I've had Inferno Titan in my sideboard basically forever. I love it. I'm not convinced it's actually good, and there's not a lot of blood moon in the meta, but I love that card. and it's won me a bunch of games.
It's not an issue. It's just a small handful of players too salty to let go of the time they lost because they didn't call a judge for oracle text like they should have. If you read back through last page a few of them were even making stuff up about rules that don't exist and claiming that they do.
Yeah, it started out as -50 cards but Frank Karsten did a bunch of analysis based off the traumatized into splendid reclamation plan and determined that 120 was the right number.
In general, if you wreck your opponent game one with Omen, it's very safe to take it out games two and three. That will blank the removal they bring in. If they don't see it game one, keep it in.
Also, I've been splashing Black for a while and the mana is honestly not bad at all. It's very easy between 7 fetches 4 SFT, 4 STE, and 4 farseek to never be color screwed. Not to mention 3 Omen. The one time I got really screwed was because I kept a one lander with double SFT in a testing game. Other than that, it's just made me eat an innopportune shock occasionally.
The biggest thing I would add to the UW discussion is that prismatic Omen is strong. Makes the late game plan of 'you can't counter my land drops so ha' plan much stronger. If you ever think you can get them to tap out to counter one shift then cast a second, do it.
Sorry man, if you had answered this morning I could have given a nice write up. But I've been frantically packing and trying to leave to head back to school and I'm about to start driving. I would check back in the last few weeks of comments for discussion on UW. Sorry I can't help more right now
i know, but does really hurt diversity? i mean something like vizier company wont run zenith (or at least the playset), elves wont run the full 4, company and chord are just better on those shells
i agree that something like knightfall would play the card, but it isnt bad per se
I think green zenith like wild nacatl. In theory nacatl was hurting diversity, and well... we know how it was in reality
I would immediately and happily try 4 in elves over chord, it might not work out, but I would give it a shot. I would try some number along with a dryad arbor in Titanshift. Ramp on turn 1 and every subsequent turn it can either fetch a dryad arbor for ramp or a Sakura Tribe Elder. It makes using creature flex cards like Courser ofKruphix better. And eventually it plays a Titan to win the game. You can't just look at non tier 1 decks that can get a boost from it without being broken but also how tier 1 strategies could use it.
I understand that frustration, as a judge that card in particular is super frustrating. Once, I had the same player at 2 PPTQs in a row ask the same question about the same foreign card. Now, it is obvious to me from the dynamic of the call that he was doing it to placate his opponent who, rightfully, wanted to make sure there was nothing fishy happening, it was still an annoyance.
That being said, there should not be a penalty for this. It sets a terrible precedent. What if a player has an older card that has huge oracle changes and needs a reminder of the exact wording in oracle to see how it works? What if a player bought an Italian Legends card because they are significantly cheaper? A player shouldn't be priced into or forced into a penalty for wanting to ensure that they are playing fairly and following the rules. Also, a huge part of MTG is self expression. For a lot of players, that is done through building their own really sweet deck that perfectly fits their play style. For others, it's having cool foreign languages and sweet promo arts on their cards to show how devoted they are to the game and their deck that they went so far out of their way to make it look good. And ultimately, tournaments are for players to have fun. The infractions exist to ensure that the tournaments integrity is maintained and that all players are able to enjoy a safe space. Punishing players for expressing themselves and having fun doesn't fit in with that.
My opinion is the burden of playing a textless cryptic/ foreign cards should be placed on the person who decides to bring the textless card, not on the opponent. (I'm saying at a minimum the guy should be able to recite what their card does) You should accommodate your opponent not the other way around. To be, this is like you playing affinity/ BW tokens and asking your opponent to provide the dice/ tokens.
I disagree. Especially since you shouldn't trust your opponent to tell you the correct wording anyway and should call a judge if you don't know what the card does or if there is any disagreement/misunderstanding. That's a big part of why we are there as judges. To help players. Also, any attempt to infract on this leads to awful feel bass that shouldn't happen when a player lists out all of the modes on a command but gets the order wrong which could impact how the card works and thus would t being accurately reciting the card. And it is so incredibly different to ask a judge for oracle text and ask your opponent to give you dice for counters that I'm not going to further acknowledge that comparison.
As far as I know the rule is this:
"the player using the foreign cards must either translate the name or explain what it does".
if they cannot, they shouldn't be playing them.
