2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Interest in forming a competitive standard study/testing group?
    All my friends who I used to play test with have all lost their jobs and can no longer afford decks so for all intents and purposes have quit competitive magic for the time being. This leaves me with one person I know IRL that I can play against and TBH he's not the greatest player and is a terrible sore loser. I'd be willing to test over cockatrice a few nights a week. I'm trying to test match-ups for a standard PTQ next month nearby. My name on cockatrice is Recon413, but you'd probably be better off getting in contact with me via e-mail at [email]believeinapathy@gmail.com[/email]
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • posted a message on ETB effects and instant-speed removal.
    Quote from WorkOrder
    1. Angel of Serenity, Ultimate Price: If your opponent is playing Ultimate Price in response to Angel of Serenity's ETB trigger, this is what will happen:
    1. AoS's ETB trigger on the stack
    2. Ultimate Price on the stack
    3. Ultimate Price resolves, killing AoS and sending her to the GY
    4. AoS's leave the battlefield trigger goes on the stack
    5. AoS's leave the battlefield trigger resolves, but nothing happens because nothing is exiled yet
    6. AoS's ETB trigger resolves and up to three other target creatures are exiled
    If you Ultimate Price AoS in response to the trigger, the creatures will be permanently exiled. If you don't want that to happen, then UP the Angel after her ETB trigger has resolved.

    2. Angel of Glory's Rise: similar events occur as in scenario 1:
    1. AoGR's ETB trigger goes on stack when she ETB
    2. UP targetting AoGR
    3. AoGR dies and goes to GY
    4. AoGR's ETB trigger resolves, and zombies are exiled/humans enter the GY

    The key to both of these is that abilities, once activated or triggered, exist independent of their source. If they're already on the stack, then they'll resolve even if their source is destroyed.


    Thank you so much for this explanation. So basically if I'm understanding this correctly, UP against the Humanimator deck stops the combo by not allowing Fiend Hunter to exile AoGR but doesn't stop all the humans from coming back from the grave.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on ETB effects and instant-speed removal.
    So Angel of Serenity comes in, opponent response to targets, Ultimate Prices the angel. So no creatures get taken by her and she just hit the yard. Is this correct?

    Again.

    So Angel of Glories Rise enters, opponent response Ultimate prices, do my humans still come back out? Does her ETB go off? If so how does the rules explain this?

    If 1 is correct but 2 isn't why is that? I ways always under the impression ETB went off no matter what, but after seeing the play in situation 1 at an LGS I was confused. Then my friend talked about not being afraid of Humanimator because of situation 2, but I have a hard time believing that's how it works.

    Can anybody explain?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on [Sideboarding] (Naya) Assemble the Legion
    Only problem I can foresee is trying to resolve it. Our creatures are easier via Cavern, enchantments, especially high-cost ones, can be difficult to resolve against control. I find it hard enough getting my 3cmc Triumph of Ferocity to resolve.
    Posted in: Naya Midrange
  • posted a message on Top 10 Most Expensive Cards in Gatecrash (At the moment)
    Wow, every site is selling Boros Reckoner at 25-30 right now. *sigh* Watching this go from $10 to $25-30 in the last 36 hours or so was disgusting.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [[GTC]] Simic Fluxmage
    Had my doubts before you posted the picture. And now wow, that picture looks SERIOUSLY legitimate...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from ljossberir
    Quote from Believeinapathy
    Quote from ljossberir

    I used the phrase 'radical leftist agenda', Jedi and Tiax say Republicans want to "oppress women, oppress homosexual people, lessen taxes on the wealthy out of a belief that they themselves will one day soon be wealthy, shut down the government and have more guns" and I'm the one you want sources from? What?


    You do realize these are your party platforms, correct? Vote against womens rights, revoke their right to choose, tell gays they cant get married, give tax breaks for the rich because it's "trickle-down economics", and lessen gun control (NRA).

    Why should he need to provide sources when all you need to do in look at your parties platform, this is what you stand for.


    Very well, if you want to say the Republicans are for "oppressing" women and homosexuals because of that kind of stuff, then I'll speak to your Democratic platform which "oppresses" entrepreneurs, people that believe in civil liberties, Catholics and other Christians, and the taxpaying public as a whole. Smile


    Remind me how the Democratic party "oppresses" Catholic/Christians. In this country we have a separation of church and state. This means that our laws should not reflect specific religious values. Not making abortions illegal or allowing women to get birth control or not teaching "creationism" in schools is not "oppressing" Catholics/Christians, it's simply reinforcing separation of church and state, which is a founding principle of this country.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from ljossberir

    I used the phrase 'radical leftist agenda', Jedi and Tiax say Republicans want to "oppress women, oppress homosexual people, lessen taxes on the wealthy out of a belief that they themselves will one day soon be wealthy, shut down the government and have more guns" and I'm the one you want sources from? What?


