yeah, that's what I mean. Level up has no flavour in it. It's OK they work together with D&D, but how this got through without adding flavour.... It's a mystery for me.
At least planeswalkers have loyalty counters. How bigger the loyalty, how better the spells they can play. That's flavour.
Level up sounds like I'm playing an RPG. This isn't a computergame! (ok, it's played as a computer game too, but you know what I mean)
__________________
Are you here to complain about magic? then please stop playing magic.
Okay, this 'level up' mechanic just looks silly on a MTG card, not a fan...
These Eldrazi guys seem just over the fricken top ridiculous. At least my Hypergenesis deck got a little better? I don't think Emrakul's extra turn will trigger with it, but still, way to say "there's no way you are coming back unless you kill me in on turn."
Which means that if you're an almost decent player, this cards should NEVER hit the table, cause either it requires absurd ramping, or a completely silly and easily disruptable combo.
Like Djinn of Wishes ? Or Summoning Trap ? Or Oath of Druids ? Or Maelstrom Archangel ? Or Cascading into Hypergenesis ?
The game has lots and lots of ways of cheating something into play. Each and every time they publish a fatter, more badass, more over-the-top BFM (Big Frickin' Monster), those strategies become a little more powerful. Many top-end players use such strategies at high level depending on the meta.
If you get enough mana to cast this guy or cheat him into play then you deserve to win. Same with the other eldrazi creatures. I think theres 5 instant reanimation spells in magic and they are all delt with by some tormods crypt effect. Either way, something can be done about the spell they cast to reanimate it or something can be done about the graveyard itself.
Turn 1:
opponent plays island, passes
Turn 2:
I play forest, tap for llanowar elves
opponent plays daze
I play summoning trap and put Emrakul into play.
The rest doesn't even matter.
You're telling me that I deserve to win this game? I deserve nothing from this. It was pure luck.
The beauty of this game is that there is an answer to everything. Not every removal spell will work, not every spell will resolve. If they game was nothing but a bunch of people sitting around with a hand of 7 counterspells and removal spells, non of us would be playing it. It's about skill, luck, fun, and the ability to see someone's face when this guy resolves. Not fun when it gets blown up, sure. But a great memory when it wins the game for you.
Turn 1:
opponent plays island, passes
Turn 2:
I play forest, tap for llanowar elves
opponent plays daze
I play summoning trap and put Emrakul into play.
The rest doesn't even matter.
You're telling me that I deserve to win this game? I deserve nothing from this. It was pure luck.
As much as i detest the 2/3 game match system and sideboards (and I do), this is precisely why they exist --> A draw like that once is luck, your opponent blundering into it a second game in the match is his own fault.
Turn 1:
opponent plays island, passes
Turn 2:
I play forest, tap for llanowar elves
opponent plays daze
I play summoning trap and put Emrakul into play.
The rest doesn't even matter.
You're telling me that I deserve to win this game? I deserve nothing from this. It was pure luck.
Is the turn 2 Hexmage/Dark Depths combo better or worse? How about a turn 2 Hypergenesis?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Judge
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
As much as i detest the 2/3 game match system and sideboards (and I do), this is precisely why they exist --> A draw like that once is luck, your opponent blundering into it a second game in the match is his own fault.
Definitely, 'cause manascrew and mulligans only happen to bad players.
After reading the posts that led to this response, I can't help but be immensely glad that I'm playing FFXIII rather than Magic right now. At least in games like those, when I lose it's nobody's fault but mine, which means I can actually learn not to make the same mistake twice. I can totally get behind the people who get frustrated about facing something as insurmountable as Emrakul.
All I can say is: punch 'em in the face, kids. Maybe when WoTC starts losing more players to lack of sportsmanship than they ever did to Raffinity, they'll realize the extent to which competitive Magic has become a chore...
Definitely, 'cause manascrew and mulligans only happen to bad players.
After reading the posts that led to this response, I can't help but be immensely glad that I'm playing FFXIII rather than Magic right now. At least in games like those, when I lose it's nobody's fault but mine, which means I can actually learn not to make the same mistake twice. I can totally get behind the people who get frustrated about facing something as insurmountable as Emrakul.