I used to play legacy with japanese green sun's zenith, and i never remembered about the shuffle into library clause so swapped them with english ones
Could you send me the exact wording/ ruling on this?
There is no such rule. Despite being completely confident anyway, I combed the IPG and the MTR and there is no official ruling on this matter. That is either completely outdated, made up, or Frankensteined together from the rules on naming a card for Pithing Needle type effects and something someone thinks they heard once about foreign cards in that scenario. Also, judges will just look up the collector number and set if a name can't be found. It's not hard.
You've convinced me that some kind of an upkeep is definitely a good thing to help balance the power level. And I agree that if it was printed it would see play. I'm just not sure it would see print. Maybe in the new only big block no sets structure, since they said they can jump to new worlds as one offs now and then, they could jump back to theros to check in on elspeth or something and give us this on an enchantment. That opens it up to a little more removal which helps balance the power level and seems like the plane where they are willing to try hatebear-ish cards the most.
It's not against the rules but it is definitely annoying. As the rules currently stand, you can at any time call a judge to get the oracle text of any card at any time. It slows down the match and could cause a long game to go to turns, but it's probably the only solution other than memorizing card art or trusting the opponent.
I personally prefer not to use foreign cards (and other than super obvious staples like Lightning Bolt, stay away from textless cards like Cryptic Command). There's nothing more frustrating for both sides than to have a misunderstanding of what a card actually does and have to call a judge multiple times to rectify a simple text-reading problem.
I think the problem stems from when people do this intentionally in order to get an edge. It gets even worse when they use obscure art. I once played in a tournament against a person playing all foreign cards, and wherever possible each card was in a different art and a different language.
I had someone once not know what his own textless Cryptic Command does. He asked the judge for an oracle text because he doesn't know what his own textless card did. I personally think people should be issued a warning at a competitive REL if they don;'t know what their own card does
I understand that frustration, as a judge that card in particular is super frustrating. Once, I had the same player at 2 PPTQs in a row ask the same question about the same foreign card. Now, it is obvious to me from the dynamic of the call that he was doing it to placate his opponent who, rightfully, wanted to make sure there was nothing fishy happening, it was still an annoyance.
That being said, there should not be a penalty for this. It sets a terrible precedent. What if a player has an older card that has huge oracle changes and needs a reminder of the exact wording in oracle to see how it works? What if a player bought an Italian Legends card because they are significantly cheaper? A player shouldn't be priced into or forced into a penalty for wanting to ensure that they are playing fairly and following the rules. Also, a huge part of MTG is self expression. For a lot of players, that is done through building their own really sweet deck that perfectly fits their play style. For others, it's having cool foreign languages and sweet promo arts on their cards to show how devoted they are to the game and their deck that they went so far out of their way to make it look good. And ultimately, tournaments are for players to have fun. The infractions exist to ensure that the tournaments integrity is maintained and that all players are able to enjoy a safe space. Punishing players for expressing themselves and having fun doesn't fit in with that.
I honestly feel like this would be the best way to upgrade Gaddock Teeg in a way that makes it good, but not overpowered:
Incredulous Law-Person1W
Creature - Rules Lawyer
Cards with converted mana cost 4 or greater can't be cast
Cards with x in their mana costs can't be cast
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Incredulous Law-Person unless you pay 1W God damn lawyers fees....
2/2
I think the tax you have to pay to keep it around balances it out a bit. Otherwise, I'd be fine with this card seeing play. I think it stops enough of the cards people seem to have issue with, while also being not extremely difficult to deal with. People can still save it from removal with cards like Restoration Angel (obviously flashed in via Aether Vial) or Blossoming Defense. As I am typing this I also realized it stops Shadow players from casting Angler and Tasigur
I would lower the tax to just one colorless if I kept it around at all. The tax does seem like a fair way to do things. And that card is surprisingly versatile. It even stops Gifts and Past in flames from Storm as well as Cryptic Command from Control. Might be too strong for wizards to print.
@Darkest before dawn, I'm not sure you understand the concept of a strawman. You are now admonishing me for reading your post, and responding to points you made with counterpoints and reasoning of my own. That is how discussions work. If you are incapable of having that kind of point-counterpoint discussion without getting belligerent, demeaning, and patronizing, maybe a thread specifically for those kinds of discussions isn't for you.
