2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [M12] Chandra, Garruk and Jace aren't in Lorwyn Form
    Quote from Jake1991


    Looks more like an 'e' to me. (Jace)

    You are totally right.

    How did you get that sort of quality on the zoom? Could you maybe do that to the Japanese version of the commercial so we could get better card image quality?

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on [M12] Chandra, Garruk and Jace aren't in Lorwyn Form
    Ignore this post. A higher resolution image rendered it unimportant.
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    Quote from Kirblar
    Warchief, Decree of Justice, and the Storm cards.

    None of these cards are format warping with the proper bans. Warchief, as part of goblins, is only a serious problem in tandem with Vial (in Modern) and Lackey/Wasteland (in other formats). Vial is a problem on its own, and so it would be banned as part of a larger plan to contain aggro. At that point, Warchief just enables a specific aggro deck.

    Decree is not broken now, nor has it ever been "broken" in any conventional sense.

    As to the Storm cards, without Dark Ritual, Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, and Chrome Mox (banned) to back up Tendrils, the rest of them are not too scary. Dragonstorm itself appears in Time Spiral, so that is a totally moot point.

    Overall, the older sets have way, way more to offer than they do to cause problems. I urge all of you to take a look at the Overextended MTGO events for a showcase of real Eternal Format diversity. I acknowledge that its MTGO, and that MTGO is not necessarily representative of a paper metagame, but it is an excellent experiment in real diversity.
    June 14 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=552
    June 7 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=422
    May 31 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=294


    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    Quote from David.boose

    the format is fine, why is everyone acting like it wouldn't be diverse. Last extended season we had hive mind, scapeshift, a wide variety of fae decks, teachings, zoo, boros, mono red, dark depths (i know banned) and thopter (i know also banned) all of which could easily win a given tournament. extended was a very healthy format without the crazy card costs of legacy to get into. New extended is dunce standard that got held back a couple of years

    This tournament gives no evidence as to why it is diverse. They say that the community cup is a test of diversity for Modern, but then they design the decklists so that they have no choice but to be diverse. The players did not choose to play those 16 distinct decks. The rules demanded that they play 16 distinct decks. So it is completely silly to use the CC as evidence of Modern's health.

    Despite this, I admit that Modern does have diversity. It basically has to, by virtue of having over 7 years of Magic history represented in it. But even if it does, it has strictly less diversity than does an Overextended with an earlier cutoff. There is not a single deck in Modern that is not also viable in a format with an earlier cutoff, but there are plenty of decks (Madness, Astral Slide, Scepter Chant, Goblins, etc.) that are not viable without that old cutoff. There is no reason to artificially and arbitrarily cut out decks from a new eternal format.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    The modern decklists are now up here, and there is something extremely problematic about them:
    http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/mtgoccup11/welcome#1

    When I looked at the Modern decklists, I noticed two things:
    1) Lots of diversity. At first, this appeared to be awesome! There were 16 unique decks being played in the format, all of which have different play styles and strategies. It looks healthier than Legacy, with no deck repeating at all on either team!

    2) But these decklists are outrageously misleading. The purpose of the Moder community cup was as follows , according to Tom LaPille's DailyMTG article (source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/144)
    This represents only a proposal and an experiment. Self-contained events like the Community Cup are a perfect way for us to get data about potential new formats; by running Modern at the Community Cup, we will be able to get some data about what the format looks like, and we will be able to judge what you, the public, think about it. For now, that is our only goal.

    This is what Wizards wants us to think about Modern. The reality is far different. I am not saying that Wizards has initiated some massive conspiracy to push Modern as a format, but they have at the very least misrepresented Modern in the context of the Community Cup.

    Here is a quote from the rules of the community cup (source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/05192011d)
    Under the unified deck construction rules, each team will be responsible for creating eight decks (including sideboards) for the Standard and Modern rounds, however, each team is limited to only four copies of each card legal in that format (except basic lands) for all eight decks. For example, if Team Wizards of the Coast uses two Batterskulls in its Caw-Blade deck, it would only have two Batterskulls to use in its Training Drone deck.