All I can say is: punch 'em in the face, kids. Maybe when WoTC starts losing more players to lack of sportsmanship than they ever did to Raffinity, they'll realize the extent to which competitive Magic has become a chore...
Huh? I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or quoting me for no reason at all, but bad luck is precisely why WotC uses the 2/3 match system rather than a system which has winner take all in one game.
Huh? I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or quoting me for no reason at all, but bad luck is precisely why WotC uses the 2/3 match system rather than a system which has winner take all in one game.
For all the sarcasm-blind in the audience, the point is that between all the luck issues inherent of a game based around shuffling cards, the 2/3 match system is quite bad at allowing players to make skill count over luck.
Ever seen a poker table get decided on just three hands? Well, that's exactly how Magic tournaments work...
Turn 1:
opponent plays island, passes
Turn 2:
I play forest, tap for llanowar elves
opponent plays daze
I play summoning trap and put Emrakul into play.
The rest doesn't even matter.
You're telling me that I deserve to win this game? I deserve nothing from this. It was pure luck.
Does anyone ever deserve to win a game of Magic? Insofar as they do - yes, you deserve to win this game. "Pure luck" would be you rolling dice to randomly select each card to put into your deck, then rolling dice to randomly decide whether to mulligan each hand or not, then rolling dice to see what cards to play. You chose the cards; you built the deck; you kept the hand; you chose the play order; you successfully poker-faced the fact you have a Summoning Trap in hand.
Ever seen a poker table get decided on just three hands? Well, that's exactly how Magic tournaments work...
You must not play a lot of poker tournaments. Yes, players are in fact knocked out of poker tourneys in three hands or less very frequently. And there's a big difference between a match being decided in three hands and a tournament being decided in three hands. It only takes a few hands to lose. It takes a lot of hands to win.
You must not play a lot of poker tournaments. Yes, players are in fact knocked out of poker tourneys in three hands or less very frequently. And there's a big difference between a match being decided in three hands and a tournament being decided in three hands. It only takes a few hands to lose. It takes a lot of hands to win.
Agreed and also how long does a poker hand take versus a game of Magic? I´d like to see a round robin approach to a sealed deck that wouldn´t take a couple of days but would let you scrub out within 5 mins ;-p
Does anyone ever deserve to win a game of Magic? Insofar as they do - yes, you deserve to win this game. "Pure luck" would be you rolling dice to randomly select each card to put into your deck, then rolling dice to randomly decide whether to mulligan each hand or not, then rolling dice to see what cards to play. You chose the cards; you built the deck; you kept the hand; you chose the play order; you successfully poker-faced the fact you have a Summoning Trap in hand.
What? How can you say 3 actions of chance (opponent countering, trap in hand, Emrakul on top) are comparable to a mathematically contrived deck / playstyle or a hard-thought battle of strategy? That doesn't even make sense. Would you say a soccer match would be equally won through a game of rock-paper-scissors as it would be through a contest of game knowledge / strategy / skill?
Does anyone ever deserve to win a game of Magic? Insofar as they do - yes, you deserve to win this game. "Pure luck" would be you rolling dice to randomly select each card to put into your deck, then rolling dice to randomly decide whether to mulligan each hand or not, then rolling dice to see what cards to play. You chose the cards; you built the deck; you kept the hand; you chose the play order; you successfully poker-faced the fact you have a Summoning Trap in hand.
Except in your exaggerated example you wouldn't be technically playing as much as shaking a magical 8-ball.
Magic is at its worst when games are decided on very specific and ephemeral game states. It's at its best when players are able to choose between a reasonable spread of choices to a given game state.
"Oops, I win" game states aren't playing a game of Magic any more than a meteorite crashing on the earth and exterminating all dinosaurs is evolution of living organisms.
☺☺☺☺ happens; that doesn't mean it's not still ☺☺☺☺ and we should avoid getting some of it on our shoes...
You must not play a lot of poker tournaments. Yes, players are in fact knocked out of poker tourneys in three hands or less very frequently. And there's a big difference between a match being decided in three hands and a tournament being decided in three hands. It only takes a few hands to lose. It takes a lot of hands to win.
