This format has become legacy lite. I would like to play spells that cost more than 3 thanks.
Modern is nothing like Legacy, the formats have very little in common, one is midrange and combo focused the other tempo, control and combo focused. Even so, legacy lite would not look like the absence of the ability to play spells costing more than 3, that's just silly and inaccurate.
Sorry, I don't have the link, but the data gets reposted every so often. I think ktkenshin has that. Next time I see it I ought to just save it in a file. Point is it's one of those rare things that every regular on the board had a consensus on.
I'm unsure, I've not seen modern dredge played extensively, but it's missing LED and one of the reanimating creatures which make it legacy viable while retaining all of the hate cards making it not viable.
Brand only applies to the casting player which means you still own permanents from other people. Brand is also a response to a very specific set of effects.
I believe that's the point, he's mocking the arguments falling under the "dies to removal" archetype. He believes the card unfair, and is mocking those saying it is fair because it is answerable, as the answer is incredibly narrow.
1) "Not getting turn 1 wins without SSGs" isn't an insult the way you think it is. Free mana is free mana.
2) Talking down to me because I haven't presented a decklist is unnecessary. You could ask for a decklist, or request that I expand upon my statements with card choices, statistics, testing, or more specific theories. Being obnoxious or confrontational just makes the thread that much worse.
But, in the interest of meaningful discussion, and perhaps appeasing your ill attitude so that you speak civilly and purposefully, a list. If you have questions about it, I'm always glad to run statistics and explain card choices.
The only very difficult choice in here is whether to run Chancellor or SSG, or to cut something else to run both. Lands are too valuable even though they add a lot of bricks, and Opals are vital. Beck is clunky, but still fairly capable of Turn 2 wins from a Turn 1 Cantor. Manamorphose could fix the difficult color problems.
From goldfishing, meaning absolutely no disruption, it is no where near as consistent as you believe it to be.
Thank you for the quick responses! I see, that's a shame that I can't use it to my advantage. I suppose I could still use Lantern of Insight with Codex Shredder to better control my clashes, but it's still not quite what I had I hoped. Thanks!
You're honestly better off just not worrying about it. It's sort of like goblin guide if done correctly, except with a mutual effect. You are both scrying except you get a 3/1 out of the deal, so you should probably cut the codex shredder stuff, unless you really enjoy it, and simply focus on being aggressive.
Unless wizards had some serious new cards for blue, removing him while keeping all the current blue cards banned would kill off control completely. There's just no single 4 cards that you could replace him with without seriously damaging the power of the deck.
Unlike the pod banning that only affected 'pod', taking out snapcaster would hit delver, twin, Uxx control, scapeshift, gifts and more. That's 1/3 of the online meta. While it wouldn't kill all the decks off like it did with pod I do think it would completely remove control and have a huge effect on twin and delver too.
Taking him out of modern would completely change the shape of modern as a format overnight.
I think you have some problematic arguments here. Hurting more different decks isn't an argument _against_ a ban of a powerful card, but an argument _for_ it. Killing an entire archetype (like tempo and/or control) however, is a good argument against a ban. Saying there is no 'single 4 cards' that you can replace it with is a silly argument, as the pod ban, among others, proves. I'm concerned about the killing an entire archetype, but it always bugs me when people try to use arguments that should be ones _for_ a ban under normal circumstances against it, as it shows bizarre bias.
No you silly billy that's not an argument for a ban. Hurting decks across the board is lowering the power level of the format in general, not sniping certain overpowered decks to bring things into cohesion. Lowering the power of the format generally is not an argument for banning a card in most cases.
The argument "It will kill control" and "It is irreplaceable for control" are identical, and your separating of them is pointless and only used for self gain. One is the reason for another. Don't try to defend the reading comprehension, it's not going to work and only serves you negatively.
Your input is unnecessary here, and you should practice your deconstructing of arguments before doing this again, I'm only doing this because it bugs me when people do what you do, which if it's good enough of a reason for you, is good enough of a reason for me.
Also, MTGS has an italics function [i]I'm going to add a period to the ending part of this which shouldn't be there, remove it and the text will be italicized[/i.] Which is more apparent than the other habit you've picked up from other sites.
I use Zendikar, got them at $2 each in trade, use Unhinged, but I usually use Alpha lands instead as they're cheap yet very beautiful. Can't use black border lands, newer they are, the less I can use them.
I don't understand the following argument: "they should use video evidence because the feature matches get special treatment anyway".
