I don't think age is one of the factors of preferring 20 or 30 lp. The more frequent complain about 20 is that players have to use cards that interact with the board early or they die to aggro, dumb zurgo is dumb. The main factor IMO is how much you prefer to play with yourself instead of interacting with the game.
I love 20 life DC, but I still find time to play with myself once in a while
Well I have to admit that seeing Zurgo and Gitrog gives me a fair bit of hope for 30 life. Otherwise it looks like what I expected. Lots of Green Tempo and Blue Control. The former two don't really fit into that mold though so that's certainly something to be praised. Let's hope this diversity grows
Well I have to admit that seeing Zurgo and Gitrog gives me a fair bit of hope for 30 life. Otherwise it looks like what I expected. Lots of Green Tempo and Blue Control. The former two don't really fit into that mold though so that's certainly something to be praised. Let's hope it stays this way.
Mmm, I wouldn't call Sidisi much of a green tempo or blue control deck either. We'll see if it holds out, as there are going to be lots and lots more games than ever played of DC within a few weeks.
No Oloro, Tasi or Vial. I always though Leovold had a lot of potential but never realized it could eclipse Tasigur as the BUG commander of choice. Weird how Oloro isn't there. I really thought the deck was pretty good. Maybe the card disadvantage is too much.
No Oloro, Tasi or Vial. I always though Leovold had a lot of potential but never realized it could eclipse Tasigur as the BUG commander of choice. Weird how Oloro isn't there. I really thought the deck was pretty good. Maybe the card disadvantage is too much.
I think that's a really good point, is trading an extra card you can always have worth 2 life a turn compared to everyone else? Or trying to get to 6 mana then paying 1 a turn to generate real CA. Outside of Zurgo, 2 life a turn seems really irrelevant.
I think that if the meta stays like this then Iname may still have a shot. I think what pushed Iname out are faster combo decks. Not sure though. Any Iname players out there that could verify my theory?
I think that if the meta stays like this then Iname may still have a shot. I think what pushed Iname out are faster combo decks. Not sure though. Any Iname players out there that could verify my theory?
why would you want to play iname over sidisi?
both are "big spell"/"combo" decks but sidisi's mana barrier is smaller and it needs less cards for the combo. this menas more cards against controland more rituals for even more speed.
buried alive nooze is the fastest combo deck that abuses one of the last remaining multicard tutors (i know iname is in fact another one they left out in that ban section).
maybe you could create an unexplored UBx reanimator combo deck that gets more goodies like intuition along cantrips and blue's reactive protection.
but basically sidisi buried alive is a good place to be.
In my opinion Iname is a control win con that also sets up a combo. A very realistic path to victory is simply controlling the board while attacking with a small self recurring spirit army. I find Sidisi to be the most mindless, boring and straightforward deck in the format. You just race towards setting up an unstoppable combo once assembled. I hate the playstyle and have no interest in building it no matter how good it may be.
Now, personal preference aside I think that Iname might have a better matchup against draw go. A single Iname resolution can be all you need. No living death required.
Edit: As for BUx reanimator decks, nothing can really top the Mimeoplasm. I used to play that a lot.
Nissa is the only real surprise for me, I expected Titania instead but when Aeons Thorn is legal and you can ramp like a maniac, you may as well try to cast it.
Question to MTGO players or i guess anyone who'd know.. is the MTGO meta often similar to paper meta? Not asking about the new one coz there's barely any data to compare, i'm referring to older stuff like modern, etc.. Coz the cockatrice meta DC-wise is very different from the paper meta.
MTGO is pretty good far, speaking as a new player. At this rate I've been farming 4-8 chests every hour or so with my Selvala monoG which tends to either win or lose very quickly. Jace is inefficient to farm with because he takes long and drains my mental resources. I almost got another undefeated with Selvala just now, just one mana off entwined Tooth and Nail, but lost in the 5th round to Sisay of all decks...