Hey, I need to add on to the sideboarding section in the Primer. Not just some more matchups, but common sideboard cards and how good they are in the matchup, and in what order I think you should cut common mainboard cards for sideboard stuff. But I'm not gonna be able to do all of that today. So, if you can post a handful of decks that you have trouble with or expect to see or just generally want advice on, I and others can give opinions about how the match should play out and what effects are important.
You're barking up the wrong tree. I've played a variety of decks, some with great Scapeshift match-ups and others not. I don't want to see it banned or neutered. It really is as simple as believing that threats should at least have sideboard-able answers in a couple colors. That becomes even more important when a deck exploits an unfamiliar axis of attack (e.g. Dredge or Affinity).
That was an original argument, not necessarily mine. I'm not going to carry the torch for @idSurge, but his suggestions for "answer it or lose" are hardly overpowered analogues. Again, Choke or Boil don't see play and Stony Silence can definitely be played through. Click back a couple pages --
several people responded that nothing else is needed because there is plenty of existing land hate which is a frankly baffling belief.
Let me rephrase -- there is no way to interact with the ETron or Scapeshift lands at anything close to parity or without gearing your entire deck to fight them. Other decks that exploit an unfamiliar axis of attack (Dredge, Affinity) have hate cards that can be sideboarded. Why? Because threats need answers, otherwise they inevitably lead to excessive power creep and then bannings. Re-read my first paragraph you're responding to. There are several reasons to encourage answers even before a strategy becomes "dominating"; it's called proactively managing the format.
Lantern is quite possibly the worst example you could bring up. It's quite possibly my least favorite deck to play against it but there is plenty of sideboard hate, basically everything that hits Affinity. There is absolutely no argument to be made that it needs more answers. You're missing my point here; my arguments here have nothing to do with whether I think any particular strategy is frustrating. The problem is that these land-based strategies in particular are already immune to the existing sideboard options. Ceremonious Rejection isn't any more an answer to ETron than Celestial Purge is to Dredge, Spreading Seas/Ensnaring Bridge require building an entire strategy around, etc.
How is Ceremonious Rejection not an answer to ETron? UW has a fine matchup due primarily to an improving game after turn 2.
- Ensnaring Bridge doesnt require you build an entire strategy around it. Affinity, Burn, and a bunch of control variants can play it if desired.
- Spreading seas does not require your entire strategy be built around it, it requires you play blue. UW does not have any synergy with seas and it mainboards the card.
- Blood moon fits into every red deck + affinity
- Tec Edge, Fulminator mage, Leyline, and more interact with land based decks
Saying there is "no way" to interact with lands is just not true. There is already hate for lands, you just dont think it's good enough. Why is it not good enough? Is there a metagame benefit for better hate? I'd probably agree there. However, let's not pretend the metagame is dominated by big mana. The last 10 or so big tournaments don't really bear that out. Why is it baffling that some prefer the status quo when the meta is relatively healthy?
The point I'm making with lantern is you need to make an argument towards improving the metagame if you talk about changing the environment. Your previous arguments did not address this at all. Yes there exists hate, but I can simply say "well I don't think its good enough, I find stony silence laughable, they just decay it and it barely changes their clock. " or "Lifegain is laughable against burn i say, they can just skullcrack you, we should make it so Oketra's Last Mercy can't be prevented. It lets more decks deal with burn in the SB!"
Unless I can make a compelling argument as to whether the meta gets better with the printing of [BetterLanternHateTheCard], saying this doesn't mean much.
If you want other examples, why isn't there direct hate for: infinite mana, all fast mana, storm cards, creatures with flash, hexproof things, token generators. I'm sure these things don't count as a "familiar axis" (however you define that).
Basically we need to establish how our theoretical hate card is helping the meta. For example:
- "I think there should be a blue card which counters all triggers on the stack, so that control can help naturally control big mana."
- "Green is too soft to eldrazi and it's hurting diversity, we should pring the 1G prismatic moon thing. It's worse than blood moon for most decks, but gives green decks an out"
Apologies if this comes across as patronizing, but you don't seem very familiar with the recent versions of UW Control. No Ceremonious Rejection in the 75 plus they play some combination of 4 Ghost Quarter/Tectonic Edge mainboard in addition to Spreading Seas which makes mana denial a viable strategy.
