Can someone explain to me how this is productive as Wizards just said a year ago they were doing away with core sets and could focus more on doing reprints and then announce they're closing the PT event for the biggest and most popular external format?
Eternal formats aren't what the PT is about.
It's about showing off the new set in Limited and the new Standard environment it created.
In an eternal format the newest set rarely has an overly large influence and aside from bans they have few ways to imitate this "new format" part of the PT.
So, letting Modern actually be an eternal format instead of a pseudo-eternal one with more or less arbitrary bans as it's annual "rotation" to somehow make it fit what the PT is about, is a very good thing.
And the PT has nothing to do with reprints or not. ^^
Gemstone Mine can e.g. let you play a cantrip turn 1, a Prism turn 2 and still have a charge for later use.
And sometimes you get onelanders that are really good with combo, fast mana, cantrips and a Gemstone Mine, where Tendo Ice Bridge would be pretty bad, as it lets you make use of only one of those things.
As for Infect, I'm not sure Golgari Charm is a good answer.
Being off-colour is bad, a single Shock in a fetchless deck won't fix that, and we need our fast mana for the combo, usually.
Aside from Darkness and equivalents, you could perhaps try something like a Spellskite, that answers their deck's mechanic of pumping one guy and can also fog them for a turn, instead of playing a hard (and disadvantageous) to cast removal spell that gets easily blown out by all their pump spells.
It might be unexpected once, sure, but even then they could still have a backup pump spells in hand to react to the charm.
has anyone tried running 4 ad nauseam, 4 angel's grace, and also 4 phyrexian unlife and 4 spoils of the vault? would make finding the combo easier but would require dropping some number of sleight of hand and even pact of negation. im wondering if this would make it harder to dig for mana sources.
If you want to dig better for the combo, I'd say add some number of Peer through depths.
Though in that case I'd probably cut 1 Spoils down to 2 and maybe 1 Sleight and idk what else to really cut tbh.
But Spoils are better at 3 I think.
It's great to have as a joker for the combo and anything you might want while comboing, like a Pact or so.
But using more than one without LabMan in hand sounds very much like begging to lose due to exiling your wincons or too many lands / cards in general.
While they of course can always cantrip, that requires a scry to the top first, so it can be unreliable at times and clog up your hand, similar to more than one drawn Spirit Guide and such.
If you want a gy-based discard outlet, just add some Phantasmagorian.
They don't cost one bit and with 2 you can always keep your hand as good as empty.
And they allow nice tricks when facing hate or things as simple and Dredgers or Bridges stranded in your hand.
For combo-versions, you can even use them for consistency, as you can start dredging off of the frog and in response to another trigger from dredged lands, discard the dredge'd guy again, should you have missed any other dredge cards.
Or vice versa, hit more things to dredge, but no lands.
Granted, Zombie Infestation does the same, but has to be on the battle field, which costs time and resources, plus it is more easily removed.
So you CAN sac voidmage for his own effect? I'm trying to make sure I can
Yes you can. Voidmage Prodigy asks for a Wizard to be sacrificed to pay for its effect and is itself a Wizard.
Just like you can sac a Viscera Seer to itself.
Stop nerfing decks with your bans, they are confusing to new players and professionals alike.
So they should just let, by format standards, which admittedly need to be WAY more clear and defined, broken decks run rampant and not "nerf" them, aka balance the format to a degree?
Or do you mean they should just outright break decks, instead of giving them a sliver of tier 2/3 hope?
Also how are bans confusing?
What?
Cards X, Y, Z can no longer be played, find a substitute or similar deck / play a different deck, wow very complex.
That plus the vast amount of metagame prediction and analysis done /for you/ by various websites makes bans not really confusing to anyone who knows their way around Modern.
And since most people won't be PT players, they can just wait how everything turns out before having to buy new stuff and adjust their deck to the new meta, really.
I don't get your points here at all and as they stand /strongly/ disagree. ^^
3a. You don't like the Modern Pro Tour
This confuses the community in many ways. Isn't this your second largest format? The one that is rapidly growing? Which supports many local stores, and can hold venue for people rotating out of Standard? From a business standpoint, I have no idea what goes on behind your scenes, but publicly declaring that this is your second largest format. I feel it to be sustainable to give it your second largest amount of support. One Pro Tour a year is not just a Pro Tour to us, it's a PPTQ Season, a PTQ Season, it's an FNM. Having Modern on the Pro Tour Stage, makes us want to be the next Modern Pro. You have huge high profile players that are experts in the Modern format, we want to become those people. You are taking the limelight away from them if you remove this Pro Tour. Why remove something potentially amazing from us and them? Why not help breed a new generation of professional players?
