2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Jerks destroying your cards
    When I had just started playing (in junior high) I was playing a game in the library of my school and some jerks 4 metres away started throwing magazines at the table, and these guys were 2 years older than us and more numerous, so we collected our cards fast and beat it.

    Later I discovered that 8 or so cards, including one of my only rares at the time (Avatar of Fury), had gotten lost in the hasty retreat, so I went back the next day at the same time and they were making card castles with the cards. I demanded them back, and they just laughed and returned them, to my surprise. No significant damage in the end.

    Before you ask, I don't partake in any form of revenge.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How many decks do you have?
    Despite playing for 5 years, I only have 2 decks built: GRW Assault Loam Control (Standard) and UW Control (Highlander-Vintage). This is because I generally only play in FNM's and Highlander in between rounds, and Limited, and the only Constructed in my area is Standard, so I have no use for any other decks. So I just take apart decks as soon as the format changes or I want to switch decks, and I just try to trade away the rares.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Planewalkers Minisite Not Such A Good Idea
    They've said they'll be making 5 each set, or something like that.

    Personally, I would have no problem at all if they made them more powerful. They get me all excited and I just see Liliana Vess and shake my head.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Complete Lorwyn Patch for MWS
    I tried the sealed deck function and it worked just fine. Is there something I'm missing? (I never used it before now.)

    Also, Dreamspoiler Witches appears in the spoiler as "Dreamspoiled" without flying, which it should have.

    EDIT: When I try to work with the generated cards as an Inventory or Base, it just shows me the unique cards (uniformly less than 75, because doubles always show up). I don't have "Show only unique cards" checked. What am I doing wrong?
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on A question about marking or something...
    What about misprinted cards (in a constructed tournament)? Some of them might not only be unrecognizable, but even be considered marked, due to texture differences.

    I'm also curious how far art alterations are generally allowed to go. I want to draw on the commons in my decks but I don't want to have to replace them at a moment's notice...
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Venting on the Stigma with Magic
    I don't go out of my way to mention this particular hobby, but I never lie to hide it. In the end, I find myself only friends with those who can understand my passion, or at very least couldn't care less.

    As an aside, the former bass player from a popular local band plays Magic in our area often, so I've got a convenient point to prove it's "cool, no really."

    All else failing, and assuming I actually want to win the favour of this person who dislikes my choice of hobby for some reason, I use humour. (For example, telling them they're just jealous with a grin on, or perhaps gesticulating wildly while proclaiming myself emperor of the nerds in a sarcastic tone.) Most of the time, if someone WANTS to see your side of something, but thinks their decision has already been made by their social position, humour is a great way to give them an emergency exit and let them agree with you. Rational arguments will not work in this situation.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Hypothetical Question - Unwinnable Game?
    Yeah, I guess I meant some card that could be played easily but have no effect, such as Life from the Loam for 0 in my deck.

    In any case, what IS covered clearly in the rules is intentional draws. Both players can agree to draw at any time, for any reason (short of bribery or other things specifically stated).

    By the way, I got matched up against the MartyrTron deck in question, but fortunately it didn't come to that. (Or even come to time. Surprising.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on [Official Thread] GW Noobstax
    I'm testing on MWS. The mirror match is really brutal. Krosan Grips would probably make it winnable. Otherwise it easily comes down to decking. The crucial play was my opponent casting Plow Under on himself to make his library bigger than mine (he was the first to draw one), and then dropping Chalice for 5.
    Posted in: Decks for Critique
  • posted a message on [Official Thread] GW Noobstax
    Is that 59 cards?
    Posted in: Decks for Critique
  • posted a message on Recursive Replacement Effects?
    Okay, I see what I was missing now, but humour me and imagine the following two enchantments:

    "If you would discard a card, discard it and then draw a card instead."

    "If you would discard a card, discard it and then gain 3 life instead."

    Obviously these cards would be done with triggered abilities, and I may have the templating wrong, but is each replacement effect creating a new discard that could be replaced all over again? (I now see why this isn't how Necro and Library work though.)

    Even more general a question: would it be possible by any stretch of the imagination to draw with replacement abilities? With pre-existing cards, or perhaps with invented ones?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Merfolk 1-Drop
    I think that to obsolete Merfolk of the Pearl Trident, they'd have to make something actually exciting so players would accept the change. Also, Wildfire393's example with the "reveal" mechanic doesn't obsolete anything, and is definitely exciting. Seems quite likely they'll use this mechanic here. We've seen it on two 1-drops so far if I'm not mistaken.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [LOR] Sygg, River Guide & some Merfolk pals (+ more Hydro teasers)
    YES. I reeeally wanted merfolk to "happen" curve-wise, and this makes a competitive deck look all that much more likely, along with Lord of Atlantis.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Recursive Replacement Effects?
    Alright, I'll take your word for it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Recursive Replacement Effects?
    In the recent MTG Classics Cranial Insertion article, an example of Library of Leng and Necropotence was used. Apparently, under the old wording, Necropotence simply had a "regular" replacement effect, but it now seems updated to match the Library.

    My question is, what is the interaction now? Would one replace the discard, and the other replace the discard of the first, and both trade back and forth replacing infinitely (resulting in a draw)?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on DCI Player Communication & Shortcut Guide
    I'm curious about this passage:

    Players must answer completely and honestly specific questions about past game actions taken since the active player's previous turn.

    I'm wondering if this would apply to questions such as "Did I play a land this turn?" Specifically, whose job is it to know this info?

    In this article "basic information" is described. Can you be penalized for not knowing basic information (you can for being wrong about it apparently)? Furthermore, if my opponent asks me if he's played a land already, can I call him on not knowing basic information? If he tries to play a second land, can I call over a judge and say he was mistaken about basic information? Here's a nasty one -- knowing full well that I HAD played a land this turn, can I ask my opponent whether I have, and then call him on it if he says no? Basically, can I quiz my opponent on basic information in the hopes he'll get it wrong?

    I wouldn't personally try these underhanded shenanigans, but they might be hard to spot for a judge. Maybe the active player honestly forgot whether he'd played a land, and the opponent thought the active player hadn't, but then the active player remembered that he had. This may be more important than it seems because the non-active player providing false information (unwittingly) might cause the ignorant active player to reveal hidden information (Maze of Ith, etc).

    Basically, I have issues with who's responsible for knowing what. If both players are responsible for the the current and previous turns as the document suggests, then why is there a need for any questions about basic information to be asked at all? (barring a Meddling Mage played 5 turns ago: corner cases to say the least)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.