2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • 2

    posted a message on [[M15]] Mothership Spoilers 7/2/14
    New Nissa, Tezzeret 5, and this goes infinite!
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 3

    posted a message on [[M15]] Has Protection been de-evergreened?
    For what it's worth, the opposite of evergreen is "deciduous" so I suggest we start using that from now on to refer to shroud, banding, islandhome, etc.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 4

    posted a message on [[M15]] Jace, the Living Guildpact
    Wow, at first I read the first ability as "put one into your HAND and the other into your graveyard" and I thought this guy was pretty sweet. Then I reread it and it was like a train wreck...
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • 1

    posted a message on [[JOU]] Twinflame
    Master of Waves has protection from red
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on If the power 9 became the power 15, what six cards would you add?
    Cut Timetwister, since it's so sorely outclassed in modern times, add Sol Ring, Demonic Tutor, Yawgmoth's Will, Tinker, Library of Alexandria, Mishra's Workshop, and Tolarian Academy.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 1

    posted a message on What is the benefit of running shocks over duals?
    Anyone who's played a lot of legacy knows the "surgical your duals" play is a trap and an amateur mistake. Surgical basically does nothing in the matchups unless they happen to draw multiples of a card that you know about (random), you get to shrink a Goyf or mongoose for a turn (extremely situational), or your opponent is running Snapcaster (not likely anymore). So you're boarding in this super-situational card, which you probably have no more than 2 of in te board anyway, just on the off chance that you draw it alongside wasteland early enough to matter so you can make this high-variance play to cut them off a color. Keeping in mind that if you draw it late after they've landed more than one dual it's worthless, if they keep up fetches appropriately it's worthless, if they have Stifle for your waste or a Counterspell of any kind for the Surgical it's worthless, and even best-case scenario you spent life to lose a card and not impact the current board in a matchup that's all about early board presence, is that really the heads-up play?
    Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)
  • 1

    posted a message on Why is Garruk good vs. control?
    He falls into the "must counter" category for me, and control decks simply don't always have the counter or the mana to use it since they had to devote mana to other answers. This metagame heavily favors "tapout" control, because tapping for a wrath or a Jace or an Elspeth each turn is probably just better than what your opponent can do, so this reduces the amount of countermagic in most lists (usually 4-6 slots main).
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • 1

    posted a message on [[BNG]] Banned/Restricted List Update (Bitterblossom unbanned and more!)
    Quote from sss123
    For those of you who do not understand why people disagree with the DRS banning, please read these two posts first:
    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/539981-banned-restricted-list-update-bitterblossom#c31
    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/539981-banned-restricted-list-update-bitterblossom?page=10#c237

    Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin

    This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
    "Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "

    Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.

    DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
    There is no logic behind...







    The logic is right there, you just refuse to see it. Let me formalize the argument for you:
    1) Wizards bans cards in modern based on the stated reason, among others, of (quoting you) "make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity)"
    2) Wizards believes Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks (quoting Wizards)
    3) More synergy-based decks in addition to preexisting decks based on individually powerful cards increases format diversity (self-evident)
    Conclusion) Deathrite Shaman should be banned in modern (from 1, 2, 3)

    Now, the argument is logically valid, so if you disagree with the ban it means that you disagree with one of more of the premises, which is totally fine and up for debate. But your other point about "no other banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself" is laughably false. Look at Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith. All of those cards support multiple distinct archetypes or deck types, don't break the turn 4 or time constraints rule, and yet they are banned because wizards believes they are too powerful on their own. Those cards might enable a variety of decks if they were legal, so it's not even the "deck diversity" argument, it's that these cards are believed to be powerful enough to have a centralizing presence no matter how many decks are viable. And DRS definitely falls into the same category.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on BNG Ban list update??
    Quote from Tinfoil Hat
    If every player in this thread read this and followed it, most people wouldn't be able to comment at all on the non-rotating formats. I made an prediction because I hear from a lot of people that SnT should be banned. Hell, I've been playing the card in a Vintage Oath variant, and its redonkulous there too. Would you have preferred I jumped on the "unban earthcraft" train (which I totally do not support) without even doing a smidgen of research??


    This is the worst possible logic you could use. Yes, every single person that opens their mouth about a card or format should have pretty extensive experience with that card or format. That's literally the only way a conversation or discourse can make any sense. Otherwise you're just babbling and your words have literally no meaning. Every time I discuss a card to unban I take a few hours to build a list and run it against the gauntlet of the most powerful decks currently available. That's how most people get their opinions on the inadequacy of the modern banned list, because they have firsthand experience with how uderwhelming some of these cards are. On the other hand, pushing for a ban should come from a position of extreme familiarity with a format. Since True-Name Nemesis came out, I have played in a Grand Prix, multiple Star City Opens, and countless smaller local events both with and against the card. From this position I would feel confident in expressing an opinion about the format as its health, and TNN's impact. For the record I don't think it should be banned, just giving an example of how familiar you should be with a format before spouting off inadequate commentary.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 1

    posted a message on [[BNG]] Full image gallery
    Gorgon's Head means the dream is still alive for Izzet Staticaster :p
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.