- Dr. Shades
- Registered User
-
Member for 17 years, 6 months, and 17 days
Last active Tue, May, 24 2022 01:45:24
- 3 Followers
- 434 Total Posts
- 6 Thanks
-
Apr 13, 2018Dr. Shades posted a message on Dominaria Preview - Final PartingAhh, I see it now. Thank you.Posted in: Articles
-
Apr 10, 2018Dr. Shades posted a message on Dominaria Preview - Final PartingThree ravens? I only see two.Posted in: Articles
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not in favor of the status quo, though, so I don't qualify as Azorius.
If you don't have the card, you don't have the card. Playing with what you have is an essential part of the Magic experience.
A further thought: Playing Magic against a deck with proxies is like playing baseball against a steroid user. They took shortcuts, didn't put in the proper time & effort, so it's not a fair game.
That's correct. The gold border would mean absolutely nothing other than the fact that it must be sleeved (since their card backs are different from those of regular Magic cards).
Why is that? Remember, the opponent will have access to rares too, just less of any single rare.
How did it work out?
With this new "Budget Magic" system, you could play with all your favorite rares--just one of them per deck.
Yes. Of course, the nomal rules of Standard/Extended/Legacy would apply here with a Budget Magic deck, so a matchup between Standard decks wouldn't have to worry about the "wishes."
Remember: This format is a way of saying "NO!" to Wizards of the Coast. It's also a way of narrowing the gap between those who purchase multiple boxes of each new set and those who have neither the money nor the inclination to do so. It's also a way of making preconstructed decks a bit more competitive than they'd otherwise be fresh-out-of-the-box. It's also a way to finish building a competitive deck sooner--less time and money need be spent chasing rares.
And that's only a few of the many other advantages.
Yes, PLEASE! I would LOVE to get your feedback, since I probably won't have a chance to properly test it myself for a couple of weeks.
That's an excellent point. A mill player would draw his mill cards no sooner than his/her opponent would draw his/her anti-mill cards (like Junktroller, Tel-Jilad Stylus, etc.).
Yes, that's true. There might be ways to "break" the spirit of the format, but let's face it: Your transmute/Junktroller scenario would be just as true even with a typical 60 card/4 copy deck.
So even though this format is "breakable," is that a good enough reason to abandon it entirely? That's more or less the question I'd like feedback to.
That's a GREAT question. I certainly don't have all the original rarities memorized, so perhaps that's yet another reason to institute the "rarest rarity takes precedent" rule, as another poster mentioned. In this case, the purple symbol would qualify timeshifted cards as rares.
Thank you!
Yeah, perhaps it's better to go by highest rarity. My original intent, though, was to obviate the need to go looking online or otherwise having to memorize which cards have been reprinted in different rarities. The visual indicators (color of expansion symbol) should be enough, ideally (although I realize it doesn't help with any set before Stronghold).
Are you sure? This format will only require 45 cards minimum, not minimum and maximum, so players could still play with 60 cards if they so desire.
Decreasing the odds of mana screw was only intended to be a nice side effect; it wasn't the entire goal of the format. The major goal of the format is to reduce the cost, time, and hassle required to assemble a competitive deck.
I don't think that would be necessary for this format. I'd rather not force people to play with cards they'd otherwise choose not to. Plus, the less memorization of what's included in earlier expansions, the better.
No, not at all. In fact, I find that most of my games end with easily 30+ cards remaining--50% or more of the deck.
In my opinion, sweating is good. But as for your comment about encouraging defensive play, I admit that I don't see how. With defensive playing, one is more likely to delay the ending of the game and risking a loss due to being "decked." This risk would encourage one to play more offensively, in my opinion--but I'm open for correction.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here, since nobody has to play a rare if they don't want to.
That's where the Type 2, Block Constructed, Extended, etc. formats do their work. In a Type 2 format, for example, Morphling (and others) aren't a threat.
