This thread makes it rather obvious one of the big reasons we do it. Look at all of you who hate it so very much, find it distracting etc. Obviously tilting your opponent is a good thing.
RDW is hard to do well with in standard because the format is chock full of anti-aggro or super aggro, both of which do pretty well against red. Lingering Souls, Sword of War and Peace, Timely reinforcements, Bonfire, Titans, basically.
This. The meta is far to volatile for RDW at the moment. It doesn't help that the burn is absolutely terrible, and your best 1 drop is either Stromkirk or Vexing devil, both which aren't that great, or at least aren't Goblin Guide/Figure
As much as I hate to admit this (I've done a lot of reading and research today) I have to agree with this.
In fact, I am now quite concerned about the state of Magic today. From what I've read, and not by just forum members like myself who, quite honestly, don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, it appears that the voices that DO matter are quite vocal about Delver getting the ban hammer.
I didn't know that this was indeed such a serious issue, but it is.
What's more disturbing (yes, I know...WotC has to think about its bottom line before anything else so there is no need to remind me) is that this kind of vocal tirade can so easily force WotC's hand when, in reality, nothing is ban worthy. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen ban worthy standards and this ain't one of them.
But, it's probably not going to matter. At the next banning announcement, most likely Delver or Snapcaster will bite the dust.
This is going to set a terrible precedent for this game. It will be two consecutive standards where cards were banned. Not only will this lead to a more liberal ban policy for future standards but will also lead to great buyer insecurity in the process.
Think not?
Tell me, when WotC releases whatever set in the future and you see X card that is apparently busted to hell and suddenly commands a price tag of $25 to $35 and everybody has to have it and it's popping up in every blue or black or white or whatever color deck, how confident are you going to feel getting it knowing that there is a very good chance that before that standard is over the card will probably be banned?
We are traveling down a very slippery slope folks. The MtG public is becoming less tolerant of "powerful" decks and as a result, WotC is being forced into a policy of "ban it' even if it's not totally oppressive as decks of past have been that DESERVED to be banned.
Yeah, I know...this sounds like the guy standing on the corner with the big sign "Repent...The End Is Nigh" but this is how it starts. If we get into a mode where people "expect" bans if the meta isn't nice and perfect like they want and that's just what will happen. Before you know it, the banned list looks like Yugioh's.
Either that, or WotC waters down this game so much in order to avoid OP cards (Homelands) that the game becomes dull and boring and nobody plays it anyway.
Either way, I don't see anything good coming from this if WotC caves in to public pressure. Because next standard, when the next 30 to 50% deck hits, people are going to be like, "Well, you banned Delver and this deck is about the same win % so yeah, ban this sucker too."
And WotC does that because now players are used to the easy ban policy and the cycle continues and doesn't end.
Everybody here who is screaming for banning, fine. If that's what you want, so be it.
But be careful what you wish for.
Because you may not like where it leads.
What the hell are you talking about? What proof do you have to back this up? The only cards in many many years that were banned is SFM and Jace, and everyone can agree it was the most disgustingly oppressive thing since affinity, or worse. Not only did WOTC wait another 3 months for another Ban time, despite the call for one, but they explicitly said that they did not do this simply because many pro's thought the ban was a good idea.
So what are you talking about? What proof do you have that says because Chapin and Sam Black say it should get banned it will.
Stop thinking in terms of "I like color X" Thats not what the games about. It's just based on the cards available to you. Be flexible, play whats fun, as opposed to pigeon-holing yourself to certain colors.
At any tournament, I just let them read the card. Casually, with friends, especially in multiplayer, I just tell them quickly the relevant information.
If theres a big wall of text, such as say, Goyf, instead of them reading all of it, I may aswell say "he's just a 4/5 dude"
Every time I read a post like this I want to slam my head against the desk in front of me.
Even if Finkel had wanted to "push for a game loss", it wouldn't have mattered for 2 reasons.
