I have long thought that the next avatar Wizards needs to make is a Momir for instants and sorceries. The only problem is that you'd have to get around the fact that far fewer of these would in fact be useful in a basic lands deck. If an instant/sorceries style avatar is going to be sucessful, it needs to be able to compete with Momir himself.
Ideally broadening the format a bit by allowing people to chose either avatar.
In Momir BASIC, one in three is really really good odds. There is no other mana slot at or below 9cc that has better chances of producing a flyer, and if you really really need the chump block, you can afford to sacrifice a bit on creature quality.
This play comes up about once in every fifty games where either I or my opponent will Momir for 0 in the late game in order to (hopefully) forestall a fatal attack.
The tokens put into play are copies of creatures with CMC X, and therefore they do have CMC's equal to that of the creature they are copying.
Hovering your mouse over the creature tokens causes them to be displayed large in the box on the left, but the text still often gets cut off, even on the largest card settings. If you keep the mouse still on the token for a second or two, a text box will appear displaying everything in that creature's text box.
In samdsherman's quote, the phrase '(blank)ing' is more or less a direct quote and not necessarilly meant to substitute for a specific swearword.
Momir games often come down to time, so it's useful to click the momir avatar and then tap lands to pay for the ability. On slower connections, this can save precious seconds that might add up by the end of the round.
As for the earlier comment about not needing 0's in your real life Momir Deck, I find that the zero slot is often a great refuge if you need to as sure as possible of getting a chump blocker with flying. You'd be surprised how often that ornithopter will save your life.
By the way,
If anyone does actually manage a way to play a version of this format In real Life, I'd like to hear about it. It seems like an awful lot of technical hurdles need to be overcome.
Posts merged. Please use the Edit button in future.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Momir Basic: 60% Luck, 40% Skill, 100% Awesome.. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Even the most avid scholar among us is daunted a little by a lengthy treatise, even if it is on a subject he loves.
Comedy strikes a very basic, very human chord. It's something that anyone (well, anyone who gets the In-jokes) can relate to. It's the kind of thing that makes this site stand out from the others.
'Spiral in Standard' is an in-depth, insightful, and altogether fabulous review of the strategy of this strange, new set. In a perfect world, it would compete only with other articles in the same category, and would trounce them all.
But not everyone cares about Standard, and comedy is a more universal draw.
People will come to Mtgsalvation for comedy, and they will stay for the strategy. To hope otherwise is only fooling ourselves.
I've gotta go with MTG Update #1. I hope there's an update #2 some day.
P.S. Although I know you guys are throwing votes at the underdog without neccessarilly endorsing it as the best or expecting it to win (kinda like voting for Nader) thanks to the five of you who at the time of this comment voted for my article. I'm not going to join you, because to be honest it's not that good, but thanks for the ego-boost, nonetheless.
Under the artifacts section, he left out Venser's Sliver. Daedalian's biggest qualm with the sliver tribe is that just about everyone will have a Sliver and thus you're giving your opponents access to neat abilities. Venser's gets around that problem-- taking your opponent's abilities and producing none of its own. I understand a 3/3 for 5 is underwhelming, though, but the only artifacts he mentioned were mana fixers.
There are, it appears, a lot of cards I've overlooked. Things Like greenskeeper and Castle Raptors had to be cut because the original article ran too long, and I considered their merits to be obvious enough that they don't need explicit mention. In the case of greenskeeper I probably should have said something. Perhaps the biggest casualty of that process is that I missed most of the really intriguing colorless and multicolored cards.
In the case of the Slivers, however, I should make this clarification. Play them. Definately play them. I had a bad experience with a heavilly sliver-based Sealed Deck that was completely trounced by a mediocre opponent with a Hivestone in the first round, and although I won or tied every other game, I missed the top eight on account of tiebreakers.
I believe this experience has unfairly colored my opinion of slivers in limited in general. For the most part, their sliver-ness should be ignored and their creature-ness merits are the only consideration you need.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Time Spiral: A First Look at Limited. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
I'd have said something earlier, but I've been busy with another article that should be out next week.
Well, at the very least I've sparked a lively discussion. It seems to me that the basic point is that some people feel mislead. Perhaps I wasn't very good at introducing myself or my article at the outset.
I'm not a very good player. Not everyone can be. The world is full of people who lose at tournaments, in fact, most of us lose most of the time.
I don't think that necessarily means I don't have something to contribute. I have been working to improve my intuitive understanding of the game. I've noticed that people learn from their mistakes better than from their succeses.
So I'd like to extend my appologies to anyone who feels as though this article was a misleading letdown. I'd also like to point out that these discussions that inevitably follow articles like these are a much better way to learn about improving one's game.