I'd be very surprised if a player got eliminated from a poker table after folding the first and second hands of a match. Poker players, unlike Magic jocks, always have the choice to pick their fights. While they can still be eliminated within a fairly short time frame, it's quite likely they had a chance to interact with at least one opponent before that happens. If they are good at the game, it's also likely they had a reasonable shot at winning that particular hand, at least from a statistical standpoint.
The problem with the mulligan system is that it severely punishes folding. The cost of incrementally forfeiting tempo and card advantage is just too steep to ensure that games will be fought on a statistically level field. Although I do not have a proven alternative right now, I think that enforcing a 6-card floor and maximum number of allowable mulligans is interesting enough to warrant some playtesting.
What? How can you say 3 actions of chance (opponent countering, trap in hand, Emrakul on top) are comparable to a mathematically contrived deck / playstyle or a hard-thought battle of strategy? That doesn't even make sense. Would you say a soccer match would be equally won through a game of rock-paper-scissors as it would be through a contest of game knowledge / strategy / skill?
The person who built the summoning trap deck may have done so to create the greatest opportunity to get emaruk, or one on of any number of giant fatties, into play early. That means the deck has been tuned to have at least one giant guy per every 7-10 cards to make it very likely that one will happen off of a summoning trap. Sure it's not as hard as calculating the math on a keepable hand in a stax or grim long deck, but it still takes skill and mathematical style/play skill to be able to build it.
The person who built the summoning trap deck may have done so to create the greatest opportunity to get emaruk, or one on of any number of giant fatties, into play early. That means the deck has been tuned to have at least one giant guy per every 7-10 cards to make it very likely that one will happen off of a summoning trap. Sure it's not as hard as calculating the math on a keepable hand in a stax or grim long deck, but it still takes skill and mathematical style/play skill to be able to build it.
So you're ok with a game that rewards doing most of the hard work at home, under controlled circumstances, and relegates all strategy derived to interaction to a corner? How does that make Magic any different from Sudoku, or a crossword puzzle tournament?
I know I'm not ok with it; that's exactly why I've been standing by the sidelines for quite some time now. Between the monumental tempo swings and prevalence of luck-derived decisions over skill-derived ones, I'd rather spend my time on games I can actually measure my progress on a clear scale.
To me, Magic stopped being a game about proving something to myself; it's just a finite system where you have to calculate and maximize your chances to beat the odds. And that's hardly a game anymore...
1) Interactivity. 'Victory, you just win..move on. These Eldrazi guys, you have to try and solve them, but almost certainly cannot, and lose. Not fun.
Let me see if I understand you correctly: you prefer taking an automatic loss over being given a chance, however slim, to recover?
Quote from Morphling »
2) Meanspiritedness. 'Victory, you just win..move on. These Eldrazi guys, you will be smiled at, and occasionally taunted as they quickly Annhilate your entire board and any chance you had at coming up with answer. These are going to be pure gold in the hands of (already) dickish players and will really frustrate a lot of new players. How the hell do I possibly win against THAT? *sob*
Casting an Eldrazi does not come with the stipulation that you be a poor sport about it. Poor sports would still be unfun to play against whether or not the Eldrazi had ever been concepted, and good sports who wish to play Eldrazi will still manage to treat their opponents with respect.
Quote from Morphling »
And since when is 'Victory some 'beloved' card by anyone anyway? Sure, it's a cute way to win but when's the last time you played it and your opponent said "OH wow..masterfully played. You really schooled me with your superior gamesmanship." No, they roll their eyes and maybe mutter under their breath. It's not a popular way to win even in Casual land. It is not seen as 'cool', it's seen as 'cheap'. Same here, if you ask me.
If your opponent's board fulfills the conditions of a resolved Coalition Victory, then you were probably well on your way to losing anyway. Either that, or they had to jump through some reasonably convoluted hoops and you failed to successfully intervene in any way.
Quote from Morphling »
Something like Barren Glory, that I'm actually ok with b/c it requires some modicum of skill to set up the win. It's actually impressive.
Because managing to control a land of every basic type and and a creature of every color, as well as resolving a sorcery with a converted mana cost of eight is a total cakewalk.
