Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for April 12, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for April 5, 2019
  • posted a message on Flashing in a 2nd Márton Stromgald (Legendary Creature)
    And here's some rules text from: https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Declare_attackers_step

    508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 721, "Handling Illegal Actions").
    508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.

    508.1m Any abilities that trigger on attackers being declared trigger.

    You declare attackers once and the abilities trigger once. No double dipping I'm afraid.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Feeling guilty after finally saying "No"
    No guilt needed. You don't become a less helpful or hard working person and you don't let them down when you cannot put in extra work some time.

    Posted in: Real-Life Advice
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    I voted for "Other".

    My general thought regarding conceding is: don't be a douchehat about it.

    The goal of every math should be to win it. If you scoop to spite someone then you have taken an action that is as far as possible from winning the game just in order to mess with someone else.

    So basically you can scoop at any time but don't do it to mess with a bribery or a sword trigger etc.

    Also, if you sit down to play a game you should aim to play the game and not jsut give up when something goes bad for you.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on I assume this is not an offical product...
    Protection from Corpsejack Menace
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Scourglass
    Quote from 3drinks »
    Quote from DirkGently »
    I don't get how this is supposed to combo with stasis or whatever. Can't your opponents just skip a similar number of turns? I don't actually know how that works at a tournament, if you just keep going back and forth skipping turns.


    I assume you're supposed to skip X turns and then resolve Pithing Needle. This of course assumes your opponent is dumb and doesn't see the object of the win here. Seems shaky at best to me.


    Grand Abolisher ftw Grin
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Bolas's Citadel
    Quote from darrenhabib »
    This official Magic Rules person says that X=0 for X spells..

    https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1112471636383395840


    Then I'll retract my entire statement Smile

    Sorry for the disinformationand thanksfor the correction. It's a weirdly worded alternate cost since it seems that it lets you cast the spell as usual but then after costs are locked in exchanges the mana you pay for it with life.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Bolas's Citadel
    Quote from darrenhabib »
    Quote from Taleran »
    Can you Exsanguinate for 37 off of the top assuming it is the top card when the Citadel hits?
    I'm assuming X spells won't really work, as they can only be cast as their converted mana cost, which would be BB and X would be zero for Exsanguinate. I assume that's how it works, otherwise reminds me of.. Channel + Fireball hehe


    EDIT: Igore me, I'm simply dead wrong here.

    You are assuming wrong. Bolas's citadel simply lets you cast spells form the top of your library, it does not give the spells an alternative cost to its mana cost like omniscience etc. does. It simply change what you pay for the spell when the spell is "locked in".

    I'm not sure what you mean by the spells only being able to be cast as their converted mana cost. The mana cost of exsanguinate changes and while on the stack the mana cost is the "base cost" plus the value for x.

    So basically yes, yuo can cast exsanguinate for a lot.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Scourglass
    It's like an instakill with Sulfuric Vortex. Someone is bound to die.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Concerted effort?
    The card specific rulings for effort could also help, it clearly shows that creatures only gain abilities that is already around:

    10/1/2005 For example, a player controls three creatures when Concerted Effort’s ability resolves: one creature with flying and protection from red, one with islandwalk and protection from green; and one with vigilance. All three creatures will have flying, islandwalk, vigilance, protection from red, and protection from green until the end of the turn.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Bleeding Edge (PVDDR Preview
    Once upon a time two Fungal Infections got together and had a zombieparty Smile
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card Discussion
    Quote from tstorm823 »
    Quote from MRdown2urth »
    Seems like a fun card to use Narset’s Reversal on!


    This set has a ton of neat internal interactions. The story implications of Gideon's Sacrifice got the lion's share of the attention, but it's a common fog that targets a creature you control in the same set as Feather, the Redeemed, so I'm 100% drafting Feather any time I see her and testing who forgot to pack removal in their draft deck.


    Gideons sacrifice doesn't target though. And even if you would get the sacrifice back to hand, feather would most likely die.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Sower of Temptation and Reins of Power - It's a whole thing
    Player 2's creature has a few control-changing effects on it.

    You used sower putting it under your control
    P3 used reins to gain control of both it and the sower.

    So the creature is currently under P3's control.

    When sower is sacked that removes that control changing effect, but the effect of reins is still active so it will stay under P3's control.

    When the effect of reins ends the creature will have no control changing effects on it since the effect from both sower and reins has stopped, it will go back to P2.


    Control-changing effets are all applied in layer 2 and therefore you go by timestamp order with the latest effect taking precedence.

    Quote from Siyan-o »
    After the sacrifice of the Sower of Temptation creature they will get control of the tempted creature, at the end of the turn all creature will return their previous owner as the effect of Reins of Power will end affecting only creature that has been currently under that effect (and in addition will not give back the tempted creature)


    I am not sure what you are saying here. The tempted creature will not change controller when the sower is sacced since both the sower and the other creature is under the more recent control-changing effect of reins.

    Reins of power does not return cards to the previous controller (there is only one owner, the one with the card in his/her deck) at the end of turn, the control-changing effect from reins simply stops.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on What It Says on the Tin - Ib Halfheart's Meme Goblins
    With all these goblins I would love a Goblin Lackey so you can goblin out goblins while you goblin. I see it's become a somewhat pricey card though.

