MTG Salvation

Quote from Leidnix »

I play Burn my deck is safe

Based on this announcement, I would barely be surprised if Mountain is emergency-banned later today.

Quote from lrmo »

I've never purchased a card on pre-order before. What would one estimate is a good price for Oath of Nissa?

I'm excited about this card's potential in modern and would like to get it before it is too pricey.

Oath of Nissa is not, and will never be, Modern playable. It has some casual appeal, and will likely be worth about 3-4 dollars in the long term, but I wouldn't pay more than about $1 for it now. It'll almost certainly end up around there after release

Something that nobody has mentioned yet as far as I can tell: buying Affinity doesn't really give you any other Modern staples, so if you want to play multiple decks, BW Tokens is probably better.

The creature survives. This is similar to the Engineered Explosives vs Spider Umbra interaction.

Explanation: the creature is indestructible until the enchantment is gone. OStone can't kill the creature without killing the enchantment first, which it can't do, because it destroys everything at once.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with netdecking either. I normally have to change lists for budget reasons, but I'm not going to play something unique for the sole purpose of playing something unique. I'm fine with netdecking, but it annoys me when people play strictly worse versions of existing decks "because netdecking is bad." I've seen Court Homunculus and Myr Enforcer in Affinity, in place of Ornithopters and Arcbound Ravagers, not for budget reasons, but "because netdecking is lame," which I can't understand.

For casual play, I tend to base my lists off of the lists of others, but because it's less competitive and more for enjoyment, I'll deviate from these "better" lists to play cards that I like (meaning I put Day's Undoing in everything). Most of my casual decks are really just bad combo decks, and all of the bad combos (most, at least) have already been found, so I try to build on the work of others whenever possible.

Fetch lands are used in mono-colored decks to control land drop percentages. A fetchland pulls 2 lands from the deck, so cracking fetches leads to less land drops, which means more gas.

Also, off-color fetches still produce 2 colors with battle lands, which means better fixing

So this finally happened today (I've been playing some of these cards in my deck for a few months waiting for this moment):

Me: Mirrorweave targetting Precursor Golem. After some spells resolve, everything is a Precursor Golem. Now, I cast a kicked Rite of Replication targeting one of my Precursor Golems. I get . . . hmm . . . give me a second to work this out (3 minutes later) I have like 10 quadrillion Precursor Golems and like 1 quinitillion tokens. You all have a lot as well.

Kaalia player: Nope screw this. Rakdos Charm. You're welcome.

I can only really comment on 3, 7, and 8, because I only play Modern (other formats are too expensive) and I don't play MTGO (I've heard that the interface is crap).

On #3: This point is basically proof that you have never played Modern seriously. Your argument on the validity of the banlist is completely uneducated. Banning Bloodbraid might have been a mistake at the time, but unbanning it when Jund is ALREADY a Tier 1 deck is certainly a mistake. Deathrite would just break the format in half, as would Jace. Parts of the banlist are wrong, but in general, bans have kept the format healthy.

On #7: I think you've completely missed the point here. You should be playing in tournaments because you enjoy them, not because you can qualify for another tournament. If you don't want to play in events, then don't play in them. Your argument is basically "If I do well at local tournaments (which are a waste of time anyways), then I have to spend even MORE time playing Magic, which I don't want to do". The mistake here is that you're playing in an event which you won't enjoy in order to qualify for another event which you won't enjoy, etc. It's a game. If you don't enjoy it, then don't play.

On #8: "Wizards is trying to make more money". Yeah. I would think that this would be obvious, since it's kind of the reason that they exist.
In slightly more words: If "dumbing down the game", as you say, attracts more customers, how can you fault Wizards for doing it? Even then, I don't think that the game is being dumbed down, rather more accessible. Look at Harbinger of the Tides, for example. It's not necessarily complex, but it opens up giant decision trees. Cards might not be flashy or complicated, but as long as they force decisions, they're not being dumbed down.

Yeah 4 Sea's Claim certainly changes things. Bogles really has trouble if you can keep them off of double-white, which you have a decent chance of doing with essentially 8 MB LD spells. However, it's very difficult to do without Sea's Claim, and as far as I can tell, Sea's Claim is not a popular MB card (especially as a 4-of), so your success is better attributed to radical deckbuilding than matchup experience, and someone playing a more normal Merfolk deck won't be able to have the same success no matter how much experience they have in the matchup, because they are lacking those cards which become pivotal in this specific matchup.

