Except these rules dont do that .... at all ..... if I played in that LGS I would show up with a different turn 4 deck every week to show them thier rules don't accomplish anything. Or even better a deck that searches 3 times a turn so they just get to sit and watch me goldfish every turn. If I was the op and had no money I would play the same deck stick psychosis crawler in labmans spot and execute tbs same combo as a giant **** you to all of them
i was expecting better from you jiv, are you saying that commander is the better place to play stax/combo because in other format green ramp is always the better strategy? let's define "green ramp" better, let's call him "battlecruiser", where you amass resources during the first turns and then you put down big creatures/spells. let's look:
vintage: fast combo wins hands down, battlecruiser is nonexistant.
legacy: combo and control are strong. aggro exist and can be very strong, but it's very fast, it's not similar to battlecruiser in anyway
modern: looking by now, the best format for battlecruiser, but only few decks can that. combo is still strong, and faster decks are still the best
standard: different kind of environment every year
what are we left with? commander! a place where battlecruiser can truly reign... of course unless someone bring out stax and combo. some people may enjoy them, but some playgroup may also want to try something different, a slow, battlecruiser format. and i see nothing wrong with that. EDH is social, so if the majority want battlecruiser, they play battlecruiser. like in the OP's LGS
I don't believe you play other formats after reading your thoughts on them. It speaks volumes about how you've developed your opinions.
You keep blatantly ignoring that we are not discussing "social" EDH, we are discussing a prize based tournament structure where the traditional standards of the format fall apart. The RC admits this, why can't you?
You keep saying "battlecruiser" over and over again as if it means anything. It doesn't.
That said, saying that it is right to ban a particular type of playstyle alienates the type of people who enjoy that playstyle, which is hardly social. It also stunts the growth of the players in that group.
ask yourself why that LGS was so harsh then, why they just didn't houseban ban a couple of generals but all of these cards. probably they was very tired of seeing all EDH decks becoming "combo, only combo, nothing but combo". also ask yourself why people are still going to LGS even if they can't some strategies or decks. probably they are just tired of seeing them and want something different, that's why they like that banlist. i don't understand why the argument "EDH is social, so what is liked by the people is allowed" is ok when people want to play cutthroat combo, but when they want to play "craw wurm beatdown" it's not ok anymore.
Except Cutthroat isn't as "COMBO COMBO COMBO!" as some people seem to think it is; In Magic, as in most games, Death is the greatest Crowd Control. Someone is playing a Combo Deck/Combo General? KILL THEM! Use cards like Extract or Jester's Cap to remove the Combo from their deck.
Krenko, Mob Boss can easily over run a combo player before they can build up steam. That's one example out of a great many.
Combo is better in commander because if you cap 1 combo player the next one kills you. I fund it easier to beat 3 players than 1 with combo that's the issue. If the split is 2:2 combo is at an advantage if it's 3:1 the 1 is always disadvantage regardless of who is where ... Also in an unknown meta you can hide your combo until win turn because every deck wants to play tutors not just combo.
Actually, the French ban list makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MP one lol. It's kept a competitive meta going for years now. More to your point Zur wasn't combo really until they banned Vanishing. After that he dominated with an Esper combo/control build. Derevi just locked you out of the game and overwhelmed you.
Except these rules dont do that .... at all ..... if I played in that LGS I would show up with a different turn 4 deck every week to show them thier rules don't accomplish anything. Or even better a deck that searches 3 times a turn so they just get to sit and watch me goldfish every turn. If I was the op and had no money I would play the same deck stick psychosis crawler in labmans spot and execute tbs same combo as a giant **** you to all of them
Except these rules dont do that .... at all ..... if I played in that LGS I would show up with a different turn 4 deck every week to show them thier rules don't accomplish anything. Or even better a deck that searches 3 times a turn so they just get to sit and watch me goldfish every turn. If I was the op and had no money I would play the same deck stick psychosis crawler in labmans spot and execute tbs same combo as a giant **** you to all of them
Actually, the French ban list makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MP one lol. It's kept a competitive meta going for years now. More to your point Zur wasn't combo really until they banned Vanishing. After that he dominated with an Esper combo/control build. Derevi just locked you out of the game and overwhelmed you.
I hate that stuff like Back to Basics or Ancestral Visions is on there. Visions isn't too bad, and Back to Basics, among other Non-Basic hosers, help keep newer/poorer players on a an equal footing with those people who own Taiga's and crap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
It says they ban infinite combos.... Just don't go infinite. Go for 7000 mana of each color, or each player draws 102 cards, or i have 100 90/90s. Their rules say nothing about making a lot of mana, drawing a lot of cards, or hitting with a lot of power. If they get technical after this then you should talk to the store owner about it but unless you have talked to the owner about the policy The owner won't know your feeling on this.