When you say "limiting the common element," are you referring to limiting the number of any given common card, or do you mean "common element" as in "universal" or "standardized" element? Either way, I fail to see how I'm hurting budget players, since as soon as they get their first necessary rare they don't need to buy, trade, or "chase" for any more copies of it. A poor (forgive me) player with one copy of, say, Temple Garden would be on equal footing with a rich player with four copies of Temple Garden, since the rich player could only have one copy of it in any given deck anyway.
I can see the advantage of that. Although I admire the concept of Pauper Magic, I don't think uncommons--even the better ones--are all that hard to come by.
Thank you!
HERE'S WHAT THIS FORMAT IS ALL ABOUT:
Way back in the early part of Magic's history, when Wizards made the choice to limit individual cards to four copies each, notice what else they did? They increased the minimum deck size from 40 to 60! In this way, they increased the amount of card slots that players would need to fill, thus also increasing their bottom line.
I can see their point in doing this, since they're a business that exists to make money. But my point with this new format is to start a grassroots uprising among Magic players who are willing to say "NO!" to Wizards. Who are willing to put their feet down and declare, "We're sick of having to buy and chase while you crank out set after set. We want to be able to finish constructing our decks after pulling our first rare, not our fourth."
All the other advantages--less mana screw, rares really are rare, etc.--are just details. Icing on the cake, if you will.
Thanks! No, I haven't built any decks or played any games with it yet, but I've been contemplating this for quite some time. I wanted to get y'alls opinions before I went all-out.
Oops! I forgot to mention that. Players would have to choose one set type and stick with it. With your Loxodon Warhammer example, a player would have to choose either two copies of it from Mirrodin or one copy of it in Ninth Edition, but not both.
It's not so much the mill deck archetype I'm trying to promote; it's the greater chance of generically losing to a non-mill deck I'm pushing for. Or, in other words, the adrenalin will be a little higher knowing that one has to worry a little bit more about running out of cards before winning.
Yes, it will be a little more viable in this format, but I hope that not everyone will automatically want to play a mill deck based on that alone.
You're absolutely right! The difference, however, lies in the chances of "beating" the odds and getting mana screwed. At the beginning of the game, drawing seven cards out of a 45 card deck gets you 15.5% of your card total, whereas drawing seven cards out of a 60 card deck gets you 11.6% of your card total. That's a difference of 3.9% of your deck. Since, when playing a 60-card deck, a single card is 1.6% of your deck, your chances of getting mana hosed in a seven-card opening hand of a 45-card deck is roughly equivalent to your chances of getting mana hosed in a nine card opening hand of a 60-card deck.
So, with the 60-card constructed decks we usually play, imagine drawing nine cards in your opening hand instead of the normal seven: Yes, it's possible to get mana screwed, but the odds are much less that you'll need to mulligan, right? So it goes with this new format.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. With your Glimpse the Unthinkable and Dimir Infiltrator example, there can only be one Glimpse the Unthinkable card in the entire deck (and only three Dimir Infiltrators), so Transmute will give you three chances to retrieve one rare, not three chances to retrieve three rares.
Am I still on the right track?
I am toying with the concept of a constructed format to be named "Simple Magic" or "Budget Magic" or perhaps "Affordable Magic."
Most of you have much more experience and skill than I do, so before I make a website pushing this concept, I need to get your opinions first.
THE FORMAT:
Would the following constructed format work?
Thanks in advance!
Not counting the 20 basic lands (4 pieces of artwork for 5 basic lands), in the Ravnica block there are:
348 guild cards, plus
283 non-guild cards, for
631 total cards.
This means that approximately 55% of all cards (again, not counting basic lands) in the block have a guild symbol printed on them.
CARDS PER GUILD (not counting the split cards. If you do, increase each of these numbers by two):
AZORIUS: 31
BOROS: 33
DIMIR: 35
GOLGARI: 35
GRUUL: 32
IZZET: 32
ORZHOV: 32
RAKDOS: 35
SELESNYA: 38
SIMIC: 35
Split cards: 10
LIST OF CARDS PER GUILD:
AZORIUS: 31 CARDS
BOROS: 33 CARDS
DIMIR: 35 CARDS
GOLGARI: 35 CARDS
GRUUL: 32 CARDS
IZZET: 32 CARDS
ORZHOV: 32 CARDS
RAKDOS: 35 CARDS
SELESNYA: 38 CARDS
SIMIC: 35 CARDS
SPLIT CARDS: 10 CARDS
If I missed anything, if any of my numbers are wrong, or if I made any other mistake, please PM me and I'll make the fix.
