Having access to any converted mana cost there are some effects that completely lock out the opponent if cast once a turn such as gather specimens, submerge, endure, or master warcraft.
Pretty obviously not worth the fagility or the inherent 2 for 1 from removal in any constructed format other than EDH however.
In limited, expect this guy to combo up with cheap removal, counterspells, or fog effects and be a potential bomb.
I think ignoring the value of the cards finks have to get the nod, because knight puts you in GW aggro most likely and you just don't want to be playing that deck against kitchen finks. Finks gives you more options and given the path both of those cards lead you down it takes the most powerful card in the pack against you away as well.
Seems unplayable in constructed without some kind of arcbound ravager for humans.
Even in reanimator you will draw 2, maybe 3 cards off it when you go off. And why would you even want to draw cards when you go off, when your goal should be just killing them?
What does netdecking have to do with a variety of decks. It should be obvious that they're not correlated. Technology is only making it easier and yet there are a variety of decks. Therefore, the correlation does not work. It must be something else (hint, it's properly balanced sets).
When formats are not properly balanced easy proliferation of information causes them to be "solved" faster and the best deck and best tuned variations of it surface more quickly than if that information were disseminated more slowly. Netdecking certainly isn't part of the solution, but it can make the problem more pronounced.
A more interesting line of thought might be that Ravnica, both past and present has represented a time of relatively diverse standard decks. Which may be enough to say that there is a correlation between Ravnica and its elements (multicolor with a focus on color pairings) and well balanced formats. There is a strong case to be made that having strong mana fixing and dual lands in standard is ultimately the key to a diverse format.
Its not about misplay, is about that part very similar to poker, were a control/aggro/combo player could bluff in various ways...and the opponent had to make complex decisions...
Today decks play by themselves and are too dipendent from draws.
You can find that thing still present in legacy and to a lesser extent in modern.
If you think that no opportunities exist in today's standard to bluff profitably I really don't know what to say. I've won plenty of games walking my opponent in circles around Syncopates and Restoration Angels I don't have.
how are meta decisions a "skill"? you can make the right meta choice but not play the right matchups. but somebody running your same 75 gets the right matchups and you have 2 different records.
Because both of those records are likely better than a player who makes bad metagame calls. Just because it is a skill, and there are rewards for displaying that skill, doesn't mean it is the sole determining factor in success or failure. Luck is a prepared person being confronted with an opportunity. Just because you don't control access to that opportunity doesn't mean you can take it without being prepared.
How important much is piloting a deck today?
we already had netdeck to cover deckbuilding, now it seems that the only skill left in magic is:
-meta calling
-choosing to keep or not the starting hand
-sideboarding
I hate to break it to you, but these three things have always been chief among constructed magic's primary skills. In a world of Magic Online, and so much strategic information available online its not reasonable to expect that players will lack the ability to play a sound technical game and its not reasonable to expect players to misplay very much in the course of a tournament.
The guts of the matchup boil down to what the matchup is, how each player sideboards, and what hands they keep, it should be no surprise that these are the principal factors of determining success. Some decks may offer more potential to misplay to their pilot by being more decision intensive, but that is a matter of practice and metagame knowledge as much as it is a factor skill. That amount that skill matters over metagame decisions (and making this is absolutely a skill by the way) is much more a function of the community you play in than it is an indication of the game as a whole.
One last point on this and I guess I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the pro-RTW opinons. But consider this:
If RTW is so good for a state, why then where provisions put into the Michigan RTW law that exclude police and fire departments (which were proposed by a woman rep (R) whose husband’s union falls under that exception? If RTW is so awesome and not really a union buster they why wouldn't we want police and fire under the RTW umbrella?
The goal of RTW is to attract for profit business into the state, fire and police departments not being run for profit means applying the laws to them doesn't accomplish anything other than pissing those unions off.
I'm very much against right to work laws, but I understand why you would exempt certain unions.
So then you're okay with telling a black person to get back to the cotton fields? It doesn't come from a hatred of black people, it's an ode to traditional times. Do some people use it in racist ways? It's very likely. But the actual statement isn't racist.
No, but we're also not pretending "Women have always been the primary victims of war" isn't rooted in misandry either.
Well, no, because it's not misandry if there isn't any actual hatred of men in it. It might be perceived as misandry, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
The fact that you can say this with a straight face, and at the same time say everything you say about misogyny is absolutely baffling. This has got to be one of the most oxymoronic positions I've ever seen.
What's disparaging about men in Clinton's quote? She isn't diminishing how men suffer in war. She's not pushing men down to prop women up. I might not agree with her, and I think she could have worded it better, but it doesn't read as misandry to me.