At the risk of becoming a broken record, I think you need to re-read my actual points. I've never said there is no way to interact with land, just that the options are essentially unplayable short of making a significant commitment to mana denial (like UW Control or RG Ponza). In other words, there are basically no sideboard-able cards that are effective against lands such as Valakut, Tron, or Temple. Tectonic Edge/Spreading Seas are too slow on their own, Ghost Quarter is a significant tempo loss, and Fulminator Mage is both. Ensnaring Bridge obviously isn't land hate and it's only playable in the sideboard for Burn. Blood Moon fits in a couple more decks (Affinity, Storm) but I'm willing to say that's one sideboard-able card that one color has access to.
You're getting lost in the weeds with the rest of your argument because the explanation is remarkably simple -- threats need reasonable answers, for both competitive and balance reasons. There's no need to dig very deep to find recent examples where the absence of answers has caused issues for Modern or Standard. If you want a more pragmatic line of thought then check the share of the metagame that ETron and Scapeshift currently hold; it's significant, albeit not oppressive. Wouldn't some of the other decks play answers in their sideboard if there were actually playable options? It doesn't take a million Monte Carlo simulations on the impact to justify the basic logic.
To happily sound like an broken record, the hate exists, people on this thread just refuse to acknowledge it. Every color except white has decent or great land hate cards that are perfectly sideboardable and often maindecked. And white can still use tec edge and ghost quarter. Hell, combine those and your fetches with a couple of crucible of worlds and you not only have a great value engine mid and late game when you want to ensure land drops, big mana will roll over if you have the interaction to force a late game and are blowing up 1 or more lands a turn while still drawing and playing counterspells and other interaction.
Everything else aside, the argument of blood moon only being playable in a few decks and being restrictive because of red is bull*****. With fetchlands and a slightly higher number of basics than normal plus 1-2 Rx shocks, basically any deck could splash blood moon if it felt like it. Hell, when GitProbe was a thing and Temur Delver existed it frequently ran 3 in the side basically just because it was 'unexpected' for a 3 color deck. And it stole a lot of games because of it. I've even seen traditional Jund sideboard it and crush with it. I bet with enough care and correct building, you could build a more midrangey Scapeshift deck with blood moon in the main. Jund colors, SFT, STE, Thoughtseize, Fatal Push, Abrupt Decay, a high land count, maybe even Goyfs (like the old extended goyfshift decks). Then Decay your blood moon and cast scapeshift if you don't just kill them with goyfs and bolts.
Meh, this is getting tiresome when far too many people enjoy beating up on strawmen rather than reading actual comments. Since anything else is wasted, here's the crux:
Land hate exists but it's unplayable/ineffective outside of Blood Moon and decks with a dedicated mainboard mana denial plan (D&T, UW Control, RG Ponza, etc.) because it's either too slow, too negative tempo, or both. Decks that are able to make use of existing hate are only effective versus Scapeshift and ETron because they run 8+ pieces. Nothing is sideboard-able against Scapeshift and ETron outside of a couple decks (Affinity, Storm).
This is important, not because ETron or Scapeshift are overly dominant, but because threats should have answers. That ensures minimal bannings and provides a proactive safety valve should those decks become more oppressive over time or with the printing of a new card. Proactive management of the format is healthier than reactive.
That is purely your opinion. That's not 'the crux'. It might be the crux of your argument, but it's entirely your opinion and it's one I disagree with wholeheartedly. Not only does hate exist, I personally think it's not bad. It causes enough stumble that you can beat these decks if you have any kind of clock. Additionally, if you are going to disparage someone who carefully reads comments before responding by just out of the blue saying I'm 'beating up on strawmen', at least give a reason why you think that.
Also, I really like skitzafreaks suggested Teeg+. Especially if it had a low color requirement so it could be splashable. As a one mana 2/1 like dryad militant it could stop the nut draw from ETron, and even as a head it stops natural tron from being effective on 3. Played in the right timing against scapeshift it even stops Shift, Prime Time, and Hour of Promise.
Why not kill the bird turn one with the card you are discarding to brutality? Why give them the extra mana?
Also, I've been splashing Black for a while and the mana is honestly not bad at all. It's very easy between 7 fetches 4 SFT, 4 STE, and 4 farseek to never be color screwed. Not to mention 3 Omen. The one time I got really screwed was because I kept a one lander with double SFT in a testing game. Other than that, it's just made me eat an innopportune shock occasionally.
