The hyperbole about "nothing to spend the mana on after turn 6" is getting silly. The card is clearly not an all star and will sometimes "just" be a 4/4 flier for 6, but even ignoring megamorphs, ability costs, potentially missing your 7th land and wanting to cast/flip a 7 and other uses, look at what happens when you curve out:
On the draw, turn 1 you play a land and finish the turn with 7 cards.
Turn 2 - play a land and a 2, finish with 6 cards.
Turn 3 - land and morph, finish with 5 cards.
Turn 4 - land and 4 drop, finish with 4 cards.
Turn 5 - land and 5 drop, finish with 3 cards.
Turn 6 - land and dragon, finish with 2 cards.
Turn 7 - you could, quite realistically, have 6 mana with 3 non-land cards in hand and at least one still unflipped morph.
How can anyone suggest that 6 mana is basically the same as 12 mana here? What if you just want to dump your hand and jump instantly ahead? What if you're playing Temur and have a large number of morphs (or your 4/5 were manifest spells that drew creatures)? How often do you actually curve out that well? I certainly don't every game (and yes, sometimes you'll have a more empty hand if you're playing a 2 and 3 on turn 5 for example). Again, what if the red or green is a splash and you're sitting there with 6 mana, a 6 drop and a contradict? Swinging with this on turn 7 is absurd there - you get to play another monster and hold up a blow-out two for one. You're not losing that game in any reasonable scenario. If you're in topdeck mode, basically the only time in non-agro decks where you won't be likely to get good value out of the mana, it's a 4/4 flier - not something you're likely to feel anything but ecstatic about. I had him in a deck, dropped him by turn 5 a few times and suddenly exploded ahead on turn 6 with my 12 mana. Definitely didn't lose from there. I enjoyed the game where they had a giant ground guy and got to play my own giant guy and a Hunt the Weak entirely because of this.
A potentially game-winning tempo boost or sometimes hugely important ramp effect attached to a perfectly playable body (also ignoring any dragon interactions) is just blatantly good, even in aggressive formats.
Except, again, I don't see how it could possibly matter. If they're not attacking you, who cares? I made it quite clear that I was only talking about people venting about bad luck without actually attacking their opponent. It's clearly making them feel better in some way and if it isn't, they're only hurting themselves anyway.
If it bothers you, you absolutely have a problem of your own.
Perhaps, but the responsibility is with the one who's being a debbie downer, not the one who feels affected by it. When someone starts moaning in the chat, I don't feel upset or angry or uncomfortable, but it does put some amount of damper on the mood, and enough of these experiences will make online play less attractive. In any case, I don't have to excuse myself for thinking it's uncool when people I play against start ranting about this and that. The responsibility is not on me.
There is no reason to be rage-y. Stop doing it, and you'll probably find that you'll find the MtG experience to be more fun for you as well.
I disagree. I think you both have something to work on. Words on a screen should never cause you to feel negative in any way. Bad luck in a game shouldn't cause you uncontrollable rage. They're both flaws - both people are at fault, even if not the same amount of fault. I'd actually argue that feeling bad about words is a more serious flaw, even if that person isn't as at fault. Someone raging, even if not quite in control, is making themselves feel better, even if not in the sanest way. The person who feels bad about it is letting themselves be bothered by something that quite literally has no impact on their life in any way, shape or form and can be ignored in a heartbeat.
Except, again, I don't see how it could possibly matter. If they're not attacking you, who cares? I made it quite clear that I was only talking about people venting about bad luck without actually attacking their opponent. It's clearly making them feel better in some way and if it isn't, they're only hurting themselves anyway.
If it bothers you, you absolutely have a problem of your own. Whether or not there's something also wrong with the guy venting isn't relevant to my argument.
That's a far too simplistic take on human psychology, Phyrre. There's a tremendously massive difference between losing money because of bad luck and gaining money, fame, adoration, etc. in spite of bad luck. I have very little sympathy for someone losing $15 playing MTGO, but I have far less for a professional athlete who gets paid millions to lose.
When people complain about your luck or call you a "sack" or whatever, I like to make absurd statements to set them off even more. "yeah, well of course I didn't get flooded like you, I played 10 lands in my deck."
I don't see how this is any less douchey than what your opponent is doing. Sounds more douchey, if anything.
I sincerely wish I didn't feel the need to complain, but I do get so very frustrated, and I can't shake the feeling like my luck reflects poorly on my play ability and for some reason I feel the need for some random person on the other end to understand that I'm not that bad, it's just bad luck. I don't know why, but the feeling like my opponent thinks they won because they're that much better than I am is just hard to swallow, so I vent as a way to deflect that feeling.
Yes, this is exactly why anyone has ever complained at the end of a game they lost. What we're talking about is rising above that instinctual feeling and not bringing someone else down with you, because no matter how valid your luck-based argument may be, it detracts from someone's win. By insisting that the bad luck does not imply you're a bad player, you're also saying that their reciprocal good luck does not imply they are a good player.