Actually, the French ban list makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MP one lol. It's kept a competitive meta going for years now. More to your point Zur wasn't combo really until they banned Vanishing. After that he dominated with an Esper combo/control build. Derevi just locked you out of the game and overwhelmed you.
I hate that stuff like Back to Basics or Ancestral Visions is on there. Visions isn't too bad, and Back to Basics, among other Non-Basic hosers, help keep newer/poorer players on a an equal footing with those people who own Taiga's and crap.
Understandable but it's a competitive format so it's never going to be friendly to newer/poorer players. B2B hoses far too many decks in a format where blue is already dominant. And AV is draw 3 for one. It's silly. In 1v1 any advantage is really multiplied so they try to get rid of things that are near unrecoverable from if you don't happen to have an answer that turn. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread too much more here.
Too many restrictions make formats miserable. Too many restrictions get really arbitrary and player perceptions are a fickle thing.
That said, my favorite EDH lists are based around Azusa and Kozilek and I don't infinite much but I roll for high powered combat and expect the kitchen sink, so all bets are off. Your LGS situation has to be frustrating.
Actually, the French ban list makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MP one lol. It's kept a competitive meta going for years now. More to your point Zur wasn't combo really until they banned Vanishing. After that he dominated with an Esper combo/control build. Derevi just locked you out of the game and overwhelmed you.
I hate that stuff like Back to Basics or Ancestral Visions is on there. Visions isn't too bad, and Back to Basics, among other Non-Basic hosers, help keep newer/poorer players on a an equal footing with those people who own Taiga's and crap.
Back to Basics is on the banlist for a pretty simple reason - Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, the most ironic being in the history of taxation. When coupled with other effects, B2B is crippling to the point of game ending. It's really easy for a GA player to go turn 2 Signet (or nothing) into B2B + 1/0cc counter or GAAIV ?+ 0cc counter. At this point, the game's already in such a gigantic tempo swing in terms of available resources that getting out of it is quite tough. The best way to evade this was lots of little critters, basics, or other mana sources. It effectively narrowed the metagame into something that can't reasonably describe EDH as a format. It's Legacy-lite, and isn't how we wanted the format to be.
On "poor" players - In a truly good 1v1 environment, deck cost counts for almost none of the variance in win rates. After the initial buy in that's true for all formats, not having a deck littered with duals and such doesn't lessen your chance of victory, only how you go about it.
Back to the main topic of the thread -
The power of house rules and the blanket granting of them to each individual playgroup has made for unintended usages. I don't believe house rules were given as a means of shifting the meta, but of fixing any possible problems that couldn't be sorted out otherwise. We've been instead seeing LGS' take a social format with a social banlist, and decide to turn it into a multiplayer competitive format, without addressing a tuned banlist or ruleset. So when simple, powerful strategies end up winning, house rules eats them. Gotta keep it balanced, yo. For players who don't understand how the format itself changes based on the mindset of the players, they look at these flashy plays and grow angry. As soon as prize support is offered, the format changes from a primarily social one to a competitive one. If prizes are on the line, you're far less likely to see Divine Intervention.deck, and more likely to see Azami.rekt.
What's worse, those same players look at a 1v1 EDH format and laugh at it. "It's not meant to be a competitive format," with the primary point of interest being the banlist and how it differs from the RC's list. Well yeah, it's a format with a very simple goal, with much less variance. It's a battle between two players, there are no politics. Politics - a social device. Competitive Multiplayer EDH is a format that's trying to take a social banlist and ruleset, and then use house rules to try and "balance" the format. These rules invariably end up forcing games to extreme, unnecessary lengths. Let the goddamn game end. The goal of a competitive deck is to beat the opponent in the most efficient way possible, while also stopping the opponent(s, in this case) from doing the same. Banning "infinite combos" and "alternate win cons" is both vague and pointless. The methods to stop both of these already exist in the card pool. Most players have yet to understand that if they want to win over all else, they need to change the way their deck plays and interacts.
I've been a long-time advocate for the banning of Hermit Druid in this social format, for both its combo power and its card selectivity. I also have been a victim of this sort of thinking, that multiplayer EDH can, in its current form, exist as a semi-competitive format. To that end, why not ban one of the most efficient and quickest combo engines? Well - if you're actively trying to stop a Hermit Druid deck, it can be done with dedication in a 1v1 deck. You won't beat anything else, but that's not the goal. If we add an additional two players, that's a Norinload more removal. It's not an issue. Combo isn't an issue, it's the attempt to twist the format into what it isn't.