This new generation of professional players is how we relate, there is a Jon Finkel generation we all admire, but why can't we promote a Patrick Dickmann generation? There are so many aficionado, that you have already banned out of the format. Why are you continuing down this path? These are upcoming professional players with a key talent within the game, they are professional players that us newcomers can relate to.
Without a Modern Pro Tour, you wash all the support, and that untapped potential away. Not just from them, but from us.
3b. You feel banning and the Pro Tour are synergistic with each other for success
While this may or may not be true, the fact that you are in the camp of aggressively banning for a format in which you do no investment feels like a poor decision. It is also beginning to reflect among the dissent in the community. What business model, attempts to progressively degrade something that consistently grows? It seems like you have the intention to remove the thorns from a rose, but the way you are executing the situation feels like cutting down the rainforest. There have been 5 large announcements where you have banned cards and given nothing off the list back to us. It's very problematic for us as a sub-community to have top archetypes consistently banned, with no level of compensation. The printing of new powerful cards help, but they do not acknowledge or redeem the level of damage caused.
Also, you have an ideal where the Pro Tour "solves" a format. a radio podcast on Goldfish had a very strong and intelligent opinion on the matter,
I paraphrase "The community knew about the Eldrazi deck way back in December, and was a Mono Black Variant, if anything this Pro Tour held the progression of that deck into the top winning lists. Testing in secret compared to publicly held the process back."
The community has accelerated the Eldrazi deck in two weeks, into so many different varieties with no counter within the metagame, the disease is spreading. It seems insane that a company can make what is being commonly called an "artificial banning", yet there is a real problem happening right now, and you sit by without any action. The professional players did not solve the format, the community did. Stop blaming the Pro Tour for your woes.
But because that's a lazy answer, let me make more or less the same points again:
Modern doesn't ship products. Yes, it's super popular and Scg, Cfb and anyone big on magiccardmarket.com is making probably a lot of money off of it.
But does WotC get a share? Hardly.
Only a handful of Standard cards make a splash in Modern, often as metagame dependant alternatives to staples, but those aside, no one, especially not players, but not even vendors, crack packs to sell Modern cards.
So, for Wizards, having a PT that does not advertise their latest product directly makes very little sense compared to having another Standard PT.
That said, even if we don't see them as purely profitoriented capitalists, I can understand how a Modern PT can leave a bit of a sour taste in their mouth, especially if it's "just the same as last year (with a few cards different)" to someone not hugely invested in Modern.
So, in the light of the unpopular Twin banning and the potential precedence it sets for the future, I can't see how anyone is still asking to keep the Modern PT, if they don't like it being as much a big show as it is a premiere competitive Magic event.
Yes, it's really cool to see the best of the best figure out this format, and I absolutely loved the show PT:OGW was!
On the other hand, for actual playing, I much prefer a stable environment than one that changes every year. Even if it doesn't affect a personal deck, the following aggro surge (normal in new metas) and shift in match-ups can be a hassle to deal with.
Personally I MUCH prefer Modern as a "Legacy light" rather than "Big Standard" and I think, looking as past discussion on the recent bannings in particular, many here agree.
Without the Pro Tour needed bans can happen faster and "shake-up" bans can be handled a lot more lenient.
So...why keep the PT around still, if no one's really happy with it?!
If you /really/ want it to stay I'd love to also hear some advice and suggestions as to how it should be handled. What changes need to be done to please WotC /and/ the players alike?
Only asking for it to stay when it was much to our dismay just a few weeks ago, seems rather illogical.
As for the whole Eldrazi mess:
Yes, it sucks currently for anyone playing, well, huge Eldrazi and Podless Pod fans aside maybe.
But banning randomly right away seems just wrong.
I very much agree with them waiting till the official date to give them the axe, to make the right banning call and not increase ban fear by making a spontaneous, uninformed ban right away.
I totally understand your point, and I'm generally not in favor of knee-jerk bannings either. I do, however, feel sorry for people who have to endure the next few Modern GPs before April.
It's not like they are forced to go to them.
If they don't like the meta, cancel your stuff and don't go.
Yes, "just don't do the thing you dislike" is a stupid argument, but at the moment that's all you can do, as much as that sucks.
Personally I find it more annoying that Modo is all fubar for now, and leagues are not really playable, unless you wanna metagame hard.
But at least that showed me the amazing world that is Pauper, so there's that. ^^
Actually I know a good number of people that don't have problems with it and actually enjoy it.