    This rule NECESSARILY means that the format is diverse! There is simply no other way to fulfill the rule. All decks MUST be different, because no staples can overlap between decks. This is an extremely artificial environment in which to test a format, and Wizards has not been forthcoming about it.

    The decklists from the Modern Community Cup are a contrived experiment that do not provide real and accurate data. They show a format that is diverse ONLY because Wizards designed it to be diverse in the first place. Most of the decks appear strictly worse than other decks (why would you want to play white weenie over a powerhouse like Hypergenesis?). This shows that this test is extremely flawed, and it should not be used to inform decisions about the diversity of the format.

    Again, this does not mean that Wizards is intentionally pulling the wool over players' eyes. But it does mean that they cannot use this event as a test for how healthy the format will ultimately look. In fact, looking at the data, it is clear that certain decks consistently won (Hypergenesis, Elves, White Blue Mystic, etc.). Think of it this way. Do you really think that only two decks of 16 would have Stoneforge Mystic in a real modern tournament? The answer to that question should tell you what you should really think about this "Experiment".

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    Quote from Crownclown
    Playing in a format where affinity is the oldest deck, is not even eternal, it is extended, it is where the "true" extended should be at about now. If they want it to be a eternal format they need to go back further, at least to invasion or masques.

    Seems like the people who are crying about legacy just can't afford it, I can't afford it and I still think by far it is the best and most interesting format. It rewards good tight play, (like old extended did) and modern will not provide that cause the card pool will be dull or dominated like every other format by Sfm and Jace.

    Modern should be extended an they need to just fix legacy or have a true available eternal format starting at masques wher the reserve list does not affect printing.

    Also the majority of wizards employees in RND or otherwise do not know what
    Players truly want, heck they do on MTGO at least but they don't have that list and more freedom at least, and half the less problems that we do. However grinding MTGO is cool but it doesn't give you the paper cards you need for higher level play.

    These are some excellent points that you bring up, a few of which deserve highlighting.

    1. "Playing in a format where affinity is the oldest deck, is not even eternal, it is extended"
    Totally agree. A lot of older strategies are automatically excluded, including many storm decks, madness, scepter chant, goblins, and a variety of other strategies. The same goes for various staples including Counterspell (not broken at all), Onslaught fetchlands, the wishes (Except Living Wish), and others. Eternal formats do not exclude cards because they are a little above the Standard Format curve! If a card is actually too powerful, like Dark Ritual, it can be banned. Otherwise, powerful cards and deck diversity are what drive an eternal format, and only an older Mercadian Masques cutoff can do that.

    2. "Seems like the people who are crying about legacy just can't afford it, I can't afford it and I still think by far it is the best and most interesting format"
    The affordability of Legacy is a genuine problem, so while I agree with your general statement, I disagree with the way in which you present it. It is not just crying and whining about the format. It is a real identification of a pervasive problem: the price of cards, especially those on the Reserve List. Even if Wasteland and FoW get reprinted, Legacy will only become more popular, and the duals will continue to skyrocket in price.
    A new eternal format can address this problem, but it needs to do so in the right way. A Mercadian Masques cutoff makes 3 extra years of strategies viable, which is necessarily better for the diversity of an Eternal Format. A mirrodin cutoff does not do this, especially given the stupidity of the current banlist.

    3. "However grinding MTGO is cool but it doesn't give you the paper cards you need for higher level play."
    This is an interesting point because it applies to both Modern and Overextended, formats which currently exist more online than in paper. In both cases, the goal is obviously to start paper events and not just keep it in an Online netherworld. The difference then is, what decks and diversity do you want to see in that paper format? Modern simply lacks the sheer number of cards of Overextended, which adversely impacts format health and diversity.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    Quote from furball
    The thing is, it wouldn't be too different from Legacy. I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun, but it would most likely kill Legacy.

