Isn't the fact that everyone knows which card it is, cards weren't shuffled, relevant?
Not really, since the definition of a card going into the hand is the card touching the other cards in your hand, regardless of if you're holding them or they're face down on the table. Sucks when it happens, since it takes away from good games, but it is the correct ruling.
Does this same rule apply when someone was hell bent prior to drawing the card?
It's repairable if you were hellbent or the entire contents of your hand were public knowledge due to something like a Thoughtseize.
That is an issue imo. That can create different rulings in situations that are very similar. What is the difference between drawing/not reveling when hell bent or laying a card down that touched but can be pointed to exactly that card. Also, no video review is beyond dumb. The point of judges and judge calls is to keep the game as honest as possible. The point of not treating that area differently is complete crap too. They already have at least one if not more judges in the area which is different then the rest of the playing area.
I remember his opponent not commenting on the card except they touched. He seemed very keen on not wanting to discuss that point until he was almost forced. Does anyone remember if he could have know what the cards were? He did flat out say he couldn't know those cards.
Isn't the fact that everyone knows which card it is, cards weren't shuffled, relevant?
Not really, since the definition of a card going into the hand is the card touching the other cards in your hand, regardless of if you're holding them or they're face down on the table. Sucks when it happens, since it takes away from good games, but it is the correct ruling.
Does this same rule apply when someone was hell bent prior to drawing the card?
Thank you for a worthless post Tiemuuu. If you want to take part in the conversation, the post the list and why you think it is better. Anything short of that is just trolling. Go troll somewhere else.
I am opposed to Temple of Plenty in this deck. This is an aggro deck, and you can't afford to have lands coming into play tapped. Also, because it's an aggro deck, our life total is not that important. I think we pull all Temples and replace with Mana Confluence. Otherwise, this is just another midrange deck.
As opposed to these decks that have a 1 mana do nothing enchantment and the counter nonsense that is going to be shredded by a meta with so much removal in the targeted and mass varieties. Not to mention the green one drops into double white if there is any hope of pulling off the gimmick.
I'm not sure that is the original NP set symbol from what I can tell looking at the screen. The original symbol did not have white highlights between the black and orange. It could be there but I don't have a card infront of me atm. The image is most likely a scan because it does have a moiré pattern.
I'm not sure that shaman is going to see extended standard play if there is things like Lightning Strike still around. That is a huge tempo blowout at 3 mana if you don't get to activate it.
nobody's complaining about art quality, but the art direction. they hire 20 artists and 17 have similar styles. the only artist that stands out from the rest and i can tell right away is Terese Nielsen. the others don't really care for.
diversity doesnt have to suffer for quality. in the past they had quality and diversity. ferguson, brom, avon, benson, spencer, hoover, guay, nielsen, tedin, etc. all made quality art yet distinct from each other.
Jason Chan, Steve Argyle, Zoltan Boros, and Noah Bradley are all doing newer art that can be picked out pretty easily due to their style.
To answer your question: yes. Any deck that climbs to dominance and stays there for an extended period of time should expect an axing of some sort.
Then the format has turned into Extended at that point and defeats the purpose of the format.
Order from chaos. Just like your signature. Think about it.
No, that is called regression because Wizards is randomly dictating the "rotation".
They are not dictating ration though. Banning a deck so others can rise is no where near the same as a "rotation".
Besides the part where " " used in the context of my reply means a loose interpretation of the meaning of rotation…
A rotation at its core is WotC telling us what cards are legal in the format. Take away new cards etc and that is a very basic definition. Guess what banning a card is?
No doubt Pod picked up some decent creatures along the way but it was mainly a deck that went with no bans. It even benefited from other cards getting the axe. The part that is concerning is what happens when Affinity, Twin or other similar decks that have very little to no bans becomes the pillar of the format? Is something from them getting the axe because the format is being constantly dumbed-down around it?
Are we going to have Jund all over again with Junk? It looks like Junk was already 10% or so of the meta, so what happens when all the Pod and Delever player jump to the next best/consistent deck? What are the pros going to say when they're all jumping on the BGx bandwagon for the next PT?
To answer your question: yes. Any deck that climbs to dominance and stays there for an extended period of time should expect an axing of some sort.
Then the format has turned into Extended at that point and defeats the purpose of the format.
For everybody wondering about why Dig Through Time was banned with the reason being Delver I have a little theory on that.
I already said it in the blue problem thread in response to someone else so will just quote myself here.
"OK here comes the thing about Delver decks that you haven't considered. They are playable in Vintage, playable in Legacy(what an understatement), playable in Modern, playable in Pauper. They also dominated Standard for a time. The dominance of Delver decks were stated as the reason why Mana Leak is now considered to powerful for Standard.
Wizards is most likely just tired of it. Enough is enough after all!
We don't need Delver as a Tier 1 deck in basically every format. There is no golden rule that says that that should be the case.
If those bans are Wizards underhanded way of saying that if you want play Delver than go play Legacy then I can't really disagree with them on it.
If you agree with that or not is something that everybody has to decide for himself. It's clear that Wizards doesn't Modern to be just Legacy lite and ridiculous fast combo decks and Delver are probably the first thing that people think about when talking Legacy."
Get rid of Delver…?
I should add: It makes no sense if a deck rises to dominance, stays there, and never leaves. Then you will force wizards to make cards specifically to kill that deck, and then it will break something else. Bannings are the only way to go.
Some would say Legacy has done a pretty decent job with minor interventions.
Or the card does see some modern play.
That is an issue imo. That can create different rulings in situations that are very similar. What is the difference between drawing/not reveling when hell bent or laying a card down that touched but can be pointed to exactly that card. Also, no video review is beyond dumb. The point of judges and judge calls is to keep the game as honest as possible. The point of not treating that area differently is complete crap too. They already have at least one if not more judges in the area which is different then the rest of the playing area.
I remember his opponent not commenting on the card except they touched. He seemed very keen on not wanting to discuss that point until he was almost forced. Does anyone remember if he could have know what the cards were? He did flat out say he couldn't know those cards.
Does this same rule apply when someone was hell bent prior to drawing the card?
As opposed to these decks that have a 1 mana do nothing enchantment and the counter nonsense that is going to be shredded by a meta with so much removal in the targeted and mass varieties. Not to mention the green one drops into double white if there is any hope of pulling off the gimmick.
Jason Chan, Steve Argyle, Zoltan Boros, and Noah Bradley are all doing newer art that can be picked out pretty easily due to their style.
Besides the part where " " used in the context of my reply means a loose interpretation of the meaning of rotation…
A rotation at its core is WotC telling us what cards are legal in the format. Take away new cards etc and that is a very basic definition. Guess what banning a card is?
Some would say Legacy has done a pretty decent job with minor interventions.