I would immediately and happily try 4 in elves over chord, it might not work out, but I would give it a shot. I would try some number along with a dryad arbor in Titanshift. Ramp on turn 1 and every subsequent turn it can either fetch a dryad arbor for ramp or a Sakura Tribe Elder. It makes using creature flex cards like Courser ofKruphix better. And eventually it plays a Titan to win the game. You can't just look at non tier 1 decks that can get a boost from it without being broken but also how tier 1 strategies could use it.
I disagree. Especially since you shouldn't trust your opponent to tell you the correct wording anyway and should call a judge if you don't know what the card does or if there is any disagreement/misunderstanding. That's a big part of why we are there as judges. To help players. Also, any attempt to infract on this leads to awful feel bass that shouldn't happen when a player lists out all of the modes on a command but gets the order wrong which could impact how the card works and thus would t being accurately reciting the card. And it is so incredibly different to ask a judge for oracle text and ask your opponent to give you dice for counters that I'm not going to further acknowledge that comparison.
There is no such rule. Despite being completely confident anyway, I combed the IPG and the MTR and there is no official ruling on this matter. That is either completely outdated, made up, or Frankensteined together from the rules on naming a card for Pithing Needle type effects and something someone thinks they heard once about foreign cards in that scenario. Also, judges will just look up the collector number and set if a name can't be found. It's not hard.
I understand that frustration, as a judge that card in particular is super frustrating. Once, I had the same player at 2 PPTQs in a row ask the same question about the same foreign card. Now, it is obvious to me from the dynamic of the call that he was doing it to placate his opponent who, rightfully, wanted to make sure there was nothing fishy happening, it was still an annoyance.
That being said, there should not be a penalty for this. It sets a terrible precedent. What if a player has an older card that has huge oracle changes and needs a reminder of the exact wording in oracle to see how it works? What if a player bought an Italian Legends card because they are significantly cheaper? A player shouldn't be priced into or forced into a penalty for wanting to ensure that they are playing fairly and following the rules. Also, a huge part of MTG is self expression. For a lot of players, that is done through building their own really sweet deck that perfectly fits their play style. For others, it's having cool foreign languages and sweet promo arts on their cards to show how devoted they are to the game and their deck that they went so far out of their way to make it look good. And ultimately, tournaments are for players to have fun. The infractions exist to ensure that the tournaments integrity is maintained and that all players are able to enjoy a safe space. Punishing players for expressing themselves and having fun doesn't fit in with that.
I would lower the tax to just one colorless if I kept it around at all. The tax does seem like a fair way to do things. And that card is surprisingly versatile. It even stops Gifts and Past in flames from Storm as well as Cryptic Command from Control. Might be too strong for wizards to print.
@Darkest before dawn, I'm not sure you understand the concept of a strawman. You are now admonishing me for reading your post, and responding to points you made with counterpoints and reasoning of my own. That is how discussions work. If you are incapable of having that kind of point-counterpoint discussion without getting belligerent, demeaning, and patronizing, maybe a thread specifically for those kinds of discussions isn't for you.
Hey, I need to add on to the sideboarding section in the Primer. Not just some more matchups, but common sideboard cards and how good they are in the matchup, and in what order I think you should cut common mainboard cards for sideboard stuff. But I'm not gonna be able to do all of that today. So, if you can post a handful of decks that you have trouble with or expect to see or just generally want advice on, I and others can give opinions about how the match should play out and what effects are important.
That is purely your opinion. That's not 'the crux'. It might be the crux of your argument, but it's entirely your opinion and it's one I disagree with wholeheartedly. Not only does hate exist, I personally think it's not bad. It causes enough stumble that you can beat these decks if you have any kind of clock. Additionally, if you are going to disparage someone who carefully reads comments before responding by just out of the blue saying I'm 'beating up on strawmen', at least give a reason why you think that.
Also, I really like skitzafreaks suggested Teeg+. Especially if it had a low color requirement so it could be splashable. As a one mana 2/1 like dryad militant it could stop the nut draw from ETron, and even as a head it stops natural tron from being effective on 3. Played in the right timing against scapeshift it even stops Shift, Prime Time, and Hour of Promise.