Hey folk; its been a long time since I played in a competitive-level sealed event like a GPT or GP, and with GP Philadelphia looming, I wanted to check on a few things, for my own edification.
Namely how sideboarding is now affected.
I know these events are NOT continuous construction; if you make a lousy deck out of your pool, then you're stuck with it Game 1 for every matchup that day. As far as sideboarding goes, you're allowed to use the entire pool, as well as any basic lands you may have grabbed during construction, correct? With the new sideboard rules, do I have to board 1:1, or is it whatever I want? Can I theoretically register a deck, lose game one, and then produce an entirely different deck made from the same pool and still proceed with that deck?
This is a quick question regarding Far // Away.
By casting the spell fused, I target the creature I'm bouncing, and the player who is sacrificing simultaneously, yes? Since it is one spell with two effects essentially.
This means that my opponent can elect to sacrifice the creature targeted, and not get 2-for-1'd, correct?
Deadbridge Chant is a card I'm really keen on playing in Standard. I just haven't found a proper engine whereby to enable it to actually be relevant. When I stare at it, I see an enchantment that's a mix between Howling Mine and Debtor's Knell, but I can't think of a consistent way to balance it. If I want specific reanimation, I'd want to use Unburial Rites and if I needed draw, I'd run blue. I'm trying to run green white black.
they changed that. clean up takes care of all the tokens and until the end step stuff now. if their stuffs going to enter tapped they cant combo off and attack
That sounds like a pretty big rules change. Do you have a source? Because that sounds completely wrong.
I don't like this card from a rules perspective; Although clear what it does, it goes against the previous rule of Magic, in that "can't" always beats "can".
Taking infinite turns isn't a loop, because in order for something to be a loop, there has to be an option to shortcut the loop, as it were.
Turns are not something that can be shortcut. This is a fact.
In a previous tournament I played in, my opponent's entire deck consisted of only mindcontrol/threaten effects. I realized this after an early Memoricide. I counted each of our decks, and thanks to draw effects, my opponent had 8 fewer cards in his deck than mine. I told my opponent that for the rest of the game, I would draw to seven and discard every turn, giving him no option to threaten or mind control anything, and that he would deck out eventually and I would win.. He said its possible, but it was game 1 and he wanted a draw so he and I then sat there for eternity, drawing to seven and discarding.
I called judge maybe five minutes into the charade and the judge said you can't shortcut turns, that they have to be played, even if the result is the same. This was at a PTQ, and the headjudge concurred with the floor judge's ruling.
I'm not continuing a loop. There is no shortcut to take infinite turns. I'm not taking Aphetto Alchemist to untap himself 100000 times. I'm simply taking an inordinate number of turns without doing much during those turns.
Suppose in the above scenario, I won the first game, we are on game two when this loop occurs, and my opponent asks for a draw.
I'm not obligated to agree, correct? I can simply take X number of turns, moving through them quickly and appropriately, until time is called and I win 1-0-1, yes?
If I am in a situation where I have no library remaining, Beacon of Tomorrows in hand, and enough mana to resolve it, and then proceed to take infinite turns without accomplishing anything, am I allowed to offer my opponent a draw, or do I have to repeat this action until the match runs out of time?
I wasn't given to understand you could offer draws.
If you just assume people mean (whether they know it or not) when they talk about "turn X kills" that they're actually talking about the crucial turn, then it mostly makes sense. Vintage games are often decided on the first turn, Legacy the second, Modern the third, and Standard did seem to revolve a lot around turn four when Wrath of God was a thing and combo decks were grudgingly permitted every so often, but I have no idea what's up with T2 these days.
The point of my thread is that what you're saying is wrong. Vintage is not decided turn one, Legacy isn't decided turn two, and so forth.
Limited, hands down is the most skill intensive format. Not only do you need to know how ot pilot the deck you are playing, you must also know how to build it and pick cards on the fly to make said deck.
I disagree with you for a great number of reasons but this thread isn't to debate what the most skill intensive format is or is not.
And as far some people say that a turn one Gaddock Teeg or Chalice of the Void can "blow someone out", I think it is enormously interesting to play a format where real "meta hunter" decks exist. Every now and then, someone shows up to a Vintage event with a variant of the deck called "The Mountains Win It" and pilot it sufficiently to win. A deck that spends its entire game trying to lock someone out in one or two turns and then beat someone down with a Magus of the Moon and I think it speaks volumes to the diversity of the format.
Vintage has five major deck Archetypes, with dozens of exceptionally diverse decks branching off from those archetypes. At any given point in Vintage, there are Twenty to Thirty intensely competitive decks to choose from. On top of that, unlike Type 2 or Modern, where someone can clone a decklist, as far as Vintage goes, since the meta is so outrageously diverse, it is generally a bad idea to copy a decklist. Vintage actively encourages players to insert their own "flavor" into their deck. I played a Dredge variant that maindecked Nature's Claim.
