Do Competitions recognize teams when it comes to the results?
No.
Coverage teams and such do. You will often hear about a persons affiliations in coverage, but as far as competitions caring about teams in any way, it doesn't happen.
Topic is the question. I am looking for something to play in block format for Theros even though its still in its infancy. Can someone remind us all why Bestow fell short or that there is not a right deck out for it yet?
Seems like all I see is "Devotion X" on the tables locally. I heard it was all in the CMC and removal can hit it hard because of the "Enchantment" mode they have.
My opinion is that they are underwhelming as creatures and overcosted as enchantments. You have the plus of it not "dying" as it were to a removal spell whilst bestowed, but at best you're just forcing your opponent to 1-for-1 your threats, which isn't that great of an excuse to play a card. They're better than normal enchantments (outside of mana cost) for that reason, but forcing your opponent to have to go 1-for-1 isn't really that great.
Ok, when it was in standard, Path to Exile was more expensive than most rares and it was uncommon. Inquisition of Kozilek is an uncommon printed what? 2-3 years ago? Its average price is $7. And dismember was at that price while it was in the current draft set.
You pick out the corner cases and make them seem to be fact. Just because there are outliers to the data I give, doesn't mean my post was wrong. I can just as easily point to any one of the Rares that are 30-40 dollars in the current standard format. Show me an uncommon that is at that price during it's time in standard, and then try to tell me that the rarity of a card doesn't drive price up.
Price isn't a factor in determining rarity. Rarity doesn't even necessarily determine price. Force is an uncommon, archangel's light is a mythic, but we know which one is worth more.
In a standard environment, rarity does drive price up. The age of the cards in question is truly the determining fact, along with the playability. If a card sees play as a 4 of in a lot of decks, it's price is driven up. That's why Aetherling isn't an expensive card, because it only sees play as a 1-2 of in any deck that plays it.
If it shows up in too many packs, it makes black too good of a strategy in drafts, basically. They don't want to make premium removal readily available in a limited format, and to make it so splashable is iffy at best.
That wouldn't really work as you were losing 2 cards each time you did it.
Oh no, I'm losing card advantage to dig for the cards that win me the game? It does work like that because you're basically just drawing the next spell that isn't a land card, and it's a 50/50 shot that it's the half of the combo piece that you need. But maybe we should take that chance out of the game too. I mean, there's still a 50% chance I get the redundant part of the combo....
As far as the discussion goes, there is really no need for an improved rule beyond the standard mulligan policy. Once players have settled in, they stop trying to find ways to make their decks work in a world of make believe and accept that sometimes you lose games due to the fact that you get screwed out of top decks. You move on.
Newer players always seem to come up with the convoluted ideas to "solve" the land problem that doesnt exist.
If this is a consistent problem for you, its because your deck doesnt have the right balance of land in it, not because of the rules.
As for your solution, its biased heavily in favor of certain decks like 'Lands', or even just any combo deck that uses its graveyard.
You cant write rules that assume everyone just plays "drop creatures turn sideways" even if some people at WOTC seem to think thats the ideal form of Magic.
Or any two card combo deck. Kiki/Exarch becomes 52 lands with 4 SplinterTwin and 4 KikiJiki
Really? I mean REALLY? You do know gay is most commonly used as a term of being happy. I read this post and thought "oh, he's happy B/R isn't getting as much support".
I'm GAY for the new set of Theroes. Does that mean I'm using inappropriate language?
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
The way he uses the term is obviously conducive with negativity for the subject. Here stateside, the word "gay" is waaaay more commonly used as a negative connotation for something. And is blatantly disrespectful.
No no no. It wasn't my opponent talking about how my missed triggers would have gotten me DQ'ed, it was a third party, my opponent was actually really neat that round. I'm not trying to make anybody the bad guy, I just want to know if I was DQ'ed had I been at the competitive REL.
Howdy! I was playing at an FNM today and ended up missing some Dark Confidant triggers (three in a row, not my night). There were some other players around me, reminding me of them, but that's not the issue. One of them made a big deal about how I would've been disqualified had I been in a Competitive REL, because there would've been so many judge calls and I couyld have been expelled from the tournament. Now, as far as I know (I have competed in enough Competitive REL environments to have some sort of an idea), the latest missed triggers policy is that the opponent gets to decide whether or not a trigger is detrimental and goes on the stack. Is there a necessity to call a judge over? And if so, am I actually in danger of being DQed?
No.
Coverage teams and such do. You will often hear about a persons affiliations in coverage, but as far as competitions caring about teams in any way, it doesn't happen.
Here's a link to the official Shuffling thread. I suggest you hop over there and talk your little heart out.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=27460&page=43
My opinion is that they are underwhelming as creatures and overcosted as enchantments. You have the plus of it not "dying" as it were to a removal spell whilst bestowed, but at best you're just forcing your opponent to 1-for-1 your threats, which isn't that great of an excuse to play a card. They're better than normal enchantments (outside of mana cost) for that reason, but forcing your opponent to have to go 1-for-1 isn't really that great.
You pick out the corner cases and make them seem to be fact. Just because there are outliers to the data I give, doesn't mean my post was wrong. I can just as easily point to any one of the Rares that are 30-40 dollars in the current standard format. Show me an uncommon that is at that price during it's time in standard, and then try to tell me that the rarity of a card doesn't drive price up.
In a standard environment, rarity does drive price up. The age of the cards in question is truly the determining fact, along with the playability. If a card sees play as a 4 of in a lot of decks, it's price is driven up. That's why Aetherling isn't an expensive card, because it only sees play as a 1-2 of in any deck that plays it.
If it shows up in too many packs, it makes black too good of a strategy in drafts, basically. They don't want to make premium removal readily available in a limited format, and to make it so splashable is iffy at best.
Oh no, I'm losing card advantage to dig for the cards that win me the game? It does work like that because you're basically just drawing the next spell that isn't a land card, and it's a 50/50 shot that it's the half of the combo piece that you need. But maybe we should take that chance out of the game too. I mean, there's still a 50% chance I get the redundant part of the combo....
As far as the discussion goes, there is really no need for an improved rule beyond the standard mulligan policy. Once players have settled in, they stop trying to find ways to make their decks work in a world of make believe and accept that sometimes you lose games due to the fact that you get screwed out of top decks. You move on.
Or any two card combo deck. Kiki/Exarch becomes 52 lands with 4 SplinterTwin and 4 KikiJiki
The way he uses the term is obviously conducive with negativity for the subject. Here stateside, the word "gay" is waaaay more commonly used as a negative connotation for something. And is blatantly disrespectful.