themes too (Innistrad Vampires, Theros Minotaurs, Iconic Masters Dragons).

    Red/Green: Aggro beatdown and ramp. Doesn't mess around a lot.

    Green/White: Of the allied color pairs, I think this pair can move around the most in what it's trying to do. Sometimes it's a go wide strategy with tokens (Populate) and sometimes it's a go tall strategy with counters (Iconic Masters) or both (Kaladesh) or just a midrange with not much of a mechanical focus. IIRC, Maro has said this is the hardest allied color pair to work out because it's overlap is so creature focused and similar. But it's usually a Midrange deck.

    White/Black: Shifting to enemy color pairs, this one can be a midrange deck with recursion and lifegain to last for the long game (and the removal to boot), or a more aggro deck. I've liked how this can shift back and forth, curious if there's anything that stands out as an exception to either track.

    Blue/Red: Almost always spells, but I don't think it always gets it to work. It's an archetype that is more consistent in what it's trying to do, but not consistent in the outcome. Because it's not creature focused, this deck can fall to formats where aggro is just too fast. Kinda interested in how Ixalan's Pirate Raid archetype works out.

    Black/Green: Usually just a basic goodstuff Midrange deck, sometimes with a graveyard theme, or just a theme of resource management (sacrifice creatures/tokens, manage your allocation of +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters). Explore fits in well here.

    Red/White: Aggro. Almost never changes. Any good examples of when it's different?

    Green/Blue: I think with White/Black the enemy color pair that can change the most, but you could also argue that it's always trying to do the same thing, just like with Blue/Red sometimes it comes together and sometimes it doesn't. It wants to use Green to ramp into an effective big creature to win the game, and it wants to use Blue to draw cards, keep the opponent off balance, and get the damage through. But this can lead to a very durdle style of play, and if the spells you want aren't as efficient in the set, or aggro is too good too fast, it doesn't come together. I'm a little curious how Ixalan comes together, having it as a tribal color where the focus is creatures, counters, and evasion is unusual for this pair.

    So what changes the most?

    White-Green is usually focused on creatures and is usually midrange, but can shift between go wide or go tall. That's probably the most variance of an allied color pair.

    Red-Blue is usually focused on spells, but can be hit and miss on if the card combinations are there. Usually tempo/combo.

    White-Black can range between midrange and aggro.

    Green-Blue usually wants to be tempo ramp, but like Red-Blue can be hit and miss on if the card combinations are there.

    And given that how good aggro in the format sets the pace for everyone else, I'm grouping the pairs as roughly:

    Aggro: Black/Red, Red/Green, Red/White, sometimes White/Black

    Midrange: White/Green, Black/Green, sometimes White/Black

    Control: Blue/Black, White/Blue

    Combo/Tempo? Blue/Red, Green/Blue. Harder to categorize these two on the spectrum, so going with Combo/Tempo.

    But there are exceptions, any other thoughts on some of the past Archetypes in recent years (say post-Return to Ravnica) that break these rules the most?
    Posted in: Limited (Sealed, Draft)
  • 1

    posted a message on Amonkhet formatting split cards... what the...
    Quote from Jiyor »
    Quote from VegaTDM »
    Why all the hate on the frame? It isn't what we are used to, but ti makes mechanical and practical sense. I think it is a very elegant way to solve the problem by fixing 2 problems with 1 idea. Problem A being formatting the card in general so you can cast 2 different spells, only 1 being out of the grave without having a wall of text; Problem B being ease of seeing it in your graveyard for both you and your opponent.

    The only problem i foresee is how currently some players (myself included) put a card sideways under their graveyard to indicate the exile pile. This is a minor thing, but some people actively resist change and worse, some may use it as an avenue to cheat.

    Thing is they could have achieved the same thing by using a regular split card and having no mana cost in the half they wanted gravecast only and put the cost and cast restriction in the keyword.
    Putting a casting cost in the gravecast only part is just going to annoy experienced play since we are trained to know you can cast either side of a split card so their fighting our normal understanding of split cards. And new players and anyone who hasn't used split cards before are going to get feel bad moments when they see the casting cost on the gravecast only side and go to cast it from their hand only to find out that they can't.