I've gone undefeated 3 times with Jace, and I'm using the tickets I've earned by selling the 8 chests (~2.4 tix) per 5-0 win, for around 20 tickets to help me build my Vial/Thrasios deck, picking up all the expensive duals first. So every hour or two I can earn 20 tickets to buy Volc Island or USea which are around 20 tickets each. Theoretically if I can get 20 tickets every hour by 5-0'ing then I virtually make 20USD, which is more than the American hourly wage
Question to MTGO players or i guess anyone who'd know.. is the MTGO meta often similar to paper meta? Not asking about the new one coz there's barely any data to compare, i'm referring to older stuff like modern, etc.. Coz the cockatrice meta DC-wise is very different from the paper meta.
It's hard to say how similar the MTGO meta is to paper because the banlist throws lists from previous years together so you get 2014 Oloro and 2015 Tasigur and 2016 Jace and so on. The blue lists I've seen are optimised, but the playskill is lower than on Cockatrice for example.
The only actual problem I have with 20 life is that my games are all much less interactive, and this is the style of magic I prefer. Very little back and forth, more of "do you have the exact answer needed here?" There are too many cards capable of dealing too much damage too fast, and players have 8 card hands, while defense is diluted by players having to draw one of a few cards in their decks to deal with a specific type of issue. This is further compounded by the lack of sideboard. Watching the DTC stream, I noticed almost all games were totally one sided, and I had to stop watching after about 4 of them because it was a huge yawnfest. I think it's more than a publicity statement when WoTC comes out with a new format where 30 life is the norm again.
Depends on the format. MODO Standard is pretty much the grinding grounds of pro players and usually a step ahead of paper. But MODO Legacy is full of funbrews you won't ever see at a non-casual tournament just for being much cheaper and avaliable so you don't have to "seise the day" like in paper.
I expect the MODO Commander meta to be much more varied with funstuff showing up a lot, though not winning, while the paper meta takes weeks to adapt by virtue of having much less avaliability both of testing partners and singles.
“DC or Leviathan does not make sense to us, why should we start playing those when there is an upcoming format supported by wizards”.
We had a couple bad nights because of this, people didn't want to brew for post-Vial ban because they were expecting the WotC banlist, then the banlist came out and we hated it. The organizers said we'd keep playing DC, and last night we were 12 again despite a holyday. I expect even more this friday.
I don't want to be rude but it seems like a lot of people's problems with DC come from their finicky, non-competitive playgroups/local scene, and not with the format itself. People who didn't like "Vial or bust" won't like "Oloro or bust" anymore and will abandon that format too after an initial push, like the fairweathers that they are.
I have to say that I disagree with you on your last statement.
Something has been bothering me for quite a while in the commander forum and that is the concept of the term “competitive”.
Now, in my opinion, there are two ways to look at meaning of the word “competitive”.
Player feeling - Do you feel that you play competitively when you play.
Tournament status - Are the tournaments big, are there any prizes, is it a stable game (format if you like), is it supported by an organization. For instance, the Premier league in England is quite competitive from this point of view.
I use a lot of time on Magic, and I think if you knew me, you would call me a competitive magic player. I have access to almost every magic card that can be played in Legacy, and I see myself as a spike/johnny in every aspect of my gaming life. For me losing is never an option. So you might call me competitive, but IMO you cannot state any of the commander formats as competitive, they are and will always be casual. You can play EDH-multiplayer just as “competitive” as DC20 but its only the given player’s feeling. From a tournament point of view, commander is not competitive. Its way too unstable for that to be true.
Our DC30 (now DC20) meta at my LGS is/was quite hard. A lot of tier 1 decks and some very good players. The fact that some of us didn’t like “Vial or bust” was because a format that broken had nothing to offer us. The thing is that some of us played DC because of the option of using some unique cards, thinking that the format just might become stable at some point. I certainly do not think that everyone who stops playing DC20 does that because it is too competitive (even me writting that makes me giggle IRL). What does go wrong is that the DC rules-committee simply is not good enough. I mean who announces that there will be at least five unbannings without just unbanning those cards right away. If you know for certain that at least these five cards are going to be unbanned, then do so and stop keeping us in the dark forcing us to play a meta that will not exist in 2-3 months because of changes in the banlist. I guess some of us are just tired of the endless bans/unbans in a format that is what, six years old? This is from a tournament point of view NOT competitive.