    I am unsure if any format would kill Legacy. That's purely speculative at this point. But as to the similarities between Legacy and Overextended, I can say confidently that they are quite different. In the last two MTGO tournaments, winning decks have been Combo Elves, Living End, Affinity, All In Red, Astral Slide, Hive Mind, Twelvepost, Zoo, BW Midrange, and Madness. This is a huge range of decks, some of them viable in Legacy, but others totally unique to Overextended (although they are all from older formats, in some way).
    Here are links to the Top 16s from the last two Overextended events on MTGO:
    June 7: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=422
    May 31: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=294

    These events showcase the diversity of the format, a diversity that is necessarily larger than that of a smaller format (Modern).

    The more diversity in an eternal format, the better the format is overall. An older cutoff (at Invasion and MM, once MTGO players get MM) gives more diversity and more strategies to new players.

    As to the whole argument about card frames, helping out new players should not drive decisions to make a new eternal format. Legacy players are capable of learning a long and obscure banlist, some of which are obvious (Black Lotus) and some of which are less clear to the new players (Gush). but they still learn this and the format is successful. The same should be true of a new eternal format, and Overextended can be that format.

    Mirrodin has an arbitrary cutoff that only serves to help out new players, but players who are interested in an eternal format are naturally going to have a sense of Magic sets and history. This group of players is going to be smart and experienced enough to understand the set legality without a visual aid.
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on New format? Modern Magic
    While I am happy that Wizards is supporting a new eternal format, the form of that support is not ideal. Mirrodin is a really unfortunate cutoff, and they could have done a lot better by choosing a more historically significant set to begin the format at. New card frames? Seriously Wizards, if players are smart enough to play this game at all then they can also remember what sets are legal in the darn format.

    Mercadian Masques is a much better cutoff point for the format, representing the true historical turning point for Magic: The end of the Reserve List. It is also the first major set to include the 6th Edition rules changes, like the stack, combat phases, the end of mana sources, etc. The historical significance of the Reserve List being abandoned is probably the most important. The Reserve List really is the thing holding eternal formats back, and starting a new format at this point is truly symbolic.

    Players should understand that a lot of history and diversity is lost by cutting it off at the arbitrary Mirrodin block. An older cutoff, as in the Overextended format being proposed by players online, is a much better solution.

    People might be hesitant to support Overextended (older cutoff) because Wizards seems to be supporting Modern. This is silly. Wizards will support any format that receives player support. So if Overextended is the format that receives the most support, then it will be the format that ultimately thrives.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on Gavin Verhey Is Starting OverExtended.
    Overextended forums are up here:

    http://mtgoverextended.com/forum/index.php

    Check them out, sign up, and join the conversation.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Chaos Warp - huh?
    Strong in Legacy. Gives mono red decks an answer to enchantments (Leyline of Sanctity) at a CMC that is out of range of both Mental Misstep and CounterTop.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [M12] Goblin Grenade, Shock, Goblin Bangchuckers, etc
    Shock in. Lightning Bolt almost assuredly out. A horrible day for red mages everywhere, and for the balance of formats. Planeswalkers needed Bolt to be kept in check. Shock is just horrible.

    I hope this rumor proves to be false, because Shock is just a major disappointment.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on Gavin Verhey Is Starting OverExtended.
    TLDR Version (NOTE: If these points interest you, you should read the whole post)

    There are 4 arguments against an MM cutoff. All of them are bad.
    1. The MTGO Accessibility Argument
    MM will be accessible to MTGO players in a year, and then our Invasion cutoff looks arbitrary and out of touch.

    2. The Banning Argument
    An MM cutoff does not mean that certain cards need to be autobanned. Thus, it does not make the banlist look any worse than it already does.

    3. The Legacy-Lite Argument
    MM contains legacy staples (Daze, Brainstorm, Ritual) but so do many other sets that are legal in Overextended (Onslaught/Zendikar Fetchlands, Lorwyn Merfolk, etc.). We don't needlessly target those cards and sets. Similarly, we shouldn't attack MM for representatively fewer staples.

