Got an order number but not appearing in the order history, didn't get an email, and now the items are appearing in my cart again. I got double-charged, so I don't want to try buying again. Any thoughts?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't MTGGoldfish just take the 5-0 lists or something totally subjective? I've always understood that MTGGoldfish isn't a very reliable source for portraying the meta.
There are no personal opinions when it comes to these sorts of rules. Things aren't cheating "in your opinion." Either they go against the rules, which anyone can look up, or they aren't, and they are, by definition, legal. Are there some common courtesy guidelines that many people follow? Sure. Are there ethical decisions people can make? Of course. But if someone angle-shoots in the attempt to win a competitive game of magic, that is, by definition, within bounds. You can get upset with a person for not actively reminding you what lands they have in play, but do not accuse them of cheating. If they are taking advantage of your lack of perception, it sounds like there's a simpler solution to this problem.
And if this has happened multiple times, it sounds like you just have an aversion to asking your opponent to clarify his or her board, which is totally within your rights according to the rules (free knowledge, public zones). I'd work on getting over that aversion first. Being comfortable enough to ask relevant questions about the game is a huge part of succeeding at it.
Opal is a great card, no two ways about it, but it doesn't really do anything ban-worthy by itself. Both Affinity and KCI are strong decks, but neither of them is ultra enabled by Opal. Affinity is using Opal to play more 1 and 2 mana artifacts, which are the most hateable permanent types in the game, and KCI has other redundant ways to try to speed up its combo. Opal doesn't play a broken role in either deck.
By comparison, I would argue Opal is more broken in Cheerios, but as the deck isn't particularly well positioned or strong, that isn't much of a strike against the card. The same argument goes for SSG. If a deck crops up that is Tier 1 and abuses SSG, I'm confident it would be banned. I'm not as confident about Opal, though, just because of the collateral damage in other artifact strategies that have come to use Opal, either as a crutch or a tool that allow them to operate with other Tier 1 strategies.
Is this the only actual mention of a non-Azorius guild in GRN? I haven't poured over the flavor texts yet, but I can't recall reading anything about Simic, Orzhov, or Gruul, other than that delicious pun on Citywide Bust.
What would be a suitable cost for this effect in Modern? I'm thinking something designed specifically to combat ultra-efficient rainbow strategies (Humans) without nerfing creature decks to the ground. Allows you to target a multicolor permanent more than once to make this not just a dead card 99% of the time (e.g. require 5 permanents, 1 of each color).
Some Namex
Sorcery
Destroy target White permanent.
Destroy target Blue permanent.
Destroy target Black permanent.
Destroy target Red permanent.
Destroy target Green permanent.
We're getting new 4 mana sweeper for CMC 3 or less, and a new 3 mana sweeper for toughness 4 or greater. Both could potentially be useful against Humans. The problem is finding answers to a hyper-efficient beatdown deck that simultaneously pressures and disrupts the opponent, without creating card(s) that stifle any sort of aggressive strategy. Could be something like a 3-4 cost sorcery that destroys a permanent of each color, could even just make it 5 lines to allow you to target a multicolor permanent more than once to allow it to actually see play.
KCI's recursion engine is a super intricate use of the game rules, I personally think it's really cool that the recursion engine hides in the minutiae of the rules, but that's just my opinion.
Of course people are going to be confused by it the first time they see it, the rules of Magic are hella confusing, even to professionals who are learning about a particular rule for the first time. Similar to explaining how Bolting a Goyf with 3 toughness but no Instants in the yard doesn't kill it. Doesn't make sense until you explain why.
I could see Wizards changing the rule to forcing people to pick an order for each action that produced mana to happen in, when paying for costs after declaring a spell to cast, and then having each trigger happen as if only that action and the ones chosen before it had taken place (basically expand the instantaneous action of mass-mana-production to multiple instantaneous actions of mana production and stack them on top of each other, with effects triggering in between). I'd be disappointed by stifling the incredible creativity that it took to come up with the recursion engine, but it's similar in my mind to the split-card change (though in my mind that was a much more confusing rule, especially for people who aren't into programming). A strategy is exploiting the way the rules are set up, and if Wizards thinks it goes beyond what is acceptable, the rule should be made more intuitive. I'd be sad to see such an interesting deck go, but sometimes the interesting decks aren't what's best for the format.
So, if you target him with Hypothesizzle, you get to copy it and choose not to discard both times... and you still get to draw 4? That's a very neat Limited trick.
Nope, you don't target anything when you cast Hypothesizzle. It's the reflexive trigger that targets, so it won't do anything with this card.
"I'll bust your board." I love this card's name. It'd be cool if this is a good enough conditional sweeper to make it into some decks. Pretty sure it's just worse than Bontu's Last Reckoning for Ad Nauseum, but we'll see.
Um, what? The card is named on resolution, how would the Bloom player get decked unless they didn't know a single card in their deck?
There are no personal opinions when it comes to these sorts of rules. Things aren't cheating "in your opinion." Either they go against the rules, which anyone can look up, or they aren't, and they are, by definition, legal. Are there some common courtesy guidelines that many people follow? Sure. Are there ethical decisions people can make? Of course. But if someone angle-shoots in the attempt to win a competitive game of magic, that is, by definition, within bounds. You can get upset with a person for not actively reminding you what lands they have in play, but do not accuse them of cheating. If they are taking advantage of your lack of perception, it sounds like there's a simpler solution to this problem.
And if this has happened multiple times, it sounds like you just have an aversion to asking your opponent to clarify his or her board, which is totally within your rights according to the rules (free knowledge, public zones). I'd work on getting over that aversion first. Being comfortable enough to ask relevant questions about the game is a huge part of succeeding at it.
By comparison, I would argue Opal is more broken in Cheerios, but as the deck isn't particularly well positioned or strong, that isn't much of a strike against the card. The same argument goes for SSG. If a deck crops up that is Tier 1 and abuses SSG, I'm confident it would be banned. I'm not as confident about Opal, though, just because of the collateral damage in other artifact strategies that have come to use Opal, either as a crutch or a tool that allow them to operate with other Tier 1 strategies.
Some Name x
Sorcery
Destroy target White permanent.
Destroy target Blue permanent.
Destroy target Black permanent.
Destroy target Red permanent.
Destroy target Green permanent.
Of course people are going to be confused by it the first time they see it, the rules of Magic are hella confusing, even to professionals who are learning about a particular rule for the first time. Similar to explaining how Bolting a Goyf with 3 toughness but no Instants in the yard doesn't kill it. Doesn't make sense until you explain why.
I could see Wizards changing the rule to forcing people to pick an order for each action that produced mana to happen in, when paying for costs after declaring a spell to cast, and then having each trigger happen as if only that action and the ones chosen before it had taken place (basically expand the instantaneous action of mass-mana-production to multiple instantaneous actions of mana production and stack them on top of each other, with effects triggering in between). I'd be disappointed by stifling the incredible creativity that it took to come up with the recursion engine, but it's similar in my mind to the split-card change (though in my mind that was a much more confusing rule, especially for people who aren't into programming). A strategy is exploiting the way the rules are set up, and if Wizards thinks it goes beyond what is acceptable, the rule should be made more intuitive. I'd be sad to see such an interesting deck go, but sometimes the interesting decks aren't what's best for the format.
Nope, you don't target anything when you cast Hypothesizzle. It's the reflexive trigger that targets, so it won't do anything with this card.
*Cough* Karn's Temporal Sundering *cough*