I don't have problems with it and do enjoy Modo.
Doesn't change that it has severe issues on my levels and really could use some fixing and improvement in many areas.
But it's really not as bad as many make it out to be, at least the new client.
To me it often seems like many tried the old client before and now hating on Modo is just the cool thing to do.
While it certainly deserves criticism, it's not as abysmal as the general (vocal) opinion makes it out to be.
That's just my view on the thing though.
Feel free to hate it, even if I find that notion rather silly. ^^
What would you use in sideboard against ghostly prisons and ensnaring briges? I could splash green for worldbreaker and other stuff, but I'd rather stay with all the manlands and pure colorless
Of course the former can get hit by removal, Pithing Needle or, in the case of Ghostly Prison, as that's probably out of a Wx prison deck, Runed Halo, while Needle still shuts down the bomb.
Technically Lili can be an out, if you run Urborg and can afford to wait for her ult, but that's pretty loose. ^^
He gains control of Chromanticore, but it would stay attached to your Reaper King!
Losing control or in general changing control of an aura does NOT remove it under normal circumstances.
As long as it can enchant any creature, which a card cast with Bestow can, it'll remain on it's target, but be controlled by him, which...doesn't do a whole lot for an aura.
There is no way to directly influence an aura once it's played, and Chromanticore is just the same in this case as a Pacifism or Spider Umbra.
He counts as the controller of it, which means he can e.g. sacrifice it, if an effect asks for permanents or enchantments of his to be sacrificed and do anything else he could do with any other aura he controls, but he doesn't get to pick a new target, as that only happens when you play the aura, or in this case Bestow the Chromanticore as an aura.
So, neither would he get to pick a new target, nor would the Chromanticore fall off and become a creature, unless the Reaper King died, was exiled or bounced to your hand, which you didn't say it did.
Additionally:
For any Rule related questions, you're best of asking in the Magic Rulings subforum here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings
That way you get actually knowledgeable people looking into it and less random guesses or wrong information you might get anywhere else on the forum by random people.
Which is also a disclaimer that, while I'm pretty sure I'm correct here, may still be wrong without knowing. ^^
Not quite true.
Soul Sisters tend to run Martyr in some lists, for more explosive starts into active Serra Ascendants, but it can be easily played without the card.
Though I'd suggest you search for this in the dedicated Soul Sisters thread, rather than out in the open, for more in depth advice.
There's even discussion on it in the primer itself.
Crucible of Worlds would work too.
And technically Life from the Loam for green splashes, but without making use of the Dredge part, it doesn't seem overly exciting.
I have a suggestion / question about the name of the "Developing Competetive" subforum.
Mostly, why is that it's name and could you perhaps alter it?
The reason for that is that, the as it is, doesn't quite indicate what the forum is about:
Development of decks that have proven to be competitve with actual tournament placings, results or success in dailies.
However "Developing Competitive" just indicates what it says on the tin:
Development of decks with competitive play in mind.
This leads to people frequently starting threads to do exactly that, not knowing that there's more to that subforum that just competitvely developing and discussing decks.
Sure, they /should/ have read the stickies etc., but really...who does that, especially when the name seemingly is so clear?
For one you could technically just lock the ability to create new threads in that subforum (I don't know if this is convenient or technically possible, it may create more hassle or work for you guys than the few accidental posts do).
But renaming it to something like "Competitively Proven Decks" (just an example off the top of my head :3 ) may also help to prevent people from making threads there on their own to brew of a new deck or discuss a rogue strategy / deck that doesn't actually belong in there.
Just an idea / question that crossed my mind, as it's not really in important problem, if any at all, but I kept wondering why it is the way it is. ^^
Ps: wouldn't it technically be "Developing Competitively", since the competitive is referring the developing, hence being an adverb?
An honest grammar question here, I may very well be wrong, but I'm interested in knowing why.
Eternal formats aren't what the PT is about.
It's about showing off the new set in Limited and the new Standard environment it created.
In an eternal format the newest set rarely has an overly large influence and aside from bans they have few ways to imitate this "new format" part of the PT.
So, letting Modern actually be an eternal format instead of a pseudo-eternal one with more or less arbitrary bans as it's annual "rotation" to somehow make it fit what the PT is about, is a very good thing.
And the PT has nothing to do with reprints or not. ^^
Gemstone Mine can e.g. let you play a cantrip turn 1, a Prism turn 2 and still have a charge for later use.
And sometimes you get onelanders that are really good with combo, fast mana, cantrips and a Gemstone Mine, where Tendo Ice Bridge would be pretty bad, as it lets you make use of only one of those things.
