EDIT: I did not expect those PW deck cards. Those are craptastic.
We were already told about those months ago and were warned as well that they wouldn't be designed as competitively viable. It's a product for new players, and I think they do their job there fine.
second thought: nailing down it's interaction with Akroan Horse
Horse enters the battlefield, and you put two triggers on the stack. One targets one opponent. The other targets the same or a different opponent. You are not your own opponent, so you can't target yourself. The trigger placed last resolves first and the horse goes to that opponent. The trigger placed first resolves last and the horse goes to that opponent.
So basically, it doesn't really matter for Akroan Horse whether you have the artifact or not.
I don't personally run proxies, but I don't mind if others do. I would prefer they actually own the cards somewhere or at least keep things reasonable, though. I've played people before who just use proxies as an excuse to put all the broken mana sources and other old powerful and expensive cards into their deck, and it's left a sour taste in my mouth.
I think that's why they flat out told us this time. I have a feeling they would have left it a mystery, but didn't want another uproar like what happened with Emrakul.
I very much doubt it. With Innistrad, the mystery was the draw. Something weird was going on and nobody knew the cause. With Amonkhet, Nicol Bolas is the draw. He will be right up in your face the moment you set foot on the plane since everyone worships him. There's no mystery to that, so they should be up-front about his presence to catch the attention of everyone who likes him as a villain.
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
Is it spiteful towards the player killing you with a creature equipped with sword of fire and ice, if you deny him the card draw, or is it spiteful towards the rest of the table for allowing this player to draw?
The difference being that one is just how the rules of the game work and the other is a side effect of not being able to stop anyone from simply picking up their cards and leaving. I don't see how it's smart or not to deny advantage to a player that kills you. You're out of the game either way, so why do you care? Better to let the rules operate as normal to maintain the integrity of the game.
Should I be made to finish the game so the player holding my Demon isn't screwed?
I don't believe anyone has said that you should be forced to sit in the game until eliminated. That would be ridiculous. The issue being discussed is entirely about the exact moment you choose to scoop. The player could have scooped slightly before or slightly after when they did so, but they instead choose the best moment to screw over another player, such as after their opponent has attacked for lethal but before damage is done so they can't put any combat damage triggers on the stack.
I'm not sure how you are baffled by tactical scooping. If I want to concede to deny my opponent a trigger because I am dead anyway it is my choice and the game rules defend that. If that isn't a tactical scoop then I'll need to call your definition of "tactical" into question.
Also, am I allowed to kill myself with Necro or any other sort of life loss or is that "wrong" as well.
Frankly, threads like this feel less about game balance and more about suggesting how others play the game is "incorrect". I see little difference between this and past threads about countermagic being unfair.
What are tactics? "An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end" (from googling the definition). So the game is over for you. You've been beaten. Exactly what end are you trying to reach? It's no longer winning this game, obviously. So why would you wait to concede till the perfect time to screw over another player? I can think of only a few reasons.
You just don't want that person in particular to win.
You're trying to get a specific person to win.
You want to influence the seeds for later matches
The first is just mean. The second is collusion. Both are seen as fairly toxic behaviors, in my experience. The third is about the only tactically relevant reason since it's the only one that gets you to a larger goal of winning whatever league or tournament you're in. I can see why a league/tournament organizer would want to minimize the influence of any of these reasons since they have nothing to do with skill or luck within individual games and are at best people meta-gaming the structure of the event.
So why, personally, do you want to do this in your games? You certainly have to right to within the rules, but what end are you trying to reach when you do it?
Bitter Ordeal. Praetor's Grasp is more flexible, but less powerful in its use. One way to use it is to get rid of a single card, which is often not enough to make much difference. If you use it against another black player, maybe it becomes an unreliable tutor (no guarantee they have the card you want), but the card does go back to its owner's graveyard if you cast it.
Bitter Ordeal, cast after a board wipe, can go in and gut multiple people's decks, or just really shut down a combo deck. If I'm against combo, I think I'd like the ability to remove their redundancies more than I'd like the tutor.
Meld is quite possibly the worst sealed deck and draft mechanic ever conceived.
Yeah, at higher rarities, it is. But each card at the higher rarities is good on its own, and then they put one pair at common, so there is a reasonable chance of getting both halves there if you want them in draft (especially because you only need to grab the good half and can get the 2/1 passed to you extremely easily). They only put three pairs in the set, and I suspect they did it this way precisely, as you say, because it could have been much worse in limited. As it is, I think they dealt with the problem very well. The times you actually get both halves of the rare/mythic meld cards will just be great stories.
So basically, it doesn't really matter for Akroan Horse whether you have the artifact or not.
- You just don't want that person in particular to win.
- You're trying to get a specific person to win.
- You want to influence the seeds for later matches
The first is just mean. The second is collusion. Both are seen as fairly toxic behaviors, in my experience. The third is about the only tactically relevant reason since it's the only one that gets you to a larger goal of winning whatever league or tournament you're in. I can see why a league/tournament organizer would want to minimize the influence of any of these reasons since they have nothing to do with skill or luck within individual games and are at best people meta-gaming the structure of the event.So why, personally, do you want to do this in your games? You certainly have to right to within the rules, but what end are you trying to reach when you do it?
Bitter Ordeal, cast after a board wipe, can go in and gut multiple people's decks, or just really shut down a combo deck. If I'm against combo, I think I'd like the ability to remove their redundancies more than I'd like the tutor.