And thanks to MadMage for showing me the deck I could have/should have built. Godwilling, someday I'll see it during deck construction.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Why Don't I Suck at Limited?. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Ideally broadening the format a bit by allowing people to chose either avatar.
Probably not feasible, but a man can dream.
In Momir BASIC, one in three is really really good odds. There is no other mana slot at or below 9cc that has better chances of producing a flyer, and if you really really need the chump block, you can afford to sacrifice a bit on creature quality.
This play comes up about once in every fifty games where either I or my opponent will Momir for 0 in the late game in order to (hopefully) forestall a fatal attack.
The tokens put into play are copies of creatures with CMC X, and therefore they do have CMC's equal to that of the creature they are copying.
Hovering your mouse over the creature tokens causes them to be displayed large in the box on the left, but the text still often gets cut off, even on the largest card settings. If you keep the mouse still on the token for a second or two, a text box will appear displaying everything in that creature's text box.
In samdsherman's quote, the phrase '(blank)ing' is more or less a direct quote and not necessarilly meant to substitute for a specific swearword.
Momir games often come down to time, so it's useful to click the momir avatar and then tap lands to pay for the ability. On slower connections, this can save precious seconds that might add up by the end of the round.
As for the earlier comment about not needing 0's in your real life Momir Deck, I find that the zero slot is often a great refuge if you need to as sure as possible of getting a chump blocker with flying. You'd be surprised how often that ornithopter will save your life.
By the way,
If anyone does actually manage a way to play a version of this format In real Life, I'd like to hear about it. It seems like an awful lot of technical hurdles need to be overcome.
Posts merged. Please use the Edit button in future.
- RMS Oceanic
We could give out a topic and see who produces the better article on it in an hour or less.
Or we have them each write a paragraph of an article until someone falters.
Or see who can produce the least crappy Magic related poem.
It'll be more fun than a batter of standardized tests.
p.s. I supose we could just declare 2 winners due to unresolv-able tied-up-ed-ness, but where's the fun in that?
Even the most avid scholar among us is daunted a little by a lengthy treatise, even if it is on a subject he loves.
Comedy strikes a very basic, very human chord. It's something that anyone (well, anyone who gets the In-jokes) can relate to. It's the kind of thing that makes this site stand out from the others.
'Spiral in Standard' is an in-depth, insightful, and altogether fabulous review of the strategy of this strange, new set. In a perfect world, it would compete only with other articles in the same category, and would trounce them all.
But not everyone cares about Standard, and comedy is a more universal draw.
People will come to Mtgsalvation for comedy, and they will stay for the strategy. To hope otherwise is only fooling ourselves.
I've gotta go with MTG Update #1. I hope there's an update #2 some day.
P.S. Although I know you guys are throwing votes at the underdog without neccessarilly endorsing it as the best or expecting it to win (kinda like voting for Nader) thanks to the five of you who at the time of this comment voted for my article. I'm not going to join you, because to be honest it's not that good, but thanks for the ego-boost, nonetheless.
There are, it appears, a lot of cards I've overlooked. Things Like greenskeeper and Castle Raptors had to be cut because the original article ran too long, and I considered their merits to be obvious enough that they don't need explicit mention. In the case of greenskeeper I probably should have said something. Perhaps the biggest casualty of that process is that I missed most of the really intriguing colorless and multicolored cards.
In the case of the Slivers, however, I should make this clarification. Play them. Definately play them. I had a bad experience with a heavilly sliver-based Sealed Deck that was completely trounced by a mediocre opponent with a Hivestone in the first round, and although I won or tied every other game, I missed the top eight on account of tiebreakers.
I believe this experience has unfairly colored my opinion of slivers in limited in general. For the most part, their sliver-ness should be ignored and their creature-ness merits are the only consideration you need.
For the most part...
Well, at the very least I've sparked a lively discussion. It seems to me that the basic point is that some people feel mislead. Perhaps I wasn't very good at introducing myself or my article at the outset.
I'm not a very good player. Not everyone can be. The world is full of people who lose at tournaments, in fact, most of us lose most of the time.
I don't think that necessarily means I don't have something to contribute. I have been working to improve my intuitive understanding of the game. I've noticed that people learn from their mistakes better than from their succeses.
So I'd like to extend my appologies to anyone who feels as though this article was a misleading letdown. I'd also like to point out that these discussions that inevitably follow articles like these are a much better way to learn about improving one's game.
And thanks to MadMage for showing me the deck I could have/should have built. Godwilling, someday I'll see it during deck construction.
-DaedalianIngenuity,
Limited Afficianado