This is the very essence of being a good sport. At the end of the Superbowl, did you see the Seahawks players shouting at the Patriots players "THE ODDS OF THAT PASS BEING INTERCEPTED WERE INCREDIBLY SMALL, WE'RE REALLY THE BETTER TEAM!" No, because sportsmanship.
There are pretty obvious differences. For one thing, everyone who walks into a Superbowl game is a clear winner regardless of the outcome. They got paid to play there, rather than paying to play. They can console themselves with their massive paychecks and fame. Can a guy who spent $13 (yes, it's a small amount of money) and opened nothing of value during drafting console himself with anything of the sort if he loses due to luck and walks away empty handed as a result? Second, the pass was intercepted because Russel Wilson and the receiver made mistakes and the Patriots player was aware enough and good enough with his hands to catch the ball. It was a skill play, even if a relatively fluky one. It wasn't purely luck based. Third, the team almost certainly whined about it later amongst themselves. They're a team, they have people to talk to. The average MTGO player probably doesn't have a crew of people in exactly the same situation to commiserate with afterwards - he is probably sitting alone in his apartment. He may have no one else to vent to and it's "nice" to be heard, even if the person hearing it doesn't care.
As long as it doesn't turn personal, who cares? Are some people really so insecure that the suggestion that luck played a factor in their win in a game that is as much luck as skill (if not moreso in limited) really so ego-shattering? Ignore it and move on. Console them if you feel like being sympathetic (yeah, man, I just lost my last draft to the same thing - sorry). But trying to make them more angry or insulting them is far, far more childish than just venting.
I'd play Abzan Advantage over any of those and even some of the things he's mainboarding. It has solid synergy with a handful of his cards, can sometimes trade for a creature as a weak combat trick and will at some point save you from something like a Jeskai Runemark or Citadel Siege. It's certainly not a good maindeck card, but some of these other options just aren't good cards at all and don't work with his strategy (Arashin War Beast, Tusked Colossodon, Cached Defenses, Sagu Archer, etc.).
I would use Dragons if I topdecked this when already far ahead, especially if my opponent isn't completely flooded. Anyone who played against Frost Titan knows how hard it can be to get back into a game with that sort of effect around. You're definitely playing this for Khans, though, and it's very good in Sultai and okay in other decks. I don't love cards that are technically card disadvantage by default, but looting is definitely powerful even if this one is mandatory, which can be a liability, and doesn't have the option of attacking for occasional damage, helping push someone through on an alpha or blocking in a pinch (no matter how many times we throw around "harder to remove", creatures are definitely superior to enchantments, even if they're small).
I figured you were reasonable, I was more referring to other people who think any comment about luck is a grave and unjustified insult on their character.
That's fair as long as you're not one of those people who flips out over nothing and refuses to accept that luck is a large factor in the game. Insulting someone who's raging at you is valid (although people who insult back and then try to report anyway are absolutely ridiculous). Going from 0 to 60 because someone says something like "Ouch, gg. Nice topdeck" is not. Even worse is when the person then gets defensive and goes into full "nah, just outplayed you, bro" mode, when both players really know that he didn't. I'd much rather have a frustrated player make a quick, not insulting comment about some bad luck than have the person who got lucky pretend like it was all skill or ridiculously feel insulted by something that was harmless.
People like to play their cards. That said, I'm not particularly sure why counterspells feel worse to people than removal. Why do you care if you play a creature and I kill it as soon as I get priority or if I counter it before it hits the field? What's the difference?
There's a pretty significant difference between hitting Siege Rhino with Dissolve and hitting it with Hero's Downfall (unless you flashed in Hushwing Gryff in response and they didn't kill it before their Rhino resolved, I guess).
Significant difference in impact of the game, sure. I'd obviously rather have my Siege Rhino removed than countered for the sake of my odds of winning. But why one feels more or less fun to some people is beyond me. You didn't get to really play with the card any more in one scenario than the other.
People like to play their cards. That said, I'm not particularly sure why counterspells feel worse to people than removal. Why do you care if you play a creature and I kill it as soon as I get priority or if I counter it before it hits the field? What's the difference?
Problem with Timely is that they are often hurting themselves with shocks and fetches and eidolon triggers. Ive had man instances where timely doesn't gain any life because opponent can go lower in life total. Even had someone bolt themselves to go lower than me. Sure, it cost them a card, but 6 life costs them 2.
I don't really have an opinion on which is better, but this isn't much of a point. You act like it's not worth a card to get them to bolt themselves. You traded a card for a card of AND they popped themselves for 3. In my experience, if you're high enough that they're lower than you just by their own cards, you're probably not in a terrible spot in the first place.
You can lump it together in the "skill" category all you want, but that's clearly incorrect as you have exactly no control over it. It's exactly the same as a dice roll from your point of view. It's completely a matter of luck if your opponent is going to bring his A game or his A- game today. Your final statement shows that you didn't really grasp what I was saying. The entire premise is that you're matched against similarly skilled opponents, but the variance in their skill from game to game is a form of luck. I'm not talking about whether your opponent is good or bad, I'm talking about whether your opponent is playing his best game, his average game or his worst game. The variance is how consistently close to his average game he is. If there's some sort of reasonable ladder or other way to make sure I'm playing similarly skilled opponents, the variance comes from whether or not that opponent always plays about that level, whether he plays a bit better or worse sometimes or, for the highest variance, whether he can fluctuate from flawless to terrible. That's quite clearly luck.