It's not special treatment, it is using the resources we already have in order to prevent injustice.
Also, clear cut advantage, having a judge beside you.
I'm not really sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. Are you saying that using video evidence in the feature match area wouldn't be providing special treatment?
And could you please explain why you believe that having a judge watch your game is a clear advantage? Because I'm really not sure I agree with that statement. A judge is never more than a raised voice away. Are you implying that cheating is less likely to happen in the feature match area because of the presence of the judges?
Cut a part because it was not directed towards me.
I'm unsure the extent to which it is special treatment. Even if it is, it is completely warranted. The argument "We should all equally suffer!" is not compelling to me.
A judge watching your game discourages cheating, doesn't delay the game to wait for a judge, and ensures that the game state is correct, meaning one does not have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of rules, and a slick person cannot persuade you of something which is actually incorrect. Those are all advantages.
I don't understand why we can't allow game footage to be used to prevent unjust conviction, which we can allow it to cause conviction. That generally seems wrong, we'll allow evidence which shows you did wrong, but disallow any evidence that shows you did right. I don't understand the objection either, it gives them the advantage of not being unjustly disqualified, that's something we should extend.
Game footage IS used to prevent an unjust conviction. If you are accused of cheating in a match that was on camera, and the DCI looked at the footage and so no evidence of cheating or saw evidence of an honest mistake, they would use it in their determination.
But the rules say the opposite
Because of the delays inherent in using video replay, judges are not permitted to use it to assist in making rulings
during a match. Video replays may be used for investigative purposes at a later time.
But it says, clearly, that they could not be used in their determination, in contrast perfectly to what you say.
Also, Chapin wasn't DQ'ed, nor was he accused of cheating. He was accused of violating a rule (which he did) and given the punishment that the rulebook says you get for violating that rule. If I foul someone in basketball, it doesn't matter if I was strategically fouling him or if I did it by accident, it's still a foul and he still gets his free throws (or in bounds the ball or whatever.)
What is cheating? The intentional violation of the rules. Which people have accused him of.
I don't understand the following argument: "they should use video evidence because the feature matches get special treatment anyway".
It's not special treatment, it is using the resources we already have in order to prevent injustice.
Also, clear cut advantage, having a judge beside you.
The rules say Chapin gets a game loss, it happens. I don't think he was intentionally cheating because he's Chapin and adorable, but the law's the law.
I don't understand why we can't allow game footage to be used to prevent unjust conviction, which we can allow it to cause conviction. That generally seems wrong, we'll allow evidence which shows you did wrong, but disallow any evidence that shows you did right. I don't understand the objection either, it gives them the advantage of not being unjustly disqualified, that's something we should extend.
Ultimately, KTK gave us the first truly viable T1 tempo deck with cruise/dig, which simply didn't exist in Modern to any successful degree prior to it.
Don't know how to make a better title, so I just straight-out went with the question.
Or, to put it another way-
What is the difference between telling someone "I can't bake a cake for your wedding because you lack the money to purchase my incredibly awesome, and thus incredibly expensive, cake" and "I can't bake a cake for your wedding because I disagree with your sexual orientation/color of your skin/some random thing you do/are that I don't particularly like".
It absolutely is discrimination! But the problem is that culturally we have attached such a connotation to discrimination as being terrible that the reasonable forms stop seeming reasonable simply due to the connotation.
Not allowing 18-wheelers or cars of certain heights into certain areas is discrimination. Not allowing bars to be constructed within a certain area of schools is discrimination. Zoning is discrimination. Our scheme of restrooms is discriminatory.
There are a huge amount of discriminatory actions that we take to make society function, discrimination is not intrinsically bad.
That article is pointlessly inflammatory and condescending.
Not everything is about you. This rules change is not about you.
This whole entitlement thing gets really annoying, considering the 'you' in that statement is the existing players of the game. The writer advocates for the rules committee to not care about the actual players of the game.
The "you" is not all magic players, the "you" is people who are incredibly upset about the rules change. He's not advocating that the rules committee ignore all players.* Sheesh.
That's not what it means. At all. The 'you' there refers to the players of the format objecting to the rules change, being already existing players of the format. Essentially, he's saying the rules change isn't about the existing players of the format, which it wasn't.
Modern is nothing like Legacy, the formats have very little in common, one is midrange and combo focused the other tempo, control and combo focused. Even so, legacy lite would not look like the absence of the ability to play spells costing more than 3, that's just silly and inaccurate.