    4. The Unfun Argument
    MM may have some unfun cards (Tangle Wire and Dust Bowl, for example), but so too do all other sets in Overextended (Mirrodin affinity, Lorwyin Faeries, Ravnica Dredge, etc.) We don't ban those, so we shouldn't target MM for being uniquely unfun.

    ---------------------

    Gavin's recent post is worth reading. The article explains a lot of the questions and problems that people have had with the format, as well as much of his reasoning in his actions. All in all I very much enjoyed it and think it adequately deals with most of the problems with the format.

    But one problem remains: The Cutoff Question.
    Gavin has essentially 3 arguments about why MM is not a good cutoff. Over the course of this post, I will try and identify those arguments and explain why they fail.
    1. The MTGO Accessibility Argument
    2. The Banning Argument
    3. The Legacy-Lite Argument
    4. The Unfun Argument


    Gavin writes..
    Q: Why not start with Mercadian Masques? Why not just ban Dark Ritual/Brainstorm/X?

    A: Masques has a handful of issues. Starting with a set and then banning a bunch of cards from it is a problematic philosophy, especially when the set in question is only adding a handful of other cards to the format. However, starting with Masques does help create more of a logical delineation of Magic as the cutoff point is the end of the reserved list. There are also some arguments for starting with Masques and leaving those cards intact. I can understand and agree with many of the points many pro-Masques camps have.

    However, the bottom line here is this: Mercadian Masques isn’t available on Magic Online and a huge component of this format is Magic Online play. Having a different format for real life play and Magic Online play is confusing and gives the format a mixed identity, so starting at Masques is completely off the table.

    This quote contains Gavin's first and second arguments.

    1. The MTGO Accessibility Argument
    MTGO players do not currently have access to MM. Thus, we should cut the format off at Invasion instead.

    2. The Banning Argument
    The format is unattractive with too many bans

    These are not Gavin's only arguments for a non-MM cutoff. In an earlier article on the same question, Gavin explains more of his reasoning (source: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=19)
    Masques is where a lot of people would like the format to start, but what they may not have considered is the number of format defining and changing cards Masques brings into the format. Gush, Daze, Dark Ritual, and Brainstorm, just to name a few. There are two major problems with the cards Masques brings to the table.

    The first problem is format identity. Overextended should not be Legacy-lite, nor should it be a slightly more expansive current Extended. It needs to be a format that takes old and new and pushes them together in exciting ways. If you include Masques, you are going to see a lot of the same strategies rise up that you see in Legacy.

    Brainstorm plus shuffle effects are going to become the core card advantage engine, there are going to be blue tempo decks backed by Daze, and somebody will inevitably break Dark Ritual. I know if I was starting to build decks in a Masques-forward format, the very first thing I would do is start at those three pillars. Is that really what you want in your brand new format?

    The second problem is enjoyability. Numerous cards from Masques are either unfun or make the format incredibly complex and constraining, creating a barrier for new entrants to the format. Look at some of the cards that enter the environment from Masques. Tangle Wire. Dust Bowl. Dark Ritual. Gush. These cards are just problematic to have around, and sooner or later someone is going to make a popular deck containing them.

    You can also make a pretty strong case that the free spells are unfun/complex. The Masques free spells are cards you always have to keep in your head, and push the format in a certain direction. There’s a reason so few spells you can play for free exist these days, and how even fewer of them are playable. Just look at how careful Wizards was with free spells in New Phyrexia, and the backlash surrounding the few playable ones there are!


    Here, we thus see two more aspects of Gavin's argument against Overextended:

    3. The Legacy-Lite Argument
    An MM cutoff includes too many Legacy staples. This prevents Overextended from having a unique format identity.

    4. The Unfun Argument
    Certain cards in MM are unfun, and thus including the set decreases the enjoyability of the format.

    At their core, these 4 arguments are not bad. Gavin wants the format to be as awesome as possible, and he thinks that MM will jeopardize that awesomeness. He does not have a hidden agenda and he is not an evil guy trying to ruin our fun or leave a personal and arbitrary mark on the format for all eternity. But that said, these arguments are seriously problematic, both in their formulation and in their consequences.