All this means that some of us turns to EDH-multiplayer instead because we like the idea of having a general and playing a singleton format. At the very least in EDH-multiplayer the banlist is quite stable. I can spike just as much when I play EDH multiplayer as I can when I play DC30 or DC20 or even Legacy. But only Legacy is a competitive format of the four. Neither DC30 nor DC20 is stable or big enough to be competitive. To be fair, EDH-multiplayer has the diplomacy aspect, which gives the format some trouble from a competitive tournament point of view. Important notice here is that I am not trying to argue that EDH-multiplayer is more or less competitive than DC30 or DC20, I think they are all equally casual.
TL:DR With WotC’s list and format we do at the very least get an organization behind the format, which will at some point draw more attention to the commander format than DC ever could. I am not saying if 30lp is better than 20lp, I am not saying Oloro and Strip Mine are fair cards. I really do believe that both of those cards belong on the banlist, but I also believe that it will happen in the future. After all WotC’s list is VERY new.
We can call ourselves competitive DC players and try to compare ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long, but in the end we are about as competitive as two four years olds playing football in the backyard compared to the Premier League.
We can call ourselves competitive DC players and try to compare ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long, but in the end we are about as competitive as two four years olds playing football in the backyard compared to the Premier League.
I'm a DC player, and I play a deck that is considered more competitive than others, at least in 20 life. Not sure if that by definition makes me a competitive DC player, but I doubt that either me or Cainsson or anyone else for that matter have at any point of this discussion compared ourselves to Legacy or Modern. When a DC player is "competitive", it is strictly within the context of DC, and no other format. That player is considered competitive relative to other DC players, and not relative to every other mtg player from all formats. We've all cited other formats at one point, but never in the context of implying that DC is on the same level in terms of legitimacy or relevance. I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about people "comparing ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long" because I doubt anyone here is that delusional. Even your 4-year old football analogy is a bit off (and quite frankly very insulting), because you practically just said that DC players are just 4-year olds playing mtg in the backyard compared to modern/legacy GPT. I think a fairer analogy would be DC being a small group of people beating the crap out of each other compared to the UFC. The difference lies not in the mental age nor even skill (totally subjective, don't want to start a debate on this part) of the players, but rather in the number of competitors, the level of legitimacy and 3rd party regulation vs WoTC regulation.
We can call ourselves competitive DC players and try to compare ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long, but in the end we are about as competitive as two four years olds playing football in the backyard compared to the Premier League.
I'm a DC player, and I play a deck that is considered more competitive than others, at least in 20 life. Not sure if that by definition makes me a competitive DC player, but I doubt that either me or Cainsson or anyone else for that matter have at any point of this discussion compared ourselves to Legacy or Modern. When a DC player is "competitive", it is strictly within the context of DC, and no other format. That player is considered competitive relative to other DC players, and not relative to every other mtg player from all formats. We've all cited other formats at one point, but never in the context of implying that DC is on the same level in terms of legitimacy or relevance. I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about people "comparing ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long" because I doubt anyone here is that delusional. Even your 4-year old football analogy is a bit off (and quite frankly very insulting), because you practically just said that DC players are just 4-year olds playing mtg in the backyard compared to modern/legacy GPT. I think a fairer analogy would be DC being a small group of people beating the crap out of each other compared to the UFC. The difference lies not in the mental age nor even skill (totally subjective, don't want to start a debate on this part) of the players, but rather in the number of competitors, the level of legitimacy and 3rd party regulation vs WoTC regulation.