Yeah, sometimes the outrageous plays happen, but those can be pretty entertaining. Over the weekend, my opponent controlled Tropical IslandUnderground Sea and Fastbond. I played a blind Cabal Therapy calling for force, and he showed me Time WalkGush [card Yawgmoth's Will [/card] and a Black Lotus and this was right after he had played Imperial Seal, and I just had to start laughing, since we both knew this was going to be pretty painful for me on the receiving end.
I tend to find Vintage players are very, very pleasant people. They're older, tend to be working full time, and have a genuine love of the game. The high prize purse doesn't hurt, but many of them just really, really love the interaction of the game. Most people play every round, even if they're 0-X the entire tournament, just to enjoy playing Vintage.
All that said, the adage that I've always heard about Vintage wasn't that the games end turn 1-2, but that "early game" is the coin toss, "mid game" is the mulligan, and "late game" is turn 1.
That's an unfortunate stereotype cultivated by people who haven't played the format.
The problem is, Vintage can be over in 1 turn. Hell, if you are on the play and have a decent starting hand and your opponent doesnt have FOW, you can win before your opponent gets to go. Dont tell me it cant happen I have seen it. Both players need to have certain cards in their hands to draw the game out. Same with Legacy. I agree people mix up its a 'x' turn format into the games are over that turn.
It requires a statistically improbable opening hand, to the point that to refuse to play the format for fear of a turn one kill would be like saying you won't swim in the ocean for fear of getting eaten by a shark.
Namely how sideboarding is now affected.
I know these events are NOT continuous construction; if you make a lousy deck out of your pool, then you're stuck with it Game 1 for every matchup that day. As far as sideboarding goes, you're allowed to use the entire pool, as well as any basic lands you may have grabbed during construction, correct? With the new sideboard rules, do I have to board 1:1, or is it whatever I want? Can I theoretically register a deck, lose game one, and then produce an entirely different deck made from the same pool and still proceed with that deck?
By casting the spell fused, I target the creature I'm bouncing, and the player who is sacrificing simultaneously, yes? Since it is one spell with two effects essentially.
This means that my opponent can elect to sacrifice the creature targeted, and not get 2-for-1'd, correct?
That sounds like a pretty big rules change. Do you have a source? Because that sounds completely wrong.
Turns are not something that can be shortcut. This is a fact.
In a previous tournament I played in, my opponent's entire deck consisted of only mindcontrol/threaten effects. I realized this after an early Memoricide. I counted each of our decks, and thanks to draw effects, my opponent had 8 fewer cards in his deck than mine. I told my opponent that for the rest of the game, I would draw to seven and discard every turn, giving him no option to threaten or mind control anything, and that he would deck out eventually and I would win.. He said its possible, but it was game 1 and he wanted a draw so he and I then sat there for eternity, drawing to seven and discarding.
I called judge maybe five minutes into the charade and the judge said you can't shortcut turns, that they have to be played, even if the result is the same. This was at a PTQ, and the headjudge concurred with the floor judge's ruling.
I'm not obligated to agree, correct? I can simply take X number of turns, moving through them quickly and appropriately, until time is called and I win 1-0-1, yes?
I wasn't given to understand you could offer draws.
The point of my thread is that what you're saying is wrong. Vintage is not decided turn one, Legacy isn't decided turn two, and so forth.
I disagree with you for a great number of reasons but this thread isn't to debate what the most skill intensive format is or is not.
And as far some people say that a turn one Gaddock Teeg or Chalice of the Void can "blow someone out", I think it is enormously interesting to play a format where real "meta hunter" decks exist. Every now and then, someone shows up to a Vintage event with a variant of the deck called "The Mountains Win It" and pilot it sufficiently to win. A deck that spends its entire game trying to lock someone out in one or two turns and then beat someone down with a Magus of the Moon and I think it speaks volumes to the diversity of the format.
Vintage has five major deck Archetypes, with dozens of exceptionally diverse decks branching off from those archetypes. At any given point in Vintage, there are Twenty to Thirty intensely competitive decks to choose from. On top of that, unlike Type 2 or Modern, where someone can clone a decklist, as far as Vintage goes, since the meta is so outrageously diverse, it is generally a bad idea to copy a decklist. Vintage actively encourages players to insert their own "flavor" into their deck. I played a Dredge variant that maindecked Nature's Claim.
Yeah, sometimes the outrageous plays happen, but those can be pretty entertaining. Over the weekend, my opponent controlled Tropical Island Underground Sea and Fastbond. I played a blind Cabal Therapy calling for force, and he showed me Time Walk Gush [card Yawgmoth's Will [/card] and a Black Lotus and this was right after he had played Imperial Seal, and I just had to start laughing, since we both knew this was going to be pretty painful for me on the receiving end.
I tend to find Vintage players are very, very pleasant people. They're older, tend to be working full time, and have a genuine love of the game. The high prize purse doesn't hurt, but many of them just really, really love the interaction of the game. Most people play every round, even if they're 0-X the entire tournament, just to enjoy playing Vintage.
That's an unfortunate stereotype cultivated by people who haven't played the format.
It requires a statistically improbable opening hand, to the point that to refuse to play the format for fear of a turn one kill would be like saying you won't swim in the ocean for fear of getting eaten by a shark.