She is trivializing their suffering and their general worth by implying that their lives are worth less than the emotional anguish of the women who cared about them, and the burden of taking on the responsibilities they leave behind.
Their very lives are worth incomparably less than the emotional effect they have on women. Her state of mind is the primary concern, his life is an afterthought. How can you not see that as disparaging towards men?
Sedraxis ArchmageUUUBR
Creature - Zombie Wizard
When enters the battlefield return target non-land permanent to its owner's hand, if you control a black permanent that player discards a card, if you control a red permanent ~ deals 3 damage to that player
Unearth UBR
3/4
But... you win product at Limited play! I don't see what you're getting at here.
People who are good at limited win product playing limited. People that are good at limited are usually also very good at evaluating the power level of new cards, and as such tend to be good at trading for value, and probably can put standard decks together on the cheap thanks to those skills.
The people who don't have those skills probably don't win a lot of product playing limited, the people that have them don't need any advice on how to keep their standard costs down, they already know how.
Actually, I think you're overcomplicating something, and not seeing the big picture here. Your explanation seems to think that players like decks only due to mechanical differences. Such is not the case. Not only do many competitive players change deck to adapt to whatever they consider the best bet in a metagame, independently of deck type, there are also many players who choose decks thematically instead of mechanically. How does that figure into your problem-solving approach?
Personally, over the length of my standard times, I've played every single deck type. Started with tempo, next deck was aggro, then a prison/lock deck, back to tempo, then a combo deck, then a control deck, then an aggro deck, and so on. Wait, now that I think of it, I've never played midrange in standard. How odd... Anyway, I digress. How do I fit into your "problem solving" view? Some decks I chose because I thought they were the best bet, some I chose because I liked how they played in the metagame, one of them I chose because of how I loved a single card and another, simply because it was insanely fun to play. How do you figure my deck choices in your approach ?
I never said the decks you understand and play better are the ones you choose, or the only viable options, or even that your intuition of them is the only factor in making a decision. I have played plenty of control, tempo, ramp, midrange and combo despite my leaning towards aggro. That said, I do factor which decks I tend to play better into my decision of what to play. It is not the only factor I take into account, and it is not the one I weight the heaviest, but it is a factor.
If Gatecrash is anything like RtR, pretty much any color combination would be viable. Imagine having about 15+ decks all with a decent chance of doing well.
This happened in the original Ravnica block, and it happened in early Modern as well, basically any format with shocklands breeds at least initially, a lot of diversity.
Being a creature opens up a few interesting combos like Cerulean Wisps, Energy Arc, Savage Beating, or Hope and Glory.
Having access to any converted mana cost there are some effects that completely lock out the opponent if cast once a turn such as gather specimens, submerge, endure, or master warcraft.
Pretty obviously not worth the fagility or the inherent 2 for 1 from removal in any constructed format other than EDH however.
In limited, expect this guy to combo up with cheap removal, counterspells, or fog effects and be a potential bomb.
A more interesting line of thought might be that Ravnica, both past and present has represented a time of relatively diverse standard decks. Which may be enough to say that there is a correlation between Ravnica and its elements (multicolor with a focus on color pairings) and well balanced formats. There is a strong case to be made that having strong mana fixing and dual lands in standard is ultimately the key to a diverse format.
Because both of those records are likely better than a player who makes bad metagame calls. Just because it is a skill, and there are rewards for displaying that skill, doesn't mean it is the sole determining factor in success or failure. Luck is a prepared person being confronted with an opportunity. Just because you don't control access to that opportunity doesn't mean you can take it without being prepared.
The guts of the matchup boil down to what the matchup is, how each player sideboards, and what hands they keep, it should be no surprise that these are the principal factors of determining success. Some decks may offer more potential to misplay to their pilot by being more decision intensive, but that is a matter of practice and metagame knowledge as much as it is a factor skill. That amount that skill matters over metagame decisions (and making this is absolutely a skill by the way) is much more a function of the community you play in than it is an indication of the game as a whole.
I'm very much against right to work laws, but I understand why you would exempt certain unions.
Their very lives are worth incomparably less than the emotional effect they have on women. Her state of mind is the primary concern, his life is an afterthought. How can you not see that as disparaging towards men?
Creature - Illusion
Defender
10/1
Creature - Zombie Wizard
When enters the battlefield return target non-land permanent to its owner's hand, if you control a black permanent that player discards a card, if you control a red permanent ~ deals 3 damage to that player
Unearth UBR
3/4
Next: WWWUB
The people who don't have those skills probably don't win a lot of product playing limited, the people that have them don't need any advice on how to keep their standard costs down, they already know how.
Wait what???
This happened in the original Ravnica block, and it happened in early Modern as well, basically any format with shocklands breeds at least initially, a lot of diversity.