    Warren Instigator and Empty the warrens are somewhat on theme for where the goblin lives. But one is not great in the deck and then it's harder to motivate the instigator in the deck Smile
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Why I hate Mono red burn

    I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)


    Are you saying that unless you are a deck builder on par with the very best pros then you shouldn't play magic? Standard is a format with a very limited card pool where there are simply a bunch of "strictly best" choices.

    Claiming there i little skill in-game is just blatantly false. And stating that there are 18 possible moves in the first turn in chess is true in theory, but not in practice. Did you watch the chess world championship? How many times did anyone open with a3 or nh3?

    You are on the draw with a three land hand and two 1-drops then you have 6 ways of playing a one drop and then also the choice of not playing a land and discarding one of 8 cards. So that is 14 different lines of play during your first turn. Of course a lot of those lines don't make sense. But they are there, just like in chess.


    Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?


    If your current best deck is 78 cards then it has 18 cards that are worse than the rest that should be cut. You are not alone in that struggle, hence why people netdeck to get a good competitive deck to actually play the game with.


    Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.


    2 player standard SHOULD be played to win in a competitive setting. Sure, at a kitchen table where you just wanna fool around and have some beers janky decks have a place. But in a competition you should expect others to play to actually win the game and making choices both during play and during deckbuilding to reach that goal. If you are tired of folk playing to win then perhaps you should play some variant where the competition isn't in focus? Why should consideration be taken to other players trying to grind out wins? If you have a deck that does what you want it to, grinds out wins fast and cheap, then it is up to the opposition to adjust their decks to the meta. It is not up to you to gimp your deck to help others win.


    Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.


    Of course you can argue the "fact" that it is too common online. Where is the line that makes a deck "too common"? And if it is too common wouldn't the meta choice be to play a deck that stomps the too common deck? It is popular on arena bo1 because it is fast and RDW is usually a cheaper deck to assemble than 3 colour control that has a much higher barrier to entry due to all the rare lands and mythic cards required.


    And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?


    No. The philosophy of "playing to win" is never pointless. You seem to think that playing to win and having fun while playing is mutually exclusive but that is not the case. A lot of playes find the game the most fun when they have a hard struggle between two competitive players doing their best to win over the other. Some players have the most fun when they are just fooling around with jank doing splashy things, but not everyone prefer that.

    I can highly recommend this article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win It covers why playing to win is a very valid choice.

    Chess by the way is a great example here. You state that you play chess yourself. Did you enjoy chess more when you were just starting playing making moves without much plan or did it become more fun when you got better, studied opening theory (or did you refuse to do that since it is the chess equivalent to netdecking?), and played agianst better opponents?

    Didn't you get more enjoyment from the game when you were a competent player playing against a competent player doing your best to outsmart them trying to put yourself in an advantageous position? I know I ejoyed chess a LOT more when I had a really tough struggling game where both I and the opponent did their best to weigh each move seing which would lead to the largest advantage rather than when I was just fiddling around moving pieces against an opponent that blundered away rooks and queens.


    We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family Smile


    Do we all know how good the red burn deck is? As you have been told several times in this thread it is far from the best deck around. Then you make a weird laim about hwo if someone plays land destruction against you you will track them down? So if someone tries playing a janky land destruction deck that is out of the meta that is also bad? You seem to not have made up your mind about what decks are okay to play against you, neither netdecked competitive lists nor janky brews are okay? It seems to me that what you want to play against are decks that your decks does well against.


    What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.

    Okay rant over.


    EXACTLY! If the meta is very dense on mono red burn then it is a great choice to build a dek to counter that meta. Not because it tells a certain deck to go f itself but because it would be a competitive choice in the current meta. The problem with a deck like that is that while you gain a large percentage point increase versus the red deck you will lose a lot versus other strategies. That is why deck choice is interesting. You have to weigh the distribution of archetypes versus the matchup against the decks.

    Here are some quick maths to explain that concept:

    You have deck A and deck B and the meta consists of one mono red deck and one 3 coloured control deck.

    Deck A is catered towards crushing mono red and nothing else. Versus mono red you manage a 90% winrate but since you have no wincons other than decking the opponent the control deck will never drop a game against you. So versus that deck you have a 0% winrate.

    Deck B is a more midrangey deck that tries to have an even matchup against the entire meta slightly leaning towards beating monored. Versus the red deck deck B has a 55% winrate and versus the control deck it has a 45% winrate.

    Now which deck should you choose in order to win the most matches? The answer is that it depends entirely on the meta.

    If the meta is 80% mono red decks and 20% control then over 100 games:
    Deck A will win 72 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 72% winrate overall.
    Deck B will win 44 games vs monored and 9 games vs control giving you a 53% winrate overall.

    If the meta is 60% mono red decks and 40% control then over 100 games:
    Deck A will win 54 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 54% winrate overall.
    Deck B will win 33 games vs monored and 18 games vs control giving you a 51% winrate overall.

    If the meta is 50% mono red decks and 50% control then over 100 games:
    Deck A will win 45 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 45% winrate overall.
    Deck B will win 27,5 games vs monored and 22,5 games vs control giving you a 50% winrate overall.

    Of course the math isn't nearly as simple since you usually have a way more diverse meta than simply two decks and the winrates can be hard to calculate exactly.

    Calling people "degenerate copy-cats who think they can play" is simply uncalled for and is just the result of you being annoyed that others choose to play by the rules of the game rather than the arbitrary rules regarding deck building that you have set up.

    Again, read this article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win It is good.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.