(I am obliged to say that from a purely mathematical standpoint, you will still be hit by T3 Daybreak Coronet about 40% of the time on the draw, and about 49% of the time on the play, so you won't have as great a matchup as you claim without showing that you can actually beat T3 Coronet).

When I mention credibility, I do so because you are trying to convince others of your opinion. Gross hyperbole and lack of willingness to acknowledge facts are not effective ways to do this. You may have all the results in the world, but if you don't even consider anybody else's point of view, while simultaneously not revealing why you are able to achieve these results, then

Quote from Lil_Bolas »

crush it everytime

This is why I use facts instead of opinions. You will not "crush it everytime", as you say. Player skill of course plays a big factor, and it's possible that player skill makes this a very favorable matchup for experienced pilots (which seems unlikely, but it's certainly possible). However, no amount of player skill can beat bad draws. No matter how good you are, there is variance, and people are very willing to cherrypick data, writing off losses to "bad luck", which is a fundamental part of the game. When you say that you "crush it everytime", your credibility is severely weakened.

Like I said, I'm no expert. I'm using the least biased sources I can, and interpretting from there. If you actually have an amazing Bogles matchup despite the facts, that's great. Incidentally, I'd like to know how you play this matchup, because you seem very confident in your ability to beat Bogles, even through their Coronet starts, which to me seems very difficult.

On the case of Disrupting Shoal: In Legacy, Force of Will isn't even good in very many matchups. It's played because when it's good, it's the best card in the deck. Disrupting Shoal can also be very good, but since you can't counter stuff like T1 Slippery Bogle without opening with Cursecatcher, so it hits a lot less of the important stuff.

Is anyone else looking at their format staples and wanting to sell out of the format? I used to love the format, but I am terrified that all my hard work in brewing and my investment is all for nothing. We are just going to ban everything until we are swinging bears at on another, and that will one day be deemed to powerful.

I'm not even a Twin player, nor have I ever been. But we've seen a pillar of the format take an unnecessary hit. First BBE, and now Twin. Pod deserved what it got, but it still wasn't good for the format. What now? Do we go after Inkmoth to hit both Infect and Affinity? Are we going to start banning tier two decks just because? There is no longer any stability in what was called an eternal format. Wizards is seeking to turn Modern into the next Extended, by putting it in it's grave.

Sometimes, and I know this is bad, I'll play a 1x Mana Tithe, and side it out game 2 or 3. The amount of tilt it's causes almost justifies its slot. I love it so much.

i hate running the enchantments against bloom titan. they just bounce the land and replay it. i'm not convinced that they're worth a spot against that deck.

the only time i've seen it be useful is if you catch them with their pants down with a pact they can no longer pay for. doesn't happen often though.

Quote from Programmer_112 »

Note that since Phenax's default state is "creature" (he is a creature UNLESS a condition is satisfied), he is a blocker for some period of time until state-based actions are checked. Then, he stops being a creature and is removed from combat as per 506.4.

This part is wrong. In this case, Phenax is never a creature on the battlefield, and therefore is never a blocker. State-based actions have nothing to do with it.

611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the
permanent entering the battlefield. They don’t wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and
then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are
applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters
the battlefield.

If your devotion is too low, even counting Phenax, then Phenax enters the battlefield as a non-creature.

Theros Release Notes
Compiled by Matt Tabak, with contributions from Laurie Cheers, Carsten Haese, Eli Shiffrin, Zoe Stephenson, and Thijs van Ommen
Document last modified August 6, 2013

* If a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if a creature entered the battlefield or not, for abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield.

Quote from Programmer_112 »

Note that since Phenax's default state is "creature" (he is a creature UNLESS a condition is satisfied), he is a blocker for some period of time until state-based actions are checked. Then, he stops being a creature and is removed from combat as per 506.4. However, the attacking creature is still blocked, because of 5

This part is not correct. The God's static ability applies continuously, not only when SBAs are checked. There is never a point when Phenax is a creature on the battlefield, and there is never a point when it is blocking.