Anyone who is complaining about the Eldrazi before they're even legal to play needs to wake up and smell the fact that Progenitus doesn't die to Oblivion Ring or Seal of Doom, yet Polymorph still isn't a format-warping deck.
So you're ok with a game that rewards doing most of the hard work at home, under controlled circumstances, and relegates all strategy derived to interaction to a corner? How does that make Magic any different from Sudoku, or a crossword puzzle tournament?
The latter question seems out of place, since both Sudoku and a crossword puzzle tournament are entirely determined by your immediate skill at the time of the tournament. You don't prepare a Sudoku deck.
To your first question. Yes, I'm ok with some matches being quicker than others due to luck. I think that's fantastic. I think without luck, Magic would be a completely different game, and probably much less interesting to me. The luck of the draw is vital to Magic. If someone wants to build a deck that capitalizes on luck, that either combos out or bombos out with no middle ground, then more power to them. If someone wants to build a deck that minimizes luck-based variance to the greatest possible degree, more power to them as well. You want to run a deck that will always have complex, difficult decisions regardless of what you draw? Go for it. Build yourself such a deck. Personally, I'm thrilled when I know that my opponent's deck could range from a steady, relentless machine to a wild spin of the wheel. Most decks will be somewhere in between, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The latter question seems out of place, since both Sudoku and a crossword puzzle tournament are entirely determined by your immediate skill at the time of the tournament. You don't prepare a Sudoku deck.
To your first question. Yes, I'm ok with some matches being quicker than others due to luck. I think that's fantastic. I think without luck, Magic would be a completely different game, and probably much less interesting to me. The luck of the draw is vital to Magic. If someone wants to build a deck that capitalizes on luck, that either combos out or bombos out with no middle ground, then more power to them. If someone wants to build a deck that minimizes luck-based variance to the greatest possible degree, more power to them as well. You want to run a deck that will always have complex, difficult decisions regardless of what you draw? Go for it. Build yourself such a deck. Personally, I'm thrilled when I know that my opponent's deck could range from a steady, relentless machine to a wild spin of the wheel. Most decks will be somewhere in between, and there's nothing wrong with that.
What's your MWS handle, buddy? I might be tempted to do some research about just how often you System: Player Lost out of games. If you live by your rhetoric, I'd expect it to be quite infrequently. Needless to say, I think you're full of bull...
As for the sudoku/crossword point, it's entirely comparable: you're completely ignoring your opponent and worrying about maximizing your unilateral game. Sure, they may attempt to interact with you through disruption, but most of that is covered by identifying the potential forms of disruption and knowing the answers beforehand. Planning a match/deck/etc. , as satisfactory as it may be, is not a game in and on itself.
Sadly it is not... although that it emrakul, it's not the art on the promo
Actually, that is the Prerelease art for Emrakul.
Quote from PaleGrim »
What's your MWS handle, buddy? I might be tempted to do some research about just how often you System: Player Lost out of games. If you live by your rhetoric, I'd expect it to be quite infrequently. Needless to say, I think you're full of bull...
Like Djinn of Wishes ? Or Summoning Trap ? Or Oath of Druids ? Or Maelstrom Archangel ? Or Cascading into Hypergenesis ?
The game has lots and lots of ways of cheating something into play. Each and every time they publish a fatter, more badass, more over-the-top BFM (Big Frickin' Monster), those strategies become a little more powerful. Many top-end players use such strategies at high level depending on the meta.
All the ways you just named of cheating something into play is 100% disruptable. As someone before me said, sideboards do wonderful things and let you be able to get around stuff like this. There isn't anything degenerate about this card, yes it's big and powerful, but theres a good chance that it won't see play at all simply because something in whatever format you're playing it in is better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Going through the Gauntlent, one combo at a time.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At least planeswalkers have loyalty counters. How bigger the loyalty, how better the spells they can play. That's flavour.
Level up sounds like I'm playing an RPG. This isn't a computergame! (ok, it's played as a computer game too, but you know what I mean)
__________________
Are you here to complain about magic? then please stop playing magic.
- Pwned by his own sig...
