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

    posted a message on
    Comment Hidden
    Link Removed
  • 3

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Quote from TurboTurbot »

    Wizards doesn't ban things for being 'not fun'. GGT was an innocent bystander caught up in their drive-by Dredge banning; Dread Return was the real target.


    This was the explanation when GGT was banned. Seems as valid today as the day it was written:

    "Dredge is a very powerful combination deck, and we wanted to ban something from it. The problem came when we were exploring potential cards to ban. If we banned Bridge From Below, players could still use Narcomoeba and Bloodghast to Dread Return enormous creatures. If we banned Narcomoeba, Bloodghast would be a bit slower, but Dread Return would still bring back enormous creatures and Bridge From Below would still make Zombies, and any future creature that comes back from the graveyard cheaply would have the potential to re-break the deck. We aren't going to stop printing cards that care about the graveyard, so attacking the deck after it has begun to dredge felt counterproductive.

    The real power of Dredge is that every card draw that is replaced by dredging five or six cards effectively allows the Dredge player to draw two or three cards. By that metric, Golgari Grave-Troll is the strongest "card-drawing spell" in the Dredge deck, and it doubles as a win condition. Therefore, it seemed like the best place to attack the deck. You can still play Dredge, but you'll be dredging a little bit slower, and you'll have to play real targets to reanimate instead of getting Golgari Grave-Troll for free."

    http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/144

    They want to make dredge strategies slower by banning one of the best dredge cards. The banning makes sense in this context.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Quote from Infallible »
    While I agree you don't have to be so condescending and flat out insulting about it. It doesn't make your point look any better be belittling other people's opinions. Acting like this is the reason the MTGS community is mocked. Knock it off.

    What did I say that was flat out insulting?

    Quote from Sheepz »
    A. They didn't play when it was legal and have no idea what they're talking about
    Quote from Infallible »
    Or they just didn't play during DRS's dominance in Modern.

    ...
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Quote from Looooooooo »
    Quote from spawnofhastur »
    We've discussed unbanning DRS in the wake of TC and DTT.

    Most people think it's a bad idea, since DRS does everything; it slices, it dices.


    So the problem is that DRS is more powerful than an ancestral recall... Mmmh i think i disagree.
    DRS is in colors/archetype which don't play TC or dig (sorry Willy Endel) and he goes in a different direction of gameplan: empty the GY instead of replenish it...

    - L


    Since when ws Ancestral Recall legal in modern?

    Last time I checked instant speed played very different from sorceries, or do you just play all your instants at sorcery speed?

    Please get off of this comparison of Treasure cruise to ancestral recall. If you aren't casting it in response to the end of the opponent's turn 1, it's not ancestral recall.

    Treasure cruise is more similar to concentrate. The mischaracterization of this card is ridiculous.

    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 2

    posted a message on Is there any way "into" modern anymore?
    I find the premise and discussion in this thread quite silly. Does no one else appreciate the irony of asking if anyone knows of any unknown ideas?

    I mean, if someone can tell you of an unknown interaction or deck design, wouldn't that disqualify the idea by definition?

    Furthermore, the reason no one can agree on what qualifies as original is because everyone has their own idea of how derivative an idea can be before it isn't original anymore. I would like to submit the premise that 'everything is derivative, nothing is original'.

    That premise however, if accepted, would make the whole discussion of originality moot.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    The difference between "warping" and "evolving" seems to be based solely on whether one judges the change to be positive or negative.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 2

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    @ TwinSais

    1) UR delver exists in Legacy, and Modern UR delver is not Legacy UR delver by a long shot. TC + Swiftspear alone does not make it a legacy caliber deck. Think it is? Feel free to test modern UR delver against legacy decks.

    2) All good cards distort the meta game. GBx has been demonstrated to be perfectly playable once adapted (GBW showing results in Madrid). Although, it is true Dark confidant took a hit, I have a hard time feeling sorry for a card that was at the very top of the format for so long. A price drop on a card is completely irrelevant to ban discussions.

    3) While you might call it poor design, I find the design impressive. It specifically works against other top cards in the format like Tarmogoyf, Bob and Snapcaster. A new powerful card with competing needs with other top cards in the format is the definition of good design as far as I am concerned.

    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 3

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Legacy discussions have their own thread thanks
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 2

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Quote from bocephus »

    Like I have said multiple times, I dont play on line, I play paper. The events I have been to and seen people have realized Eidolon and Swiftspear are the definition of anti-synergy. Swiftspear is being played main and Eidolons are being played side.


    Eidolon has better synergy with Swiftspear than any other card in burn. At least with swiftspear in play you can often trade your burn spells for 4 damage to the opponent and 2 damage to yourself instead of 3 and 2 respectively.

    edit: Got any sources to back up the claim Eidolon is moving to the SB? I'm not seeing that anywhere, is that just a local phenomenon?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 1

    posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (7/14/2014 - 1/19/2015)
    Quote from bocephus »
    Before KTK you had a choice of not only deck types that were competitive in events, but colors too. Now you play red, blue or artifacts to give yourself the best chance of topping.



    Factually incorrect, as shown in the text you quote. For instance, pod plays black and green and scapeshift plays green. *shrug* I don't know why you insist on inventing things to be angry at.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.