- llMaGiCll
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years and 20 days
Last active Wed, Jun, 7 2017 22:03:27
- 0 Followers
- 73 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
Jun 28, 2016Malpheas posted a message on Mox Opal 4-of in MUD?I want to see the list you come up with. If you would like to test let me know. I've played MUD a year or so and am familiar with the deck a little.Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
-
1
CadaverousBl00m posted a message on Control Magic at RarePosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from MrMoustache »I've seen a few people in this thread say it should be rare for Limited. Is Control Magic really that overpowered in Limited? It seems to me like it's a good card, maybe even a bomb, but it doesn't seem like any deck that has it automatically goes 3-0. Can someone explain to me why this should be at rare for Limited?
You made me hunt for the original quote from WotC. I think I managed to find it.
From Aaron Forsythe's now well-and-truly outdated Tumblr...
They were looking at the win% of certain cards in Limited on MTGO as far back as M10. Mind Control had turned up at #6 in M10, and climbed all the way up to #2 in M11. It sounds like they discovered this before they threw it in at uncommon once again in M12, judging by Aaron's post. What it meant was that Mind Control was so powerful at uncommon in M10/11/12 Limited that it literally unbalanced the Limited format for those sets. They don't want an auto-win card at uncommon - that's not how Limited is supposed to work.
And this is with Mind Control... imagine what Control Magic would do! -
6
Fiveod posted a message on Control Magic at RarePosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from Pylgrim »
Do you think they would put Karakas and Force of will in a "normal price" pack? If you answer "yes", know that /current/ owners of those cards would like a word with you. Cards like this offset and make more special opening a $150 card in your $10 pack. There's really no other way this could be.
I really couldn't possibly care less what current owners of Karakas and Force of Will think. They knew what they were getting in to with a collectible card game. Values of cards are not guaranteed to stay high and continue rising. Plenty of cards I own have significantly dropped in price for various reasons. Frankly Wizards dropped the ball big time by allowing things to get this bad in the first place but something needs to be done. Games are games, the stock market is for investing.
I like how you think worthless cards make valuable cards "more special". More like they create an all-or nothing sensation of gambling in order to exploit human psychology. -
3
poison counter posted a message on Control Magic at RareLimited justifies why something cannot be uncommon. It never justifies why something should be rare. We should be getting underprinted ~4 dollar commander cards as the junk, not less than a dollar bookmarks.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
2
Deep_Woods posted a message on Control Magic at RarePosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from Tamrian »If I open this, I hope it's foil. As far as I know it has never been foiled.
You are right. Sadly this will be a 50 cent rare in a 10$ pack because they cant really have it an uncommon for drafting. Foils will be sweet though. -
1
Tamrian posted a message on Control Magic at RareIf I open this, I hope it's foil. As far as I know it has never been foiled.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
1
Beralt posted a message on They Shouldn't Nerf Lodestone GolemShops will continue to be a very viable archetype in Vintage - it just may not be the default best deck anymore.Posted in: Vintage (Type 1) -
2
spawnofhastur posted a message on They Shouldn't Nerf Lodestone GolemCaleb Durward had something to say about this, which was that in Shops, Lodestone Golem was basically two cards in one. You got a Juggernaut and a Thorn of Amethyst stapled too it - both cards that Workshops played prior to the printing of Lodestone Golem - for the price of just a Juggernaut.Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
Considering that the draw of Vintage is that you can cast all your high power level spells, I'm not surprised that Lodestone Golem was seen to be too efficient. -
2
dLANCER posted a message on They Shouldn't Nerf Lodestone GolemThey should have banned the broken land.Posted in: Vintage (Type 1) -
1
Malpheas posted a message on They Shouldn't Nerf Lodestone GolemThis is my small list of creatures that are good in vintage and why I think Lodestone restriction was a good move; my primary vintage deck is Forgemaster Agro Shops, for reference.Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
Snapcaster
Dark Confidant
Trygon Predator
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
Deathrite Shaman
Leonin Arbiter
Griselbrand
Phrexian Revoker
Young Pyromancer
Monastery Mentor
There are lots of good creatures from the last 10 plus years in MTG that have made it to Vintage because of their sheer utility, power and casting cost.
I think that Lodestone was a great restriction. I agree with it. Lodestone is FAR too strong a creature that applies an amount of pressure difficult to deal with too early on in a game. I agree that this was the problem child of the shops deck; or at least the most effective sphere aside dealing with Chalice (which I don't like the restriction of, they may as well have just banned it for all the good a one-of does). Yes lodestone golem dies to bolt, ingot chewer, hurkyl's, etcetera, but that is not the point. It "gets there" too easily as compared to other sphere effects. As far as clocks go, this one was too speedy. Now I just have to build a shops deck with a new focus... - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1