    1. The MTGO Accessibility Argument
    MTGO players do not currently have access to MM. Thus, we should cut the format off at Invasion instead.
    Problem?: Won't make sense in a few years. Makes us look out of touch.
    Once MTGO gets MM, this argument no longer even applies. That makes our format look arbitrary and it makes its leaders look arrogant and contrary. These are not good things for format health, and we should do everything to avoid it.
    We want Overextended to be around for a while. That means we need a cutoff that is historically justified, one that is defensible for years and years to come. MM fulfills that role because it represents the end of the hated Reserve List. This historic shift in Magic policy is significant for lots of players, and is a worthy beginning to the new, improved, maintainable, and fun Eternal Format that we want Overextended to be. Invasion does not fulfill this role, and in the years to come, once MTGO gets MM in late 2012, it will become totally unjustifiable.

    2. The Banning Argument
    The format is unattractive with too many bans
    Problem: Assumes that MM needs lots of bans
    As far as I can tell, neither Gavin nor anyone else has tested any of the cards on the banlist or any of the cards in MM in a metagame context. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does need to be stated. In making this argument, Gavin is implying that a number of cards in MM need to be banned right off the bat.
    There is no reason to think this. The only big culprit cards in MM that might need to be banned are Brainstorm (too omnipresent?), Dark Ritual (too broken/enables ultra fast combo?), and Daze (too much of a legacy staple...?). Of those three, I think that one of them is absolutely not a problem: Daze. Just like FoW is the glue that holds Legacy together, so too could Daze be a critical card in keeping Overextended slow and manageable. Sure, it's powerful, but it's not broken by any means. It's not even too omnipresent, because you wouldn't necessarily start playing blue just to run Daze. Also, it's hard to justify a Daze banning with Mental Misstep around and well.
    Dark Ritual and Brainstorm are another story. Testing will ultimately reveal whether or not they need to be banned. But that is something that TESTING and testing alone can do. Including MM right away will not automatically devastate the format with cards in need of bans. Even if it added a single ban to the list (Dark Ritual, perhaps), this would be justifiable.

    3. The Legacy-Lite Argument
    An MM cutoff includes too many Legacy staples. This prevents Overextended from having a unique format identity.
    Problem: Way more Legacy staples are still around in other legal sets. We don't ban those, and we don't exclude those sets. Contradictory.
    This is probably my least favorite of the 4 arguments. Look at the following list of cards and tell me what they have in common:
    Dark Confidant
    Tarmogoyf
    Onslaught Fetchlands
    Zendikar Fetchlands
    Mental Misstep

    ALL Lorwyn Merfolk
    This list could go on for a while. These are all cards that are omnipresent staples in Legacy decks that also exist in Overextended.
    Now, should we exclude Onslaught because it has 5 cards that are critical Legacy staples? Should we ban Bob/Goyf/Misstep because these cards are littering the top 8s of recent events? These are outrageous suggestions and no one is really pushing for them.
    It is just as outrageous to suggest the Mercadian Masques be excluded, as a block, because it has basically 3 cards that are major Legacy staples. A whole set should not be the collateral damage of 3 cards, especially when there has been zero testing to support even the banning of those cards. Even if those cards were deemed powerful, even if all 3 of them were deemed bannable, then the block itself should not take a hit for their sake alone. The format should be identified in its diversity and health, and excluding the whole block because of 3 cards is silly.
    Bottom line: No one wants to ban other Legacy staples or exclude the sets that they are in. MM should not take the fall for 3 cards, especially if at least 1 of those cards is probably not even that bad for the format.