    You do realize these are your party platforms, correct? Vote against womens rights/equal pay, revoke their right to choose, tell gays they cant get married, give tax breaks for the rich because it's "trickle-down economics", and lessen gun control (NRA).

    Why should he need to provide sources when all you need to do in look at your parties platform, this is what you stand for.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from ljossberir
    Doubt it. Wasn't that supposed to start happening in the 60's?


    This is the 21st century, not the 60's. They are different generations with different views. Also, pretty sure minorities weren't on track to become the majority in the 60's, but they are now.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from ljossberir
    Quote from jedimindtricks

    When people think of the republican party now, what do they think of: anti-abortion, anti-gay, less taxes for rich people, wanting to destroy/shut down the government, more guns. If your party has more to it than that. It's time you started showing it and let these extremist values reside where they should: in your living room.


    See the problem? Far from a mandate when you barely beat the crazies. Republicans have to come to terms with some things, for sure, but the bulk of this country will not accept the radical left's agenda.


    Yes, until these older-generation republican folk start dying and the rest become outnumbered by the growing number of minorities and the new generation of young people starting to vote (Hint: Liberals/Progressives). If the Republicans don't start changing they will start becoming out-of-date.

    Quote from ljossberir
    Quote from Frostshock!
    Quote from ljossberir
    Quote from jedimindtricks

    When people think of the republican party now, what do they think of: anti-abortion, anti-gay, less taxes for rich people, wanting to destroy/shut down the government, more guns. If your party has more to it than that. It's time you started showing it and let these extremist values reside where they should: in your living room.


    I don't disagree - that very well may be the way that the average American voter views Republicans.

    But while you're dishing out all of this friendly advice, let me shoot something right back at ya.

    If the average American voter views Republicans in the way you described them (kinda 'crazy' right?) then why did the Republicans pull close to 50% of the voting public in the Presidential election?

    See the problem? Far from a mandate when you barely beat the crazies. Republicans have to come to terms with some things, for sure, but the bulk of this country will not accept the radical left's agenda.


    Beyond the massive failure of not being able to articulate the "Radical left's agenda." or even being able to concretely point at a political influential group that falls into that catagory. That is the painting of a false scenario if I ever saw it.


    What is a false scenario? You think that Americans are ready to accept the leftist agenda? Where is the evidence?


    2 States legalized recreational marijuana, ~13 or so have medical marijuana, 3 more states this election voted in support of same-sex marriage, atheism is at an all time high, we elected a president who came out in support of same-sex marriage, are you blind?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from mystery45
    Which is why I was asking, in part, what everyone felt Obama would do, especially if congress wasnt blocking his way, and all of the other questions in asked in the quoted post


    He will do what he has done for the past 3 years and that is stomp his feet pitch a fit and blame everyone else for his inability to lead. Even members of his own party are mad at him for his failure to take the reigns and get something done.


    You do realize that he's been trying to get things done for a while now, doesn't help any when the GOP won't compromise on anything and when it comes down to it will just filibuster. How you expect a president to get things done when the opposing party in congress won't budge on anything is beyond me.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Reserved List Discussion
    You do realize nobody in the world would ever send in an Alpha Black Lotus for 2 new ones? The difference in price would be astounding and would not be worth it for collectors who own them.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Burn deck, can it be viable?
    Quote from Voxxen
    Mono red is in no way competitive, not even remotely close right now. Not even at the FNM level. The creatures available are all terrible, and the cheap burn spells we have right now aren't great either. Mortars is the best one, but that can't dome them.


    Lol been 3-1ing and 4-0ing MTGO dailies for the last 2 weeks playing Mono-R. I think you completely are off the mark here. Hellrider, Thundermaw Hellkite, Zealous Constripts late-game. along with early hasty beats in the form of Ash Zealot, Rakdos Shredfreak, and Rakdos Cackler. Then the burn that acts as removal for more creature beats or face burn to close games up like Brimstone Volley, Pillar of flame, and Searing Spear. Mono-R can DEFINITELY be competetive right now, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't viable. Creatureless burn isn't viable, but Mono-R is a competetive archetype, I'll point you to MTGO daily results and the competetive sub-forum as evidence.
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • posted a message on GP Trial etiquette?
    Quote from Dechs Kaison
    And it looks no different on your tournament record?


    I believe it would look the same, but I am unsure.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on GP Trial etiquette?
    Quote from Dechs Kaison
    Ok then, what's the difference between conceding the match and dropping from the tournament?


    It's all in, really, technicalities. "Conceding" means you are purposefully losing or "scooping" in a sanctioned event, normally this is fine, but when a prize split is involved this is illegal. "Dropping" from the tournament is different because you never actually play the match since you technically dropped out of the running before it started, so by default your opponent "wins." This is not illegal.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.