And thats exactly what I said in my post, if you would have cared enough to read all of it. I just stated that there are two types of competitive. You can feel competitive playing DC, but stating that people that stopped playing DC because they couldnt take "Vial of Bust" doesnt have to be because they werent competitive enough, maybe just maybe its because DC is a broken format, that is not ready for competitive tournament play yet, therefore these "fairweathers" seeks out other magic formats that are. You see? I actually think its the other way around. Players get into DC hoping for the best, but leaves because its not good/stable enough yet. Thats also why I am all in favor of WotC list as I said many times before. I strongly believe that for a commander 1v1 format to ever be ready for competitive play, it has to be supported by WotC.
I dont know if you take offence easily, but I did include myself in the analogy. Furthermore the 4-year old vs. the Premier League was just a way of telling the major difference there is between the formats. I didn't mean to call you a 4-year old, and quite frankly I am supprised you got that out of it.
We can call ourselves competitive DC players and try to compare ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long, but in the end we are about as competitive as two four years olds playing football in the backyard compared to the Premier League.
I'm a DC player, and I play a deck that is considered more competitive than others, at least in 20 life. Not sure if that by definition makes me a competitive DC player, but I doubt that either me or Cainsson or anyone else for that matter have at any point of this discussion compared ourselves to Legacy or Modern. When a DC player is "competitive", it is strictly within the context of DC, and no other format. That player is considered competitive relative to other DC players, and not relative to every other mtg player from all formats. We've all cited other formats at one point, but never in the context of implying that DC is on the same level in terms of legitimacy or relevance. I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about people "comparing ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long" because I doubt anyone here is that delusional. Even your 4-year old football analogy is a bit off (and quite frankly very insulting), because you practically just said that DC players are just 4-year olds playing mtg in the backyard compared to modern/legacy GPT. I think a fairer analogy would be DC being a small group of people beating the crap out of each other compared to the UFC. The difference lies not in the mental age nor even skill (totally subjective, don't want to start a debate on this part) of the players, but rather in the number of competitors, the level of legitimacy and 3rd party regulation vs WoTC regulation.
And thats exactly what I said in my post, if you would have cared enough to read all of it. I just stated that there are two types of competitive. You can feel competitive playing DC, but stating that people that stopped playing DC because they couldnt take "Vial of Bust" doesnt have to be because they werent competitive enough, maybe just maybe its because DC is a broken format, that is not ready for competitive tournament play yet, therefore these "fairweathers" seeks out other magic formats that are. You see? I actually think its the other way around. Players get into DC hoping for the best, but leaves because its not good/stable enough yet. Thats also why I am all in favor of WotC list as I said many times before. I strongly believe that for a commander 1v1 format to ever be ready for competitive play, it has to be supported by WotC.
I dont know if you take offence easily, but I did include myself in the analogy. Furthermore the 4-year old vs. the Premier League was just a way of telling the major difference there is between the formats. I didn't mean to call you a 4-year old, and quite frankly I am supprised you got that out of it.
I did not bother quoting the rest of your post because I agree with it and had nothing to say about it, not because I didn't read it. Whether or not you included yourself in the analogy does not change that is is not a good one, especially if you didn't mean to call anyone 4-year olds, and more especially if it doesn't jive with your substantiating points. I'm just pointing out that the analogy itself implies something quite insulting. You could have easily said lower level english football league vs premier league (i'm a huge chelsea fan btw), but instead went all the way down to 4-year olds. I don't think you can blame someone for taking offense for the use of that analogy, but at the same time since you just stated that you didn't mean anything by it, then that's that and I was being nitpicky for nothing.
Moving on to something less petty.. about MTGO, are there monthly fees to pay aside from the initial registration? And are there enough opponents to test against in the new 1v1 format? I figured I might as well ask now, since by the time I decide to try it out the banlist probably ( and hopefully) will be in a much better state by then. As I have said many times before, I prefer 20 life DC, but I was still having fun at 30. And having to play without leaving the house seems nice. Traffic here is freaking terrible thanks to a lack of a decent public railway system.
Ignoring your sarcasm, I'm pleasantly surprised by the results.