    4. The Unfun Argument
    Certain cards in MM are unfun, and thus including the set decreases the enjoyability of the format.
    Problem: There are plenty of unfun cards in other blocks, and many of those are unbanned. The way to deal with unfun cards is through banning, not through set exclusion
    As anyone that has played Extended can tell you, playing against Faeries is probably one of the least fun experiences in tournament magic history. It's a soulcrushing match that is totally non-interactive if you are playing the wrong deck. Despite this, not a single card from the list is on the banlist. Is that fine? Totally. I think faeries is a good control deck and is a good part of the metagame, even if it is totally unfun to play against.
    The same goes for certain other cards in MM. Tangle Wire and Dust Bowl? Sure, they are unfun when they are in play, but they are niche cards only used by certain decks. No one likes playing against All In Red with turn 1 Blood Moon + land destruction. That's totally unfun. But those cards don't get banned. Why not? That unfun deck is part of the format and its cards are niche. They do not destroy the format and make the whole format unfun.
    Again, excluding MM to nix a few cards is just a bad idea. Not only are MM cards less soul crushing than Bitterblossom, Jace the Mind Sculptor, Blood Moon, an active Jitte, etc., but those cards are not even as widely used.

    ------

    To conclude, these 4 arguments against MM all fall short of their mark. MM remains the optimal cutoff for Overextended, and it would be silly to start the format anywhere else. I appreciate Gavin's article, his candid answers, and his efforts to start the format. I do not want these words to be viewed as a personal assault on him or his diligence. These are just my own vehement arguments against the Invasion cutoff and for the MM cutoff. I think it would be most beneficial to the format, and this is a format that I want to see thrive.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Gavin Verhey Is Starting OverExtended.
    Quote from Lesurgo

    On top of all that, some people have criticized my decision to go ahead with Overextended despite Modern being announced. Why go in a completely different direction that Wizards? Why be so pompous as to try and split the format? However, the opposite is true. Overextended just gives Wizards more knowledge to play with. The results of Modern and Overextended provides them with more results and information to draw upon for creating a new format. It's not like there are Modern events I'm drawing people away from to play Overextended; both discussions can exist and the data collected from both can be the fuel behind a new format.


    This quote deserves highlighting because it underscores the most important aspects of the OverExtended format right now. Simply put, Overextended CAN succeed given the right popular support. This is an excellent time to try and implement it because the Magic environment has a number of proverbial planets in alignment.

    1) Wizards announced Modern. That means they are actively considering a new eternal format and they want player feedback. Overextended is a type of feedback, and they will pay attention to it.

    2) Wizards printed Event Decks with 2x Stoneforge Mystic, retailing the decks for $24.99. Mystic is itself about a $20 card, not to mention all the other good stuff in that deck. This means that Wizards cares about increasing format accessibility by printing overpriced cards, hoping for new players to break into a format.

    3) The Legacy-price problem is again at the forefront of forum dialogue. This underscores the inherent problems with Legacy as an eternal format that is burdened by the Reserve List. While Wizards might be unwilling, and unable, to do anything about that List, they can certainly do something about enabling new formats to get around that horrible List. With duals at almost 100 each, Wastelands at 70, and FoW at 80, Legacy is in a newfound state of peril with new players unable to enter at the competitive level.

    Any of these signs on their own would not be enough to warrant Overextended participation. But taken together, they have important consequences for the format's potential future.

    Quote from Ruin »
    Wizards is a corporation and their only objective is to ensure that profits are maximized after every fiscal year. So no, they couldn't care less about secondary market prices.

    What would matter to them, however, is if reprinting FoW and Wasteland would substantially increase their profits as opposed to not doing that. It's been discussed in nearly every Magic forum ever and the general consensus is that there's absolutely no good reason for those cards not to be reprinted.

    It's just a matter of when, not if.

    I fear that reprinting FoW and Wasteland would ultimately do nothing to help Legacy. Initially, the prices of these cards would drop as supply increased. But then more new players would enter the format, empowered by their new purchases. This would drive up the demand for the other staples of Legacy (the dual lands) which are, unfortunately, not able to be reprinted right now. If the Reserve List policy changes, then we can revisit this assumption. But until that time, Legacy is not going to be benefited too much by reprintings of non-Dual staples. It would be a short term solution to a long-term problem.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Gavin Verhey Is Starting OverExtended.
    Quote from the_cardfather
    The fact that he has decided things on his own without the input of the community removes any respect I had for him.