I hope you find this list helpful.
So, how did the storyline end? Did the Guildpact survive? And which guilds were behind its erosion?
Thanks!
I see threads in this forum which list the Dimir and Orzhov cards, but what about the other guilds?
Thanks in advance!
The Ravnica, Guildpact, and Dissension logos were to the right. The whole thing was on a Ravnica basic land backdrop.
I need the 400x800 resolution Island version. Does anyone know this person so I can beg him for it?
Thanks in advance.
But no, you shouldn't worry about being "too old" or about the fact that older (ahem) people generally stick to watching sports, reading, chess, golf, fishing, etc. Here's why:
Magic: the Gathering is, quite literally, the single greatest game ever invented. This is because of the skills one must possess in order to effectively play it:
To play Magic, you must be a statistician. How many lands do you put into your deck? What's the highest casting-cost card that will be in your deck, what's the lowest, and what's the average? Do you place a lot of powerful, but high-cast, cards into your deck and risk mana-hose? Do you put only a few such cards into your deck and plan for lower-cost cards to carry the day? Do you put lots of lands into your deck to compensate for higher casting costs, at the expense of slots for functional spells, or vice-versa? And how many copies of each individual card do you run?
To play Magic, you must be an analyst. What cards are in the current "metagame?" How about in your local group? Examine your deck: What are the threats and archetypes against which it is weak? Do you compensate for such weaknesses through maindecking or merely sideboarding? If you know your opponent well, what is his or her playing style? Aggressive, or conservative? And how should you react?
To play Magic, you must be a tactician. Do you attack quickly, exposing yourself to heavier losses while hoping for fortuitous blocks/non-blocks from your opponent? Or do you hold back, setting up for a gamewinning combination while hoping your opponent doesn't do the same beforehand? Which creatures are worth saving, and which should you let through? And how many life points should you risk when allowing your opponent to attack unhindered?
To play Magic, you must be a researcher. Every new set brings about new mechanics and, therefore, an exponential number of new card combinations. Not only must you be aware of the possible interactions between your own cards in order to best exploit them, but you must be aware of the subtleties of the abilities on the permanents which are on your opponent's side of the table. What is he or she "setting up for?" Can the threat be anticipated? Do you have time to build your own strategy before the opponent has enough power to deliver the coup de grace? The edge on these questions will only go to the player with the firmest knowledge of the available card pool.
To play Magic, you must be an inventor. Magic cards rarely say what other cards they'll synergize with. Crypt Rats doesn't say "use with Spirit Link;" likewise Spirit Link doesn't say "best used with Crypt Rats." Unless one simply reconstructs "net-decks," one must have the foresight and inspiration to discover these near-infinite exploits and combinations on one's own. In short, some cards are only so-so by themselves, but absolutely fantastic when paired with another card for synergy (2+2=5 or more): Hence, every Magic player must find a way to "build a better mousetrap" with every new deck he or she constructs.
To play Magic, you must be a concentrator (yes, that's a word). Like chess, simply making knee-jerk reactions to your opponent's moves is nothing less than suicide. You must mentally multi-task, simultaneously remembering to add that +1/+1 counter during your upkeep while saving that instant to play at the end of his declare blockers phase while not forgetting to play that creature's ability during your end-of-turn phase. In Magic, the slightest oversight can spell disaster.
To play Magic, you must be a strategist. You cannot develop one of the above skills at the expense of any the others; to be successful, you must become proficient at and integrate all of them, without exception.
So until your parents can come up with a pastime, hobby, or leisure activity that requires you to be a statistician, an analyst, a tactician, a researcher, an inventor, a concentrator, and a strategist--all at the same time, in fact--I say stick with Magic: the Gathering: The single greatest game ever invented.