I love 20 life DC, but I still find time to play with myself once in a while
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Stafflol. As I expected, the concern seems to be wildly unfounded. I'm very pleased with this first showing.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Mmm, I wouldn't call Sidisi much of a green tempo or blue control deck either. We'll see if it holds out, as there are going to be lots and lots more games than ever played of DC within a few weeks.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
2 Leovold
1 Jace
1 Gitrog
1 Breya
1 Narset
1 Prossh
1 Nissa
1 Zurgo
1 Sidisi
No Oloro, Tasi or Vial. I always though Leovold had a lot of potential but never realized it could eclipse Tasigur as the BUG commander of choice. Weird how Oloro isn't there. I really thought the deck was pretty good. Maybe the card disadvantage is too much.
I think that's a really good point, is trading an extra card you can always have worth 2 life a turn compared to everyone else? Or trying to get to 6 mana then paying 1 a turn to generate real CA. Outside of Zurgo, 2 life a turn seems really irrelevant.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Thats boring. Iname is funnier with its ability.
Now, personal preference aside I think that Iname might have a better matchup against draw go. A single Iname resolution can be all you need. No living death required.
Edit: As for BUx reanimator decks, nothing can really top the Mimeoplasm. I used to play that a lot.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Edit: Wait, scratch that. Griselbrand is banned. Cheating out Gbrand was basically the only reason I liked the deck
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
I've gone undefeated 3 times with Jace, and I'm using the tickets I've earned by selling the 8 chests (~2.4 tix) per 5-0 win, for around 20 tickets to help me build my Vial/Thrasios deck, picking up all the expensive duals first. So every hour or two I can earn 20 tickets to buy Volc Island or USea which are around 20 tickets each. Theoretically if I can get 20 tickets every hour by 5-0'ing then I virtually make 20USD, which is more than the American hourly wage
It's hard to say how similar the MTGO meta is to paper because the banlist throws lists from previous years together so you get 2014 Oloro and 2015 Tasigur and 2016 Jace and so on. The blue lists I've seen are optimised, but the playskill is lower than on Cockatrice for example.
1. Jace High Tide Control
2. 5CC Horde Scapeshift
3. Selvala Channel Emrakul
4. Selvala GW Combo
5. Keranos Wildfire
Damia (EDH)
Niv-Mizzet (EDH)
Karador the Hermit Druid (EDH)
I expect the MODO Commander meta to be much more varied with funstuff showing up a lot, though not winning, while the paper meta takes weeks to adapt by virtue of having much less avaliability both of testing partners and singles.
I have to say that I disagree with you on your last statement.
Something has been bothering me for quite a while in the commander forum and that is the concept of the term “competitive”.
Now, in my opinion, there are two ways to look at meaning of the word “competitive”.
I use a lot of time on Magic, and I think if you knew me, you would call me a competitive magic player. I have access to almost every magic card that can be played in Legacy, and I see myself as a spike/johnny in every aspect of my gaming life. For me losing is never an option. So you might call me competitive, but IMO you cannot state any of the commander formats as competitive, they are and will always be casual. You can play EDH-multiplayer just as “competitive” as DC20 but its only the given player’s feeling. From a tournament point of view, commander is not competitive. Its way too unstable for that to be true.
Our DC30 (now DC20) meta at my LGS is/was quite hard. A lot of tier 1 decks and some very good players. The fact that some of us didn’t like “Vial or bust” was because a format that broken had nothing to offer us. The thing is that some of us played DC because of the option of using some unique cards, thinking that the format just might become stable at some point. I certainly do not think that everyone who stops playing DC20 does that because it is too competitive (even me writting that makes me giggle IRL). What does go wrong is that the DC rules-committee simply is not good enough. I mean who announces that there will be at least five unbannings without just unbanning those cards right away. If you know for certain that at least these five cards are going to be unbanned, then do so and stop keeping us in the dark forcing us to play a meta that will not exist in 2-3 months because of changes in the banlist. I guess some of us are just tired of the endless bans/unbans in a format that is what, six years old? This is from a tournament point of view NOT competitive.