Quote from Programmer_112 »

Don't name Elvish Archdruid or Nettle Sentinel with Pithing Needle either. Archdruid has a static ability and a mana ability, so it's impervious to Needle. Sentinel has a triggered ability, so Needle is useless there too. The only reasonable target is Ezuri.

I played against Elves last night. Pithing Needle on Ezuri, Renegade Leader seems right. I had the Pithing Needle in hand but decided to tap out and play two Master of Waves (one off of Aether Vial) and load up the board instead of playing Pithing Needle and naming Ezuri that turn. I lost that game on that turn. But fortunately I won the match. In my notes it clearly says - Pithing Needle Azuri asap!

First, welcome to our school, Programmer_112. I think we can all agree that with more people checking out Merfolk (due to its promotion to Tier 1), the discussion will only get better and better.

I just want to tune in for a moment to state my opinion on the MTGO stat discussion and its credibility.

Without a way to collect and analyse all the FNM and PPTQ games effectively, MTGO stat is the most objective data about how Merfolk fare against other decks. The issue is that the data suggests that Living End and Boggles are bad matchup for us while some players argue that the match up is not that difficult.

At it is currently, the MTGO stat is still not reliable enough. The sample size for the matchup against Boggles is merely 26 matches. Among those games, many could be played by bad or new players who just pick up the deck, try it out and get crushed although there is no way for us to actually know for sure.

However, it would be an exaggeration to say that the stat is "complete garbage". The people who collected the stats did the best they can to provide us the data and refusing to acknowledge them does not make us better players.

I would only believe the statement "you'll win X out of 10 games against Y deck using Z deck" if 2 experienced Modern players say that after having heavy testing time playing that specific matchup. Until then, I would choose to believe neither side and will use my own judgement instead.

Quote from Torpf »

Quote from BatHickey »

Quote from Torpf »

Pretty much any card that gives the opponent choices is going to end up not giving you what you want. Look at Gifts Ungiven! It was changed to be able to NOT give the opponent a choice and is no playable!

The Devil can be played, but there are probably more consistent options that you can be using because the opponent will take life when they have a lot to spare (or take more than one hit from the Devil) and will take the creature when they can remove it.

This assessment of gifts is incorrect.

Split the following pile so you don't lose all your creatures: wrath of god, damnation, supreme verdict, day of judgement.
Split the following pile so you don't get locked out of playing a color: unburial rites, iona, shield of emeria
split the following pile so I don't take infinite turns: Time Vault, Voltaic Key, Academy Ruins, Reconstruction

The first two are modern legal, and because of the nature of this card specifically--choice is an illusion unless you mess it up. The worst piles are the ones where the combo gets half assembled when you untap (like with academy ruins or noxious revival are in the pile, delaying your assemblage a turn), and straight value piles are great and sometimes common--just have four relevant targets for the situation you're trying to address.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant it as Gifts was printed to say "Search your library for four cards with different names, etc..." and was changed to say "Search your library for up to four cards with different names, etc...". I meant that because of the change it became more playable because you could get around the opponents choice aspect of it if need be, ie: Unburial Rites + Iona, Shield of Emeria.

This thread is for Vexing Devil though. I was just trying to use Gifts as an example of how limiting the choices the opponent can make (ie none with choosing only 2 cards) can make the card better. Therefor less choices for opponent = better cards.

Just as an info - it wasn't changed at all -> because of some weird rules you were able to search only 2 things with the first printing as well, they just made it more obvious on the newer printing. I think (I'm no judge so I could be missing something) that the point was that noone can force you to find stuff when searching, so you search up 2 cards and say that you fail to find more cards with different names and that was legal with the original printing.

Assuming you're in a command line terminal, use 'cd' to go into the folder that contains the script (train.lua) in this case. Then run the command from the command line terminal (th train.lua etc. etc.)

@Talcos; those are tremendously good flavour texts. Are you extracting those from the general card input file, or have you created an entirely separate input for flavour text?
Also, is your sample_hs_v2.lua script meant to work with hardcast's random field input (the one with field number tags)? I've attempted using it and it doesn't always produce correct results; telling it -manacost "{UURR}" gives a lot of results, only some of which are manacost UR.