These Eldrazi guys seem just over the fricken top ridiculous. At least my Hypergenesis deck got a little better? I don't think Emrakul's extra turn will trigger with it, but still, way to say "there's no way you are coming back unless you kill me in on turn."
Like Djinn of Wishes ? Or Summoning Trap ? Or Oath of Druids ? Or Maelstrom Archangel ? Or Cascading into Hypergenesis ?
The game has lots and lots of ways of cheating something into play. Each and every time they publish a fatter, more badass, more over-the-top BFM (Big Frickin' Monster), those strategies become a little more powerful. Many top-end players use such strategies at high level depending on the meta.
Turn 1:
opponent plays island, passes
Turn 2:
I play forest, tap for llanowar elves
opponent plays daze
I play summoning trap and put Emrakul into play.
The rest doesn't even matter.
You're telling me that I deserve to win this game? I deserve nothing from this. It was pure luck.
As much as i detest the 2/3 game match system and sideboards (and I do), this is precisely why they exist --> A draw like that once is luck, your opponent blundering into it a second game in the match is his own fault.
Is the turn 2 Hexmage/Dark Depths combo better or worse? How about a turn 2 Hypergenesis?
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
Definitely, 'cause manascrew and mulligans only happen to bad players.
After reading the posts that led to this response, I can't help but be immensely glad that I'm playing FFXIII rather than Magic right now. At least in games like those, when I lose it's nobody's fault but mine, which means I can actually learn not to make the same mistake twice. I can totally get behind the people who get frustrated about facing something as insurmountable as Emrakul.
All I can say is: punch 'em in the face, kids. Maybe when WoTC starts losing more players to lack of sportsmanship than they ever did to Raffinity, they'll realize the extent to which competitive Magic has become a chore...
Huh? I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or quoting me for no reason at all, but bad luck is precisely why WotC uses the 2/3 match system rather than a system which has winner take all in one game.
For all the sarcasm-blind in the audience, the point is that between all the luck issues inherent of a game based around shuffling cards, the 2/3 match system is quite bad at allowing players to make skill count over luck.
Ever seen a poker table get decided on just three hands? Well, that's exactly how Magic tournaments work...
Does anyone ever deserve to win a game of Magic? Insofar as they do - yes, you deserve to win this game. "Pure luck" would be you rolling dice to randomly select each card to put into your deck, then rolling dice to randomly decide whether to mulligan each hand or not, then rolling dice to see what cards to play. You chose the cards; you built the deck; you kept the hand; you chose the play order; you successfully poker-faced the fact you have a Summoning Trap in hand.
You must not play a lot of poker tournaments. Yes, players are in fact knocked out of poker tourneys in three hands or less very frequently. And there's a big difference between a match being decided in three hands and a tournament being decided in three hands. It only takes a few hands to lose. It takes a lot of hands to win.
Agreed and also how long does a poker hand take versus a game of Magic? I´d like to see a round robin approach to a sealed deck that wouldn´t take a couple of days but would let you scrub out within 5 mins ;-p
What? How can you say 3 actions of chance (opponent countering, trap in hand, Emrakul on top) are comparable to a mathematically contrived deck / playstyle or a hard-thought battle of strategy? That doesn't even make sense. Would you say a soccer match would be equally won through a game of rock-paper-scissors as it would be through a contest of game knowledge / strategy / skill?
Except in your exaggerated example you wouldn't be technically playing as much as shaking a magical 8-ball.
Magic is at its worst when games are decided on very specific and ephemeral game states. It's at its best when players are able to choose between a reasonable spread of choices to a given game state.
"Oops, I win" game states aren't playing a game of Magic any more than a meteorite crashing on the earth and exterminating all dinosaurs is evolution of living organisms.
☺☺☺☺ happens; that doesn't mean it's not still ☺☺☺☺ and we should avoid getting some of it on our shoes...
I'd be very surprised if a player got eliminated from a poker table after folding the first and second hands of a match. Poker players, unlike Magic jocks, always have the choice to pick their fights. While they can still be eliminated within a fairly short time frame, it's quite likely they had a chance to interact with at least one opponent before that happens. If they are good at the game, it's also likely they had a reasonable shot at winning that particular hand, at least from a statistical standpoint.