As for Infect, I'm not sure Golgari Charm is a good answer.
Being off-colour is bad, a single Shock in a fetchless deck won't fix that, and we need our fast mana for the combo, usually.
Aside from Darkness and equivalents, you could perhaps try something like a Spellskite, that answers their deck's mechanic of pumping one guy and can also fog them for a turn, instead of playing a hard (and disadvantageous) to cast removal spell that gets easily blown out by all their pump spells.
It might be unexpected once, sure, but even then they could still have a backup pump spells in hand to react to the charm.
If you want to dig better for the combo, I'd say add some number of Peer through depths.
Though in that case I'd probably cut 1 Spoils down to 2 and maybe 1 Sleight and idk what else to really cut tbh.
But Spoils are better at 3 I think.
It's great to have as a joker for the combo and anything you might want while comboing, like a Pact or so.
But using more than one without LabMan in hand sounds very much like begging to lose due to exiling your wincons or too many lands / cards in general.
While they of course can always cantrip, that requires a scry to the top first, so it can be unreliable at times and clog up your hand, similar to more than one drawn Spirit Guide and such.
They don't cost one bit and with 2 you can always keep your hand as good as empty.
And they allow nice tricks when facing hate or things as simple and Dredgers or Bridges stranded in your hand.
For combo-versions, you can even use them for consistency, as you can start dredging off of the frog and in response to another trigger from dredged lands, discard the dredge'd guy again, should you have missed any other dredge cards.
Or vice versa, hit more things to dredge, but no lands.
Granted, Zombie Infestation does the same, but has to be on the battle field, which costs time and resources, plus it is more easily removed.
Activate Jar with 9 counters.
Worldfire
:3
Alternatively:
Get it to 12 for Enter the Infinite and some Ad Nauseam-esque win.
Though I wonder how consistent and fast the counter ramping would be.
Yes you can.
Voidmage Prodigy asks for a Wizard to be sacrificed to pay for its effect and is itself a Wizard.
Just like you can sac a Viscera Seer to itself.
Next time I'd suggest asking this in either a new thread or, even better, in the Magic Rulings subforum: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings
Necroing may be fun, but more so in Vintage than in Forums. ^^
So they should just let, by format standards, which admittedly need to be WAY more clear and defined, broken decks run rampant and not "nerf" them, aka balance the format to a degree?
Or do you mean they should just outright break decks, instead of giving them a sliver of tier 2/3 hope?
Also how are bans confusing?
What?
Cards X, Y, Z can no longer be played, find a substitute or similar deck / play a different deck, wow very complex.
That plus the vast amount of metagame prediction and analysis done /for you/ by various websites makes bans not really confusing to anyone who knows their way around Modern.
And since most people won't be PT players, they can just wait how everything turns out before having to buy new stuff and adjust their deck to the new meta, really.
I don't get your points here at all and as they stand /strongly/ disagree. ^^
See the very interesting article on mtggoldfish.com for this topic: http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-real-reason-splinter-twin-got-banned
But because that's a lazy answer, let me make more or less the same points again:
Modern doesn't ship products. Yes, it's super popular and Scg, Cfb and anyone big on magiccardmarket.com is making probably a lot of money off of it.
But does WotC get a share? Hardly.
Only a handful of Standard cards make a splash in Modern, often as metagame dependant alternatives to staples, but those aside, no one, especially not players, but not even vendors, crack packs to sell Modern cards.
So, for Wizards, having a PT that does not advertise their latest product directly makes very little sense compared to having another Standard PT.
That said, even if we don't see them as purely profitoriented capitalists, I can understand how a Modern PT can leave a bit of a sour taste in their mouth, especially if it's "just the same as last year (with a few cards different)" to someone not hugely invested in Modern.
So, in the light of the unpopular Twin banning and the potential precedence it sets for the future, I can't see how anyone is still asking to keep the Modern PT, if they don't like it being as much a big show as it is a premiere competitive Magic event.
Yes, it's really cool to see the best of the best figure out this format, and I absolutely loved the show PT:OGW was!
On the other hand, for actual playing, I much prefer a stable environment than one that changes every year. Even if it doesn't affect a personal deck, the following aggro surge (normal in new metas) and shift in match-ups can be a hassle to deal with.
Personally I MUCH prefer Modern as a "Legacy light" rather than "Big Standard" and I think, looking as past discussion on the recent bannings in particular, many here agree.
Without the Pro Tour needed bans can happen faster and "shake-up" bans can be handled a lot more lenient.
So...why keep the PT around still, if no one's really happy with it?!