I'm unsure, I've not seen modern dredge played extensively, but it's missing LED and one of the reanimating creatures which make it legacy viable while retaining all of the hate cards making it not viable.
I believe that's the point, he's mocking the arguments falling under the "dies to removal" archetype. He believes the card unfair, and is mocking those saying it is fair because it is answerable, as the answer is incredibly narrow.
That's what I'm getting anyway.
From goldfishing, meaning absolutely no disruption, it is no where near as consistent as you believe it to be.
You're honestly better off just not worrying about it. It's sort of like goblin guide if done correctly, except with a mutual effect. You are both scrying except you get a 3/1 out of the deal, so you should probably cut the codex shredder stuff, unless you really enjoy it, and simply focus on being aggressive.
Actual link if one does not want to search
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uciXA2tQ-Gw
No you silly billy that's not an argument for a ban. Hurting decks across the board is lowering the power level of the format in general, not sniping certain overpowered decks to bring things into cohesion. Lowering the power of the format generally is not an argument for banning a card in most cases.
The argument "It will kill control" and "It is irreplaceable for control" are identical, and your separating of them is pointless and only used for self gain. One is the reason for another. Don't try to defend the reading comprehension, it's not going to work and only serves you negatively.
Your input is unnecessary here, and you should practice your deconstructing of arguments before doing this again, I'm only doing this because it bugs me when people do what you do, which if it's good enough of a reason for you, is good enough of a reason for me.
Also, MTGS has an italics function [i]I'm going to add a period to the ending part of this which shouldn't be there, remove it and the text will be italicized[/i.] Which is more apparent than the other habit you've picked up from other sites.
2 Badlands
4 Bayou
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Forest
3 Grove of the Burnwillows
1 Mountain
1 Raging Ravine
2 Swamp
2 Verdant Catacombs
3 Wasteland
//Spells
3 Abrupt Decay
3 Anvil of Bogardan
4 Burning Wish
4 Chains of Mephistopheles
3 Liliana of the Veil
3 Hymn to Tourach
2 Life from the Loam
3 Lightning Bolt
3 Punishing Fire
3 Thoughtseize
4 Dark Confidant
4 deathrite shaman
3 Pithing Needle
2 Chainer's Edict
2 Hull Breach
1 Life from the Loam
2 Maelstrom Pulse
1 Perish
2 Pyroclasm
2 Winds of Change
Just as a favor to make it more easily readable.
Cut a part because it was not directed towards me.
I'm unsure the extent to which it is special treatment. Even if it is, it is completely warranted. The argument "We should all equally suffer!" is not compelling to me.
A judge watching your game discourages cheating, doesn't delay the game to wait for a judge, and ensures that the game state is correct, meaning one does not have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of rules, and a slick person cannot persuade you of something which is actually incorrect. Those are all advantages.
But the rules say the opposite
http://www.wizards.com/contentresources/wizards/wpn/main/documents/magic_the_gathering_tournament_rules_pdf1.pdf
Meaning that if one receives something like a game loss, or some other thing which affects them during the tournament, it cannot be corrected during the tournament. It could only be if they were banned or similar, something which could be corrected after the fact.
But it says, clearly, that they could not be used in their determination, in contrast perfectly to what you say.
What is cheating? The intentional violation of the rules. Which people have accused him of.
It's not special treatment, it is using the resources we already have in order to prevent injustice.
Also, clear cut advantage, having a judge beside you.
I don't understand why we can't allow game footage to be used to prevent unjust conviction, which we can allow it to cause conviction. That generally seems wrong, we'll allow evidence which shows you did wrong, but disallow any evidence that shows you did right. I don't understand the objection either, it gives them the advantage of not being unjustly disqualified, that's something we should extend.
The combo deck?
It absolutely is discrimination! But the problem is that culturally we have attached such a connotation to discrimination as being terrible that the reasonable forms stop seeming reasonable simply due to the connotation.
Not allowing 18-wheelers or cars of certain heights into certain areas is discrimination. Not allowing bars to be constructed within a certain area of schools is discrimination. Zoning is discrimination. Our scheme of restrooms is discriminatory.
There are a huge amount of discriminatory actions that we take to make society function, discrimination is not intrinsically bad.
That's not what it means. At all. The 'you' there refers to the players of the format objecting to the rules change, being already existing players of the format. Essentially, he's saying the rules change isn't about the existing players of the format, which it wasn't.
How about how it's openly hostile and insulting?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/developing-legacy/581317-artificers-intuition-greg-hatch
Might give you some inspiration.