In what way is it different for you, my opponent, if you beat me because I make a terrible misplay I'd only make about 3% of the time or if you beat me because you draw your 1 outer in a 33 card library? Absolutely none, so why is one lumped into the skill part of the game and the other lumped into the luck part?
Baneslayer Angel. I came back to MTG when she was the big dog on the block and I always liked white decks with awesome Angels - she blew all of the older ones I knew and loved out of the wayer.
On the draw, turn 1 you play a land and finish the turn with 7 cards.
Turn 2 - play a land and a 2, finish with 6 cards.
Turn 3 - land and morph, finish with 5 cards.
Turn 4 - land and 4 drop, finish with 4 cards.
Turn 5 - land and 5 drop, finish with 3 cards.
Turn 6 - land and dragon, finish with 2 cards.
Turn 7 - you could, quite realistically, have 6 mana with 3 non-land cards in hand and at least one still unflipped morph.
How can anyone suggest that 6 mana is basically the same as 12 mana here? What if you just want to dump your hand and jump instantly ahead? What if you're playing Temur and have a large number of morphs (or your 4/5 were manifest spells that drew creatures)? How often do you actually curve out that well? I certainly don't every game (and yes, sometimes you'll have a more empty hand if you're playing a 2 and 3 on turn 5 for example). Again, what if the red or green is a splash and you're sitting there with 6 mana, a 6 drop and a contradict? Swinging with this on turn 7 is absurd there - you get to play another monster and hold up a blow-out two for one. You're not losing that game in any reasonable scenario. If you're in topdeck mode, basically the only time in non-agro decks where you won't be likely to get good value out of the mana, it's a 4/4 flier - not something you're likely to feel anything but ecstatic about. I had him in a deck, dropped him by turn 5 a few times and suddenly exploded ahead on turn 6 with my 12 mana. Definitely didn't lose from there. I enjoyed the game where they had a giant ground guy and got to play my own giant guy and a Hunt the Weak entirely because of this.
A potentially game-winning tempo boost or sometimes hugely important ramp effect attached to a perfectly playable body (also ignoring any dragon interactions) is just blatantly good, even in aggressive formats.
I disagree. I think you both have something to work on. Words on a screen should never cause you to feel negative in any way. Bad luck in a game shouldn't cause you uncontrollable rage. They're both flaws - both people are at fault, even if not the same amount of fault. I'd actually argue that feeling bad about words is a more serious flaw, even if that person isn't as at fault. Someone raging, even if not quite in control, is making themselves feel better, even if not in the sanest way. The person who feels bad about it is letting themselves be bothered by something that quite literally has no impact on their life in any way, shape or form and can be ignored in a heartbeat.
If it bothers you, you absolutely have a problem of your own. Whether or not there's something also wrong with the guy venting isn't relevant to my argument.
I don't see how this is any less douchey than what your opponent is doing. Sounds more douchey, if anything.
There are pretty obvious differences. For one thing, everyone who walks into a Superbowl game is a clear winner regardless of the outcome. They got paid to play there, rather than paying to play. They can console themselves with their massive paychecks and fame. Can a guy who spent $13 (yes, it's a small amount of money) and opened nothing of value during drafting console himself with anything of the sort if he loses due to luck and walks away empty handed as a result? Second, the pass was intercepted because Russel Wilson and the receiver made mistakes and the Patriots player was aware enough and good enough with his hands to catch the ball. It was a skill play, even if a relatively fluky one. It wasn't purely luck based. Third, the team almost certainly whined about it later amongst themselves. They're a team, they have people to talk to. The average MTGO player probably doesn't have a crew of people in exactly the same situation to commiserate with afterwards - he is probably sitting alone in his apartment. He may have no one else to vent to and it's "nice" to be heard, even if the person hearing it doesn't care.
As long as it doesn't turn personal, who cares? Are some people really so insecure that the suggestion that luck played a factor in their win in a game that is as much luck as skill (if not moreso in limited) really so ego-shattering? Ignore it and move on. Console them if you feel like being sympathetic (yeah, man, I just lost my last draft to the same thing - sorry). But trying to make them more angry or insulting them is far, far more childish than just venting.
Significant difference in impact of the game, sure. I'd obviously rather have my Siege Rhino removed than countered for the sake of my odds of winning. But why one feels more or less fun to some people is beyond me. You didn't get to really play with the card any more in one scenario than the other.
I don't really have an opinion on which is better, but this isn't much of a point. You act like it's not worth a card to get them to bolt themselves. You traded a card for a card of AND they popped themselves for 3. In my experience, if you're high enough that they're lower than you just by their own cards, you're probably not in a terrible spot in the first place.
In what way is it different for you, my opponent, if you beat me because I make a terrible misplay I'd only make about 3% of the time or if you beat me because you draw your 1 outer in a 33 card library? Absolutely none, so why is one lumped into the skill part of the game and the other lumped into the luck part?