1) Players don't decide what constitutes a Game Loss Penalty. The Head Judge does by following the IPG.
2) The rules are codified so that a situation like this CAN be downgraded.
Finkel is a class act, yes; however, all the people talking about "how they wouldn't turn down X or Y" seriously need to learn what they're talking about before making inaccurate and (quite frankly) stupid statements.
And now I want to slam my head against the desk...
I don't know what your source is, but on video coverage, twitter, etc etc, it's been said that Finkel was asked, and he replied that he wanted to play it out. The rules say Hayne was getting a game loss. It's not a maybe, unless they decide to change things, Hayne loses. Because of Finkels intervention, and the fact that Hayne called it on himself he was let off the hook.
I am very certain that had Finkel replied that he wanted the rules to be enfornced, they would have been. So yes, Finkel did essentially have the option of chosing an easy win.
A lot of you who say you would do this must be very rich. I'm sorry, but no matter how nice of a person I am, I am not going to essentially turn down a guarantee for what, 12.5k, with the possibility of much, much more.
I feel as though a lot of you have this wrong, as Sheldon explained incorrectly. There is no "Pushing for a game loss".
As per the rules, if Jon had said nothing, Hayne would have gotten a game loss. No questions asked. It is only through Finkels intervention that he did not get one.
So my LGS has terrible prize support. First place gets $15, second $10 and third $5, all in store credit. That's if there are around 30 people. Around 20 people, it goes $10 for first and $5 for second. The entry fee is 5 dollars or buy 3 packs (a 12 dollar value.)
So the reason I spouted all that info is because I (and my friends) think the store has terrible prize support. I was wondering what kind of prizes your local LGS offers in addition to what the entry requirements are. Do you think it's good? Bad? It would be nice to know since I haven't been to any other FNM to see. I did see online that a place with a $15 registration fee offers $200 (store credit) for first place. (This place )
Everything you pay in entry should be put back into prize support. Obviously this isn't the case here, so your being ripped off.
The entire reason a store hosts tournaments is not to profit off entry fee, it's to hold a venue for competitive play, giving your playerbase incentive to spend money at your store, buy your product, and bring in more customers.
If your TO is pocketing entry fee I would get your player base to confront him. All of that should be going back to the players.
This. The meta is far to volatile for RDW at the moment. It doesn't help that the burn is absolutely terrible, and your best 1 drop is either Stromkirk or Vexing devil, both which aren't that great, or at least aren't Goblin Guide/Figure
What the hell are you talking about? What proof do you have to back this up? The only cards in many many years that were banned is SFM and Jace, and everyone can agree it was the most disgustingly oppressive thing since affinity, or worse. Not only did WOTC wait another 3 months for another Ban time, despite the call for one, but they explicitly said that they did not do this simply because many pro's thought the ban was a good idea.
So what are you talking about? What proof do you have that says because Chapin and Sam Black say it should get banned it will.
Paper sleeves? Care to elaborate?
If theres a big wall of text, such as say, Goyf, instead of them reading all of it, I may aswell say "he's just a 4/5 dude"
And now I want to slam my head against the desk...
I don't know what your source is, but on video coverage, twitter, etc etc, it's been said that Finkel was asked, and he replied that he wanted to play it out. The rules say Hayne was getting a game loss. It's not a maybe, unless they decide to change things, Hayne loses. Because of Finkels intervention, and the fact that Hayne called it on himself he was let off the hook.
I am very certain that had Finkel replied that he wanted the rules to be enfornced, they would have been. So yes, Finkel did essentially have the option of chosing an easy win.
As per the rules, if Jon had said nothing, Hayne would have gotten a game loss. No questions asked. It is only through Finkels intervention that he did not get one.
Everything you pay in entry should be put back into prize support. Obviously this isn't the case here, so your being ripped off.
If your TO is pocketing entry fee I would get your player base to confront him. All of that should be going back to the players.