Gemstone caverns - i dont