So we come to the question. Do I build a new deck? Is Azami dead, with this sort of targeted hate? No, the problem is far deeper than that.
If competitive multiplayer EDH is to become an actual thing, then instead of trying to abuse house rules to change our beloved social format, there needs to be a dedicated approach to both rules and bannings.
Look at Duel Commander, and how the competitiveness has grown and flourished. It can be done on the small scale, but moving to three+ players will be an entirely more difficult challenge. I wonder if (someone) will be up to it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
Actually, the French ban list makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MP one lol. It's kept a competitive meta going for years now. More to your point Zur wasn't combo really until they banned Vanishing. After that he dominated with an Esper combo/control build. Derevi just locked you out of the game and overwhelmed you.
I hate that stuff like Back to Basics or Ancestral Visions is on there. Visions isn't too bad, and Back to Basics, among other Non-Basic hosers, help keep newer/poorer players on a an equal footing with those people who own Taiga's and crap.
Back to Basics is on the banlist for a pretty simple reason - Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, the most ironic being in the history of taxation. When coupled with other effects, B2B is crippling to the point of game ending. It's really easy for a GA player to go turn 2 Signet (or nothing) into B2B + 1/0cc counter or GAAIV ?+ 0cc counter. At this point, the game's already in such a gigantic tempo swing in terms of available resources that getting out of it is quite tough. The best way to evade this was lots of little critters, basics, or other mana sources. It effectively narrowed the metagame into something that can't reasonably describe EDH as a format. It's Legacy-lite, and isn't how we wanted the format to be.
Hmmm, that might make sense. Was GAA the only commander to run such? Or was it just THAT overbearing?
On "poor" players - In a truly good 1v1 environment, deck cost counts for almost none of the variance in win rates. After the initial buy in that's true for all formats, not having a deck littered with duals and such doesn't lessen your chance of victory, only how you go about it.
Not true; a deck that costs $1000 is most certainly going to win over a deck that costs $200 if only for the consistency that the extra money brings (In the form of Tutors and similar), not to mention the just plain old higher powered creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
I don't believe you play other formats after reading your thoughts on them. It speaks volumes about how you've developed your opinions.
You keep blatantly ignoring that we are not discussing "social" EDH, we are discussing a prize based tournament structure where the traditional standards of the format fall apart. The RC admits this, why can't you?
You keep saying "battlecruiser" over and over again as if it means anything. It doesn't.
and you surely have played a lot of other formats and you played a lot of them, since you think that outside EDH green is more represented than blue and ramp-aggro is more dominant than combo
"battlecruiser" is a real magic term. wizards used it on official articles. if you choose to ignore it or pretend that "it doesn't mean anything", it's not my problem. EDH started as a battlecruiser format, playing lands until you can play your elder dragon is nothing but battlecruiser. things have changed since that period, but some people still want to play almost like that, even in a "prize based tournament" (still amatorial). if you choose to ignore this fact it's not my problem.
so if you want to play combo and so on, fine. but if people want to play battlecruiser, let them be.
So it's ok for other people not to like how we want to play, but we can't not like how they want to play.
Got it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
So it's ok for other people not to like how we want to play, but we can't not like how they want to play.
Got it.
Of course it is okay for you to dislike how they play. But that doesn't mean they have to care about that and adapt their playgroup just to accomodate you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
So it's ok for other people not to like how we want to play, but we can't not like how they want to play.
Got it.
Of course it is okay for you to dislike how they play. But that doesn't mean they have to care about that and adapt their playgroup just to accomodate you.
It should work both ways, I mean if you all respect each other that is.
So it's ok for other people not to like how we want to play, but we can't not like how they want to play.
Got it.
Of course it is okay for you to dislike how they play. But that doesn't mean they have to care about that and adapt their playgroup just to accomodate you.
So I have to care and adapt to the No Combo Rule, but they don't have to adapt to my way of play?
Sweet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
there is nothing so off-putting about self-aggrandizing competitive magic nerds as when they tell you that they're only interested in your personal edification, that you would be a BETTER player if only you played the most efficient decks & playstyles against others doing the same, that they're only trying to show you the way & ~improve you~
taste exists in magic and taste in ANYTHING is sacred. if you find a group with taste that isn't yours either adapt or
don't
play
w
that
group
that is all there is to it. just don't ******* touch it, it's not yours to influence and you deserve whatever reaction you get if you proselytize at them
If my friends don't like playing with lands should I accept it or try to teach them to not be wrong? I guess not playing the game is worth it right?