All this means that some of us turns to EDH-multiplayer instead because we like the idea of having a general and playing a singleton format. At the very least in EDH-multiplayer the banlist is quite stable. I can spike just as much when I play EDH multiplayer as I can when I play DC30 or DC20 or even Legacy. But only Legacy is a competitive format of the four. Neither DC30 nor DC20 is stable or big enough to be competitive. To be fair, EDH-multiplayer has the diplomacy aspect, which gives the format some trouble from a competitive tournament point of view. Important notice here is that I am not trying to argue that EDH-multiplayer is more or less competitive than DC30 or DC20, I think they are all equally casual.
TL:DR With WotC’s list and format we do at the very least get an organization behind the format, which will at some point draw more attention to the commander format than DC ever could. I am not saying if 30lp is better than 20lp, I am not saying Oloro and Strip Mine are fair cards. I really do believe that both of those cards belong on the banlist, but I also believe that it will happen in the future. After all WotC’s list is VERY new.
We can call ourselves competitive DC players and try to compare ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long, but in the end we are about as competitive as two four years olds playing football in the backyard compared to the Premier League.
I'm a DC player, and I play a deck that is considered more competitive than others, at least in 20 life. Not sure if that by definition makes me a competitive DC player, but I doubt that either me or Cainsson or anyone else for that matter have at any point of this discussion compared ourselves to Legacy or Modern. When a DC player is "competitive", it is strictly within the context of DC, and no other format. That player is considered competitive relative to other DC players, and not relative to every other mtg player from all formats. We've all cited other formats at one point, but never in the context of implying that DC is on the same level in terms of legitimacy or relevance. I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about people "comparing ourselves to Legacy or Modern all day long" because I doubt anyone here is that delusional. Even your 4-year old football analogy is a bit off (and quite frankly very insulting), because you practically just said that DC players are just 4-year olds playing mtg in the backyard compared to modern/legacy GPT. I think a fairer analogy would be DC being a small group of people beating the crap out of each other compared to the UFC. The difference lies not in the mental age nor even skill (totally subjective, don't want to start a debate on this part) of the players, but rather in the number of competitors, the level of legitimacy and 3rd party regulation vs WoTC regulation.
And thats exactly what I said in my post, if you would have cared enough to read all of it. I just stated that there are two types of competitive. You can feel competitive playing DC, but stating that people that stopped playing DC because they couldnt take "Vial of Bust" doesnt have to be because they werent competitive enough, maybe just maybe its because DC is a broken format, that is not ready for competitive tournament play yet, therefore these "fairweathers" seeks out other magic formats that are. You see? I actually think its the other way around. Players get into DC hoping for the best, but leaves because its not good/stable enough yet. Thats also why I am all in favor of WotC list as I said many times before. I strongly believe that for a commander 1v1 format to ever be ready for competitive play, it has to be supported by WotC.
I dont know if you take offence easily, but I did include myself in the analogy. Furthermore the 4-year old vs. the Premier League was just a way of telling the major difference there is between the formats. I didn't mean to call you a 4-year old, and quite frankly I am supprised you got that out of it.
I did not bother quoting the rest of your post because I agree with it and had nothing to say about it, not because I didn't read it. Whether or not you included yourself in the analogy does not change that is is not a good one, especially if you didn't mean to call anyone 4-year olds, and more especially if it doesn't jive with your substantiating points. I'm just pointing out that the analogy itself implies something quite insulting. You could have easily said lower level english football league vs premier league (i'm a huge chelsea fan btw), but instead went all the way down to 4-year olds. I don't think you can blame someone for taking offense for the use of that analogy, but at the same time since you just stated that you didn't mean anything by it, then that's that and I was being nitpicky for nothing.
Moving on to something less petty.. about MTGO, are there monthly fees to pay aside from the initial registration? And are there enough opponents to test against in the new 1v1 format? I figured I might as well ask now, since by the time I decide to try it out the banlist probably ( and hopefully) will be in a much better state by then. As I have said many times before, I prefer 20 life DC, but I was still having fun at 30. And having to play without leaving the house seems nice. Traffic here is freaking terrible thanks to a lack of a decent public railway system.