MTG Salvation

Quote from BryanM

The thing is, Mythic Rares are not a special rarity. They're just rares, that tend to be on the "better" side. Like, say before you'd have 15 good rares on the sheet. These days, 6 of those would be mythic, the other 9 remain at rare.

The entire point of Mythic is to have a higher percentage of them being "good", so players don't have to play Where's Waldo as much to find The Good Cards.

I'm not sure if you're just trolling, but this is completely wrong. Wizards has stated on numerous occasions that mythics are not meant to be "better" than rares, and, furthermore, that they aim to make powerful cards at all rarities. Mythics are cards with big, splashy, unusual effects, but that doesn't make the effects "better," necessarily. Goblin Guide, for example, is arguably the most powerful aggressive creature ever printed, but that doesn't mean it should be mythic. It's definitely better as a rare. Likewise, Worldspine Wurm is big and splashy and very "mythic," but that doesn't make it good, and it is certainly a lot worse than a lot of the rares in Return to Ravnica.

For Modern Masters, though, they did things a bit differently. It appears that the cards with the highest secondary market price are the mythics, hence why Dark Confidant is being printed at mythic.

Quote from Krimson Viper

Please show me where they said they were printing cards to tackle prices, and not quote they said they wanted to tackle card availability.

But, again, tackling card availability is tackling the price problem. If they say "We want cards to be more readily available to players, so we're printing more of them," what they're essentially saying is "We want the cards to be cheaper, so people can more easily afford them."

All cards are "available" if you're willing to pay the price. Making a card more available means printing more of it, which makes it less scarce, which lowers the price.

In a nutshell, making a card more available means making it cheaper by printing more copies of it.

"[Sentinel Sliver] looks like somebody disemboweled Voldo from Soul Calibur and dropped him into Cambodia on a mission to assassinate communist advisers."

Too perfect.

My idea of a goodstuff deck is one that is very open-ended in its strategy. It doesn't really have a clear end goal in mind and just hopes to "get there" based on the power level of its cards.

A lot of decks that people call goodstuff I wouldn't consider goodstuff, however. My Oona combo/control deck, for example, plays a lot of stapley EDH cards, but the goal is ultimately to prolong the game until I can assemble an infinite combo. The backup plan is to win via card advantage (ie act as a straight-up control deck). With that end goal in mind, the deck plays several wrath effects, lots of draw effects, a few tutors, and a bunch of rattlesnake cards. A lot of those cards are played in other types of decks and would probably be included in a U/B goodstuff deck, but each card in the deck has a specific role to play and is included in the deck to facilitate a certain end game. For that reason, I don't consider it a goodstuff deck.

So the new Jace was spoiled yesterday. While the card seems decent and the artwork is good, I have an irrational dislike for it because Jace's face looks different from his previous iterations. It's not too different, but it's different enough that he would look like a different person if it weren't for the outfit/face paint.

The same goes for Liliana of the Dark Realms vs. the previous versions of Lilana. Liliana OTDR's face seems much thinner and her jaw much smaller than in other artworks. Same with Chandra the Firebrand vs. her previous iterations. It's like in movies or TV shows when they change the actor for one of the characters halfway through and you can't stop thinking that that's not what the character looks like.

I wish the style guide made artists draw the faces of the planeswalkers the same so they didn't look completely different with each version. Has anyone else noticed this? Is anyone else annoyed by it?

Fast mana has always been a problem in every mtg format and should be banned. Sol ring and mana crypt are the obvious problems (stuff like Mishra's workshop should be banned too, but since it's about $1k now normal people can't afford one, let alone play with one, so nobody sees the problems it can cause). The problem is that we've beaten this horse to death and nobody will change their opinions about it despite all the facts that are brought up. There's no point in talking about it anymore.

The other problem is that the RC is inconsistent with what they actually ban. Hermit druid isn't banned because it can be built in a "fair" way, but cards like Panoptic Mirror and Painter's Servant are banned despite the fact that they can also be built in ways that are "fair". The "spirit of the format" is just a vague and arbitrary term and it makes me feel that anything I say about it will be brushed aside.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I think this quote has some effect on the current situation. Im not saying anything violent will happen as a result of Modern getting stabbed in the back. But if Modern only players and people who only watch the PT's with Modern then players will just ignore standard and the PT's this year. It wont hurt Wizards in terms of money but its making a large portion of its player base pretty upset. It would look better on Wizards' part to come to a peaceful resolution and give modern some PT support of some kind this year rather than ignore the 90% of the people on Reddit/MTGS/Cockatrice/Twitter that are all hating on Wizards for doing this.

The typo in your title is absurdly appropriate.

If Jund is GBR and Junk is GBW, should BG be Jun?

Comment Hidden

i think card advantage in edh is a more important concept than it is for most other formats just because of the multiplayer aspect. like you said, in a vacuum, terrorising an opponent's ghoultree is kinda a card disadvantage, since your other 2 opponents haven't lost anything.

having said that though, if you terrored the said ghoultree to save another player, it COULD work to an almost card advantage, since you could use that as a "i'll nail that ghoultree for ya if you can deal with that irritating enchantment [that i can't deal with at this moment] for me". In other words, your one terror can deal with both the creature AND an enchantment that could be annoying you. but thats the table politics possibly that netted you the disenchant.

another facet that might be overlooked is that if you run a very well-oiled card-advantage engine, theres a chance that the game would quickly turn into a 1v3 - in other words, for each 1 extra card you draw, your opponents would start pooling their resources together against you.

use a pad of paper and a pencil.

Still no reason to play Naya... Ugh guys, can't we come up with something remotely interesting?

Quote from fnord

The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.

You could argue that since player A plays more and wins more he is better since he has consistently been winning where as player B who plays less could theoretically keep just getting lucky wins.

Quote from heroicraptor

Why does it ETB tapped?

He spends that first turn listening to Linkin Park.

Because he's so tormented.

You just don't understand his torment.