    Perhaps he tried to launch it on his own just because no one else was taking the initiative. I for one am willing to give him the INITIAL benefit of the doubt. If he proves that he just wants to be "overextended god" and wants credit/fame/accolades, then i will be the first person to denounce him. But for now, I am willing to be understanding.

    If Gavin can get some of star city's money behind him, and get them running SCG OverExtended Open's for him, then power to him, but to me that's just SCG running a tournament, one that can't be sanctioned as anything but Legacy. One that if sanctioned as such would draw the dirty look from WotC.

    A better strategy would just be to get a community of players who want the format and want to see it succeed. This would be enough incentive for Wizards to put their own support into it.

    So this is what he does:

    1) Pick arbitrary sets.
    2) Ban arbitrary cards to see if it feels different.
    3) Declare himself OverExtended god.

    This could definitely be true, and I totally see where you are coming from. Here is how I see it. Either Mr. Vehey did exactly what you thought just to become a big bad internet format mogul and draw Wizards' attention, OR he just wanted to create a starting platform that people can work from.

    If he is doing the latter, which is more likely in my opinion, then they are not totally arbitrary. He made some arguments for the cards/sets that he picked, and just wants player input.
    If, however, he IS being the arbitrary Overextended God, then that will not be too hard to prove. For example, if he continuously shoots down suggestions, takes credits for ideas, doesn't welcome help, etc. then we will know what his true story is. I would be one of the first to be angry at that, and would act accordingly. But I don't think that's the case.

    Quote from Valarin
    Is it though?

    No one played the old extended.
    No one plays the new extended.
    Why do you think people will play this version of extended?

    Old extended before about 2005 was widely played. But for a variety of reasons, Affinity being one of them, it slowed down and lost followers. Wizards has been trying to fix it then. This new format is not extended, it is an Eternal format that is distinct and separate from, and cheaper than, Legacy.

    The price of legacy thing is a pretty bad argument: If you want to play in sanctoined competetive games, IN ANY FORMAT, you're going to need to spend money. Period. That's just all there is to it. Making up new formats based on arbitrary set release dates isn't going to change that.

    It just seems like a REALLY roundabout way of saying "I can't afford Legacy cards"


    I must flatly disagree with you. The price of Legacy is a major issue in the community, and it is one that Wizards has addressed in the past. When staples are either 100+ or at 70+ and rising, the format is in trouble. It strangles the Legacy format away from Pro Tour sanctioning, because demand would be in such excess of supply.
    Overextended is intended to fix a very real problem with Legacy. I don't mind spending a few hundred dollars on a deck, but spending 1500 on one single deck is really not for me, and I know it is not for most players. Overextended gives people the financial option to play multiple decks and have multiple staples, not to mention show up to a more widely supported tournament format.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Gavin Verhey Is Starting OverExtended.
    Quote from lifeinsepia

    Yeah, I guess you are, especially since gavin launched this AFTER the invites for the community cup were sent.


    Quote from Uly Van Hammer
    I meant next year.. If he "makes" a grassroots format within the next year, he will be looking pretty good. I can tell when people really want to work for Wizards. Not that it's a bad thing to have aspirations or goals, I just dont have any time for my own so people that are trying just look like they are show boating to me.


    I do not personally know Mr. Verhey, so I cannot speak to his integrity or honor in creating this format and trying to spearhead it. I can, however, speak for myself as an advocate of the format. I have been advocating for Overextended since the rumor first arose last summer (July 2010, I believe). While there might be some people who are showboating in trying to get on board/get noticed by Wizards (maybe this is Mr. Verhey and maybe this is not), there are DEFINITELY players like myself who don't give a darn about that.

    We just want Overextended to exist because the format is fun, accessible, new, and innovative. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Verhey is one such player. Even if he is not, there is no reason to cast suspicion at those who want to work alongside him to make the format a reality. Some of us are genuine about this business.

    -ktkenshinx-
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.