    I don't understand any of this. Why would a new player look at a card, see a different orientation to a second spell, and assume they can cast it from their hand when it's gravecast only. The whole fact that the orientation is different is a huge siren saying "I AM DIFFERENT."

    Same for more experienced players. Normal split cards don't have the two different orientations. So why assume this card is the same?

    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Kaladesh: Return of Dwarves?
    On the one hand, the argument against Dwarves is that they don't want to do too much in one set. If they do have contraptions and an overall steampunk feel, plus the overall Indian-themed plane, there's a lot they are already committing to. Adding Dwarves on top of that could spread them too thin. If you have Dwarves coming back you'd want them back in a significant way, like "DWARVES!"

    OTOH an artifact steampunk plane is probably one of the best suited planes to bring Dwarves back to. The alternative is probably the Underground plane. My gut tells me that keeping them for the Underground plane makes more sense, but we'll see.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 1

    posted a message on so what are the chances of Merfolk on Innistrad?
    I'm cautiously optimistic for something Innmouth related, but I'm curious if they will be given something like "Horror" or "Spawn" as a creature type instead of "Merfolk."

    Oh maybe it's the Revenge of the Homarids?!
    Posted in: Storyline Speculation
  • 4

    posted a message on Planeswalker Census?
    Quote from theMarc »
    It shouldn't need official confirmation. Just like how "Jace isn't made of cheese" doesn't need explicit confirmation.

    Well some people do expect a new Jace card in Innistrad, and we know that the moons play a large role on the plane. Is there any evidence that they aren't made of cheese and could transform Jace into a werecheese?
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • 3

    posted a message on Maro says next new plane will be something players have been asking for for a long time?
    I wonder if WOTC would go down the road of an Egyptian themed set without first figuring out how well Theros did. Remember how Kamigawa did not go over well partially because of people not being familiar with the mythology that was being drawn on. Greek mythology should be more approachable to a primarily western audience, but it still wasn't clear it would be a slam dunk. I think WOTC wouldn't feel comfortable with another top-down mythology set until AFTER they saw how Theros did. So it's not until early/mid-2014 that they'd feel like putting an Egyptian world on the list could work. Since they start on the exploratory phase about three years ahead, I think this means a 2017 set is the earliest we'd see an Egyptian top-down. More likely Ham & Eggs and the later blocks. Less likely Lock & Stock or Barrel & Laughs.

    I think either a dinosaur world, a waterworld, or an underground world are likely for the new plane of Lock & Stock.
    Posted in: Storyline Speculation
  • 2

    posted a message on Kiora's death
    Quote from Avatar »
    Quote from Vorthospike »
    Quote from Avatar »
    Yes, indeed, story-wise, I have trouble to identify her green side to the point she'd be made an UG character.

    If she were monoBlue she would want to make the ultimate sea monster. Instead she believes that true perfection already exists (Green) and is driven to discover it (Blue). Kiora also does not make or alter things or have any sort of intellectual passion. In terms of personality she embodies Green's conservative view of things as well as its preference for direct, even brutal, solutions to problems. She has Blue's love of trickery but note that her tricks are very simple rather than being sophisticated plans.

    It appeared to me that bio-engineering was actually UG, not pure U. U is the color of science and research, true, but also of seas and winds and the creatures that inhabits them.

    There are two different expressions of UG. We've seen the Simic, which is more of the bio-engineering aside, the tinkering with nature through speeding up the evolutionary process. But there's also the flip side, the UG that's not going after Blue's quest for perfection through the Green means of nature, but Green's desire to understand and accept the ecosystem on the whole through Blue's means of intellectual study. So a field biologist, or a botanist studying a forest. Kiora feels more like the latter. She's like a late Victorian explorer going off into the Dark Heart of Africa to discover new species.
    Posted in: Storyline Speculation
  • 2

    posted a message on Enchantments are too powerful right now
    Reclamation Sage. Sideboard it.
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.