Oh, you went the "let's make an extreme exaggeration that doesn't even have anything to do with the question to push my way of seeing things as the correct way".
If a group of friends/a playgroup doesn't like playing with lands and they have agreed not to play with them, why do you feel that you are entitled to play with lands when you play with them?
But as I stated before that is a terrible analogy. You feel that you should "teach them not to be wrong". The problem is that first and foremost "wrong" is a very subjective thing in a format that encourages house-rules.
And I also get the feeling that you don't want to teach them not to be wrong, you want to teach them to play the way you like. And as I, yet again stated, previously: If they want to play the game in a way wherein you cannot derive any entertainment then find another playgroup., don't try to force the playgroup into your mold as that would not only ruin their game experience but yours aswell.
I apologize if the text is poor from a grammatical or spelling point of view, english/american isn't my first language.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is a Spirit of the Format? Does it destroy lands? Cause if not, I don't care.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
I don't believe you play other formats after reading your thoughts on them. It speaks volumes about how you've developed your opinions.
You keep blatantly ignoring that we are not discussing "social" EDH, we are discussing a prize based tournament structure where the traditional standards of the format fall apart. The RC admits this, why can't you?
You keep saying "battlecruiser" over and over again as if it means anything. It doesn't.
Except Cutthroat isn't as "COMBO COMBO COMBO!" as some people seem to think it is; In Magic, as in most games, Death is the greatest Crowd Control. Someone is playing a Combo Deck/Combo General? KILL THEM! Use cards like Extract or Jester's Cap to remove the Combo from their deck.
Krenko, Mob Boss can easily over run a combo player before they can build up steam. That's one example out of a great many.
Also, if you look at the 1v1 SUPER COMPETITIVE CUTTHROAT BANLIST!, even as stupid as that banlist is, NONE of the commanders listed as banned are Combo Commanders. You have Braids, Cabal Minion, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, Edric, spymaster of Trest, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, Rofelllos, Llanowar Emissary, and Zur the Enchanter. None of those are hard core combo commanders. Sure, Derevi and Zur are mostly used, but they have other uses, particularily Voltron.
You don't need to Combo to be competitive, you just need to be competitive to be competitive. Funny how that works.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
you sound fun
About as fun as anyone else.
I hate that stuff like Back to Basics or Ancestral Visions is on there. Visions isn't too bad, and Back to Basics, among other Non-Basic hosers, help keep newer/poorer players on a an equal footing with those people who own Taiga's and crap.
Understandable but it's a competitive format so it's never going to be friendly to newer/poorer players. B2B hoses far too many decks in a format where blue is already dominant. And AV is draw 3 for one. It's silly. In 1v1 any advantage is really multiplied so they try to get rid of things that are near unrecoverable from if you don't happen to have an answer that turn. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread too much more here.
That said, my favorite EDH lists are based around Azusa and Kozilek and I don't infinite much but I roll for high powered combat and expect the kitchen sink, so all bets are off. Your LGS situation has to be frustrating.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
I'll elbow in here -
Ancestral Vision isn't banned under the French ruleset. Ancestral Recall - its significantly more powerful progenitor - is.
Back to Basics is on the banlist for a pretty simple reason - Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, the most ironic being in the history of taxation. When coupled with other effects, B2B is crippling to the point of game ending. It's really easy for a GA player to go turn 2 Signet (or nothing) into B2B + 1/0cc counter or GAAIV ?+ 0cc counter. At this point, the game's already in such a gigantic tempo swing in terms of available resources that getting out of it is quite tough. The best way to evade this was lots of little critters, basics, or other mana sources. It effectively narrowed the metagame into something that can't reasonably describe EDH as a format. It's Legacy-lite, and isn't how we wanted the format to be.
On "poor" players - In a truly good 1v1 environment, deck cost counts for almost none of the variance in win rates. After the initial buy in that's true for all formats, not having a deck littered with duals and such doesn't lessen your chance of victory, only how you go about it.
Back to the main topic of the thread -
The power of house rules and the blanket granting of them to each individual playgroup has made for unintended usages. I don't believe house rules were given as a means of shifting the meta, but of fixing any possible problems that couldn't be sorted out otherwise. We've been instead seeing LGS' take a social format with a social banlist, and decide to turn it into a multiplayer competitive format, without addressing a tuned banlist or ruleset. So when simple, powerful strategies end up winning, house rules eats them. Gotta keep it balanced, yo. For players who don't understand how the format itself changes based on the mindset of the players, they look at these flashy plays and grow angry. As soon as prize support is offered, the format changes from a primarily social one to a competitive one. If prizes are on the line, you're far less likely to see Divine Intervention.deck, and more likely to see Azami.rekt.
