2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [Official] Magic Workstation Thread
    Didn't work, don't have those lands in the database. I used snow covered though so I can play at the moment.
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on [Official] Magic Workstation Thread
    Quote from rpgmem
    The problem is that you put this land on the deck.

    [ARE] Plains (1996)

    Replace it by a land that is not "special" (Common Land editions normal) it will solve the problem.

    In the next update of the database will correct this limitation


    Those lands are the only basics in my base which I got from links on this page. You think adding a core set again will add more?

    Edit: I mean for the ones that are from that collection obviously. Plains and forest are ARE only for some reason.
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on [Official] Magic Workstation Thread
    Quote from rpgmem
    Copy and paste the contents of the file deck here.
    So I can try to replicate the error.

    The error means exactly what it says. That one of the cards is not included in the deck part (not be found) the database.


    // Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

    // Lands
    4 [SOM] Seachrome Coast
    4 [M10] Glacial Fortress
    3 [ISD] Moorland Haunt
    7 [BD] Island (3)
    4 [ARE] Plains (1996)

    // Creatures
    4 [DKA] Drogskol Captain
    3 [DKA] Niblis of the Urn
    2 [ISD] Geist of Saint Traft
    3 [DKA] Dungeon Geists
    4 [ISD] Snapcaster Mage

    // Spells
    4 [ISD] Midnight Haunting
    2 [NPH] Sword of War and Peace
    4 [SH] Mana Leak
    3 [ISD] Dissipate
    3 [M12] Oblivion Ring
    4 [MPR] Ponder
    3 [NPH] Gitaxian Probe

    // Sideboard
    SB: 1 [BD] Island (3)
    SB: 1 [ARE] Plains (1996)
    SB: 1 [MBS] Blue Sun's Zenith
    SB: 3 [M12] Timely Reinforcements
    SB: 3 [NPH] Surgical Extraction
    SB: 2 [M11] Sun Titan
    SB: 4 [ISD] Lantern Spirit


    I just dont know what to look for, thanks.
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on [Official] Magic Workstation Thread
    Quote from rpgmem
    Open the deck in Notepad.
    Reassemble the deck on MWS and try to load this new file in the module game.


    Did that, made a new deck and edited the old still not working. Does anyone know what that error means?
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on [Official] Magic Workstation Thread
    Sorry if I missed it somewhere but the forum search didn't help me find an answer. Can anyone help me figure out why I cannot load new decks in MWS. I just got a new computer and installed (which went fine) but when I try to use a deck in online play i get a "Load deck error: Cards not found in base" and have no idea what to do.

    I've reinstalled, made a few decks but nothing works. Any help is much appreciated.
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on Casting limitation question
    Hypothetical situation: I have some flashback cards in my graveyard (ie: Ancient Grudge, Coffin Purge and the like) and cast a Yawgmoth's Will. I'm pretty sure once I hardcast one of those cards they get exiled but what I would like to know is, since the stack is an "imaginary" zone ( I know, they all are) and the card is physically in the graveyard why can I not play it again for the flashback cost?

    I'm assuming it is because You cannot play a spell while its on the stack but I can't find the ruling for it. Would someone please be so kind to point me in the right direction, thanks.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Silly Ally/Golem Extended combo
    Quote from pallek
    Could you explain step by step why it's milling for 180?

    1 in play - kicking the rite. 5 halimars comes in. Each of them see the others. So 6 halimars, each see 6 of them is 6X6= 36 not 180 Slant


    They all see each other. Step by step:

    1 Halimar on field
    Kick RoR
    5 ETB
    That's 30 triggers at 6 cards each since they each trigger 5 times (you just had 5 allies ETB)
    Posted in: Extended (Type 1.X)
  • posted a message on countered spells count for spells played?
    Casting is not the same as resolving. Anything that triggers on casting a spell does so immediately before your opponent has a choice whether or not to counter the spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Sarkhan the mad and saccing a creature
    Sacrificing isn't part of the cost so yes, he can respond to it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Mirrorweave and Annihilator
    You need to cast Mirrorweave before you attack since Annihilator only triggers when the creature attacks. Same reason why Eldrazi Conscription doesn't trigger when you fetch it with Sovereigns of Lost Alara: the creature has already attacked.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Into play
    "Enters the Battlefield" and "As you cast" are completely different things. As you cast happens when you cast the spell regardless of it resolving and Enters the battlefield only happens when said permanent does so.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Highest attack in one turn
    In a multiplayer game I had around 100 tokens courtesy of Verdant Force, dropped an Earthcraft and used Goblin Offensive to make many many tokens thanks to my 4x Mirari's Wake, dropped a Need for Speed that worked off my Fastbond (which didn't kill me thanks to my Soul Wardens, cast Overrun and copied it a few times with Reiterate. End result, including all other tokens and creatures was a swing dealing ~1,000,000,000 damage. They conceded and I took around 20 minutes to do the math Smile

    Edited for card tags.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on MTGCast #192 - Summit Apes go BAM-BAM!
    I absolutely loved Eldrazi Monument. When that card was spoiled for me so many thoughts wet through my mind on how agro was going to make a stand and stay in the forefront of standard for a little while longer.

    Also, here's my goblin:

    Blood-soaked Shrine 1R

    Tribal Enchantment - Goblin

    Whenever a Creature you control attacks you may pay R. If you do you may have that creature gain +2/+2, first strike or trample. If you do, flip a coin. If you lose, sacrifice that creature

    "Even after years of watching themselves die, those goblins never learned the price of the shrines power"
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Was I too harsh? Was I treated unfairly?
    Absolutely. The only problem with that is some pious people say, and truly mean, that the Bible's word is law. The sig, I assume, was aimed at those same people who say that and yet choose to ignore the less savory passages. It is rather understandable how a great many people of those faiths could be offended but as you said take a look at the passage's intention rather than just the words.

    Now don't get me wrong, I was raised in a church-going environment since my grandfather is a Pastor, but even as a child I noticed these same inconsistencies with his sermons and the conversations he still has to this day with his older attendees. I'm not saying the idea of the sig was represented in a good fashion, but the idea will always be around and until people of said faiths can accept either one side of the argument or the other (either accepting the bible as outdated or adhering to the "word is law" belief structure) people will be offended by statements like that regardless of intent not because of any maliciousness intended but simply because it's what we were programmed to do. A good amount of us (children in the church) grew up, but some just grew old.

    The unfortunate truth is that many people of faith (many, not all) are offended by anything that may be offensive rather than applying some amount of thought and deciding for themselves.

    EDIT: Or maybe he was baiting people, only he really knows. Just trying to shed another point of view on the topic.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • posted a message on Was I too harsh? Was I treated unfairly?
    I'd just like to say that in no way does the OP's previous sig attack a religion but only those who wish to see only one side of it. The same can be said about many religions that contain such seemingly hypocritical passages when compared to current beliefs.

    I can see how some devout people would take offense, but that only emphasizes the original point of the sig. If you're going to take offense because someone calls you out on a legit point about your belief system rather than speak to them about it then you yourself are only furthering the stereotype of religious hypocrisy.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.