Russian Tarmogoyf (so people don't have to look it up: Тармогойф) has (insulting) strategic advice right in its name.
And is Phyrexian, apparently.
As far as the French Delay thing goes, it's notable that it's using "retard" as a verb, not a noun, which is a very important distinction to make.
- Teia Rabishu
Member for 4 years, 3 months, and 1 day
Last active 12/24/2014 2:32:59 PM
- 15 Followers
- 10,298 Total Posts
- 927 Thanks
12/21/2014 11:34:22 PMTeia Rabishu posted a message on Humorous or Awkward Moments From When M:tG is Translated into Other LanguagesPosted in: Magic General
12/21/2014 11:23:09 PMTeia Rabishu posted a message on So why are three color decks referred to by shard or clan names, but two color decks are not called by guild names?Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Cythare »It seems like a lot of it really boils down to marketing. The clan names have been pushed aggressively because their names correspond to factions in the current set. The guilds are two years old, so there's less marketing visibility to be gained from it.
And this is why you see things like "Sultai vs U/R," and why there was such a passive-aggressive undertone to the initial announcement from SCG and some of their explanations for forcing the name change. They just repeated the lines Wizards' marketing department gave them in all their nonsensical glory (like they can't say "BUG" because "players might be confused about where the U comes from" in the same event they actually had Sultai Delver vs U/R Delver in the top 8—and I'm serious, they actually said that) through gritted teeth and stuck with it. Sort of a "we don't really like it, but we have no choice but to get used to it" thing.
12/14/2014 8:39:06 PMGenerally, a card (especially a Standard card) being foreign won't do anything to increase its price. You might be able to pull some extra value for high-demand cards in specific languages (Russian, Korean, and Japanese tend to be popular), but outside of that, generally you only find premiums in things no one expects, like Spanish Inquisition of Kozilek, and even then that's limited to specific audiences.Posted in: Magic General
11/27/2014 8:22:53 PMA fairly solid other bias that pops up is how people often tend to sell winners early and hold on to losers far longer than they should. "Card A, which has the potential to be a real cross-format staple, just went up a few dollars, I'm going to cash out and get card B, oh no card B's sinking in value let's hold onto it" then by the end Card A will be worth much more than the price it got dumped at, while Card B never recovers.Posted in: Magic General
Example: "Mox Opal is up to 40! All right, let's cash out on that! Oh look, Kiki-Jiki shot up to like $35! Get hype! Oh look, Modern Masters is coming out soon. I hope it's not reprinted there. Meh, that Modern Masters printing isn't going to affect its price very much. Let's hold onto it until it gets back up there." End result, Opal is now worth much more than it was after that spike, and now Kiki-Jiki has tanked pretty hard.
11/24/2014 9:05:12 PMTeia Rabishu posted a message on [[Official]] Legacy Ban List Discussion Thread (Read OP before Posting)Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)Quote from LandBoySteve »
Okay, question. Am I allowed to bring up in that other thread how the "fair casting cost" relates to whether or not the card should still be banned depending on whether or not we can even agree on a fair casting cost that will leave the card still playable in Legacy?
I don't know if that's clear but if not, I'll try to rephrase the question.
It would seem to me that determining a "fair" casting cost implies determining a casting cost for which one who feels it currently ban-worthy wouldn't feel it ban-worthy. So there's no reason to say "a more fair cost means it's not ban-worthy" because that's implicit to the subject.
Put another way, it would be silly to suggest "fair" casting costs that leave a card ban-worthy, so there's really no point raising the subject, especially since it threatens to derail that thread into a ban list discussion for the real cost and that's not a good place to be.
11/23/2014 8:20:36 PMTeia Rabishu posted a message on [[Official]] Legacy Ban List Discussion Thread (Read OP before Posting)On the subject of hypothetical CMC discussion, I'm just going to leave this here:Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)
Quote from Koopa »This thread will serve as a place for ALL ban list discussion for the Legacy forum. It will be the place to discuss cards you think should be unbanned and a place to discuss currently legal cards that you think deserve to be banned.
If you want to discuss a fair casting cost for Treasure Cruise, the link to the relevant thread is in an above post.
11/21/2014 6:36:40 AMTeia Rabishu posted a message on [[Official]] Legacy Ban List Discussion Thread (Read OP before Posting)Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)Quote from Soldier »First ... What ever was said about mental misstep could apply to black vise. Why would nobody play this card? It cost 1 mana and it deals damage each turn. All you need to do is sinkhole a land, waste another land, play something that adds to the spell cost, you could drop multiples in play on the first turn.
You're talking about a relatively narrow section of decks. There's no doubt it could be 4 or 5 damage for 1 mana in some cases, but it's a hell of a lot worse on the draw and is also dead useless against a lot of decks, making a worse topdeck than a Lava Spike in many situations. It can be explosive, but it's really not any more dangerous than numerous unbanned cards in the same decks. It'd be powerful, but probably only sideboard material. It certainly wouldn't live up to its old nickname of Three Free Bolts given how many decks can either counter it or empty their hand fast enough that it doesn't matter. Or just combo-kill you through it.
11/15/2014 8:56:21 PMPosted in: Standard (Type 2)Quote from UltraLunch »It's just a way better version of grey merchant of asphodel. The body actually matters and the cmc is lower, if you can fix the mana. As mentioned above, it's just an amazing rate. Good ETB effects are always value.
The thing is Rhino and Gary do two very different things. Gary is much better from a reach standpoint, since you can knock out 6-8 life in one cast, and usually serves a purely defensive role once he's down. Rhino can't really be used to do that same thing, because it's only 3 life, which is good for stabilizing, but doesn't carry the same degree of reach—I've used Gary to end a game instantly far more often than I've used Siege Rhino's drain ability to do the same.
11/14/2014 3:40:50 AMPosted in: Standard (Type 2)
To add to this: Not a lot of cards can be described as having so many effects, especially in a form where they're a four-mana 4/5, which will outclass nearly anything on the board aside from a few Monsters/Green Devotion cards. The Rhino might not have the glitz and glamour of a Titan, but it's got a hell of a lot more utility than most creatures.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.