The problem with the mulligan system is that it severely punishes folding. The cost of incrementally forfeiting tempo and card advantage is just too steep to ensure that games will be fought on a statistically level field. Although I do not have a proven alternative right now, I think that enforcing a 6-card floor and maximum number of allowable mulligans is interesting enough to warrant some playtesting.
I Guess No One Posted This Yet, So I Will....
This Might Be The Emrakul's Promo Pic D:
Enjoy :]
The person who built the summoning trap deck may have done so to create the greatest opportunity to get emaruk, or one on of any number of giant fatties, into play early. That means the deck has been tuned to have at least one giant guy per every 7-10 cards to make it very likely that one will happen off of a summoning trap. Sure it's not as hard as calculating the math on a keepable hand in a stax or grim long deck, but it still takes skill and mathematical style/play skill to be able to build it.
So you're ok with a game that rewards doing most of the hard work at home, under controlled circumstances, and relegates all strategy derived to interaction to a corner? How does that make Magic any different from Sudoku, or a crossword puzzle tournament?
I know I'm not ok with it; that's exactly why I've been standing by the sidelines for quite some time now. Between the monumental tempo swings and prevalence of luck-derived decisions over skill-derived ones, I'd rather spend my time on games I can actually measure my progress on a clear scale.
To me, Magic stopped being a game about proving something to myself; it's just a finite system where you have to calculate and maximize your chances to beat the odds. And that's hardly a game anymore...
Let me see if I understand you correctly: you prefer taking an automatic loss over being given a chance, however slim, to recover?
Casting an Eldrazi does not come with the stipulation that you be a poor sport about it. Poor sports would still be unfun to play against whether or not the Eldrazi had ever been concepted, and good sports who wish to play Eldrazi will still manage to treat their opponents with respect.
If your opponent's board fulfills the conditions of a resolved Coalition Victory, then you were probably well on your way to losing anyway. Either that, or they had to jump through some reasonably convoluted hoops and you failed to successfully intervene in any way.
Because managing to control a land of every basic type and and a creature of every color, as well as resolving a sorcery with a converted mana cost of eight is a total cakewalk.
Anyone who is complaining about the Eldrazi before they're even legal to play needs to wake up and smell the fact that Progenitus doesn't die to Oblivion Ring or Seal of Doom, yet Polymorph still isn't a format-warping deck.
Sadly it is not... although that it emrakul, it's not the art on the promo
To your first question. Yes, I'm ok with some matches being quicker than others due to luck. I think that's fantastic. I think without luck, Magic would be a completely different game, and probably much less interesting to me. The luck of the draw is vital to Magic. If someone wants to build a deck that capitalizes on luck, that either combos out or bombos out with no middle ground, then more power to them. If someone wants to build a deck that minimizes luck-based variance to the greatest possible degree, more power to them as well. You want to run a deck that will always have complex, difficult decisions regardless of what you draw? Go for it. Build yourself such a deck. Personally, I'm thrilled when I know that my opponent's deck could range from a steady, relentless machine to a wild spin of the wheel. Most decks will be somewhere in between, and there's nothing wrong with that.
has the promo art been spoiled? I don't remember seeing that.
What's your MWS handle, buddy? I might be tempted to do some research about just how often you System: Player Lost out of games. If you live by your rhetoric, I'd expect it to be quite infrequently. Needless to say, I think you're full of bull...
As for the sudoku/crossword point, it's entirely comparable: you're completely ignoring your opponent and worrying about maximizing your unilateral game. Sure, they may attempt to interact with you through disruption, but most of that is covered by identifying the potential forms of disruption and knowing the answers beforehand. Planning a match/deck/etc. , as satisfactory as it may be, is not a game in and on itself.
Actually, that is the Prerelease art for Emrakul.
Your point?
All the ways you just named of cheating something into play is 100% disruptable. As someone before me said, sideboards do wonderful things and let you be able to get around stuff like this. There isn't anything degenerate about this card, yes it's big and powerful, but theres a good chance that it won't see play at all simply because something in whatever format you're playing it in is better.