If you /really/ want it to stay I'd love to also hear some advice and suggestions as to how it should be handled. What changes need to be done to please WotC /and/ the players alike?
Only asking for it to stay when it was much to our dismay just a few weeks ago, seems rather illogical.
As for the whole Eldrazi mess:
Yes, it sucks currently for anyone playing, well, huge Eldrazi and Podless Pod fans aside maybe.
But banning randomly right away seems just wrong.
I very much agree with them waiting till the official date to give them the axe, to make the right banning call and not increase ban fear by making a spontaneous, uninformed ban right away.
It's not like they are forced to go to them.
If they don't like the meta, cancel your stuff and don't go.
Yes, "just don't do the thing you dislike" is a stupid argument, but at the moment that's all you can do, as much as that sucks.
Personally I find it more annoying that Modo is all fubar for now, and leagues are not really playable, unless you wanna metagame hard.
But at least that showed me the amazing world that is Pauper, so there's that. ^^
I don't have problems with it and do enjoy Modo.
Doesn't change that it has severe issues on my levels and really could use some fixing and improvement in many areas.
But it's really not as bad as many make it out to be, at least the new client.
To me it often seems like many tried the old client before and now hating on Modo is just the cool thing to do.
While it certainly deserves criticism, it's not as abysmal as the general (vocal) opinion makes it out to be.
That's just my view on the thing though.
Feel free to hate it, even if I find that notion rather silly. ^^
Endbringer can ping through those and Ratchet Bomb can clear them eventually.
Of course the former can get hit by removal, Pithing Needle or, in the case of Ghostly Prison, as that's probably out of a Wx prison deck, Runed Halo, while Needle still shuts down the bomb.
Technically Lili can be an out, if you run Urborg and can afford to wait for her ult, but that's pretty loose. ^^
Losing control or in general changing control of an aura does NOT remove it under normal circumstances.
As long as it can enchant any creature, which a card cast with Bestow can, it'll remain on it's target, but be controlled by him, which...doesn't do a whole lot for an aura.
There is no way to directly influence an aura once it's played, and Chromanticore is just the same in this case as a Pacifism or Spider Umbra.
He counts as the controller of it, which means he can e.g. sacrifice it, if an effect asks for permanents or enchantments of his to be sacrificed and do anything else he could do with any other aura he controls, but he doesn't get to pick a new target, as that only happens when you play the aura, or in this case Bestow the Chromanticore as an aura.
So, neither would he get to pick a new target, nor would the Chromanticore fall off and become a creature, unless the Reaper King died, was exiled or bounced to your hand, which you didn't say it did.
Additionally:
For any Rule related questions, you're best of asking in the Magic Rulings subforum here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings
That way you get actually knowledgeable people looking into it and less random guesses or wrong information you might get anywhere else on the forum by random people.
Which is also a disclaimer that, while I'm pretty sure I'm correct here, may still be wrong without knowing. ^^
Especially in foil. <3
Soul Sisters tend to run Martyr in some lists, for more explosive starts into active Serra Ascendants, but it can be easily played without the card.
Though I'd suggest you search for this in the dedicated Soul Sisters thread, rather than out in the open, for more in depth advice.
There's even discussion on it in the primer itself.
Crucible of Worlds would work too.
And technically Life from the Loam for green splashes, but without making use of the Dredge part, it doesn't seem overly exciting.
Mostly, why is that it's name and could you perhaps alter it?
The reason for that is that, the as it is, doesn't quite indicate what the forum is about:
Development of decks that have proven to be competitve with actual tournament placings, results or success in dailies.
However "Developing Competitive" just indicates what it says on the tin:
Development of decks with competitive play in mind.
This leads to people frequently starting threads to do exactly that, not knowing that there's more to that subforum that just competitvely developing and discussing decks.
Sure, they /should/ have read the stickies etc., but really...who does that, especially when the name seemingly is so clear?
For one you could technically just lock the ability to create new threads in that subforum (I don't know if this is convenient or technically possible, it may create more hassle or work for you guys than the few accidental posts do).
But renaming it to something like "Competitively Proven Decks" (just an example off the top of my head :3 ) may also help to prevent people from making threads there on their own to brew of a new deck or discuss a rogue strategy / deck that doesn't actually belong in there.
Just an idea / question that crossed my mind, as it's not really in important problem, if any at all, but I kept wondering why it is the way it is. ^^
Ps: wouldn't it technically be "Developing Competitively", since the competitive is referring the developing, hence being an adverb?
An honest grammar question here, I may very well be wrong, but I'm interested in knowing why.