What's worse, those same players look at a 1v1 EDH format and laugh at it. "It's not meant to be a competitive format," with the primary point of interest being the banlist and how it differs from the RC's list. Well yeah, it's a format with a very simple goal, with much less variance. It's a battle between two players, there are no politics. Politics - a social device. Competitive Multiplayer EDH is a format that's trying to take a social banlist and ruleset, and then use house rules to try and "balance" the format. These rules invariably end up forcing games to extreme, unnecessary lengths. Let the goddamn game end. The goal of a competitive deck is to beat the opponent in the most efficient way possible, while also stopping the opponent(s, in this case) from doing the same. Banning "infinite combos" and "alternate win cons" is both vague and pointless. The methods to stop both of these already exist in the card pool. Most players have yet to understand that if they want to win over all else, they need to change the way their deck plays and interacts.
I've been a long-time advocate for the banning of Hermit Druid in this social format, for both its combo power and its card selectivity. I also have been a victim of this sort of thinking, that multiplayer EDH can, in its current form, exist as a semi-competitive format. To that end, why not ban one of the most efficient and quickest combo engines? Well - if you're actively trying to stop a Hermit Druid deck, it can be done with dedication in a 1v1 deck. You won't beat anything else, but that's not the goal. If we add an additional two players, that's a Norinload more removal. It's not an issue. Combo isn't an issue, it's the attempt to twist the format into what it isn't.
So we come to the question. Do I build a new deck? Is Azami dead, with this sort of targeted hate? No, the problem is far deeper than that.
If competitive multiplayer EDH is to become an actual thing, then instead of trying to abuse house rules to change our beloved social format, there needs to be a dedicated approach to both rules and bannings.
Look at Duel Commander, and how the competitiveness has grown and flourished. It can be done on the small scale, but moving to three+ players will be an entirely more difficult challenge. I wonder if (someone) will be up to it?
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
OW! ME EYE!
I could have sworn......
Heh, maybe I do need new glasses.....
Hmmm, that might make sense. Was GAA the only commander to run such? Or was it just THAT overbearing?
Not true; a deck that costs $1000 is most certainly going to win over a deck that costs $200 if only for the consistency that the extra money brings (In the form of Tutors and similar), not to mention the just plain old higher powered creatures.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
A competitive multiplayer banlist is not practical, possible, or needed. Politics render it impossible, and that's fine.
I think people need to start taking the Duel "variant" seriously. The multiplayer format will be better off.
So it's ok for other people not to like how we want to play, but we can't not like how they want to play.
Got it.
Of course it is okay for you to dislike how they play. But that doesn't mean they have to care about that and adapt their playgroup just to accomodate you.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
It should work both ways, I mean if you all respect each other that is.
So I have to care and adapt to the No Combo Rule, but they don't have to adapt to my way of play?
Sweet.
seems reasonable
If my friends don't like playing with lands should I accept it or try to teach them to not be wrong? I guess not playing the game is worth it right?
there is nothing so off-putting about self-aggrandizing competitive magic nerds as when they tell you that they're only interested in your personal edification, that you would be a BETTER player if only you played the most efficient decks & playstyles against others doing the same, that they're only trying to show you the way & ~improve you~
taste exists in magic and taste in ANYTHING is sacred. if you find a group with taste that isn't yours either adapt or
don't
play
w
that
group
that is all there is to it. just don't ******* touch it, it's not yours to influence and you deserve whatever reaction you get if you proselytize at them
Yep, pretty much sums it up. If you want to play with your combo-decks then find a playgroup that likes to play against them.
Oh, you went the "let's make an extreme exaggeration that doesn't even have anything to do with the question to push my way of seeing things as the correct way".
If a group of friends/a playgroup doesn't like playing with lands and they have agreed not to play with them, why do you feel that you are entitled to play with lands when you play with them?
But as I stated before that is a terrible analogy. You feel that you should "teach them not to be wrong". The problem is that first and foremost "wrong" is a very subjective thing in a format that encourages house-rules.
And I also get the feeling that you don't want to teach them not to be wrong, you want to teach them to play the way you like. And as I, yet again stated, previously: If they want to play the game in a way wherein you cannot derive any entertainment then find another playgroup., don't try to force the playgroup into your mold as that would not only ruin their game experience but yours aswell.
I apologize if the text is poor from a grammatical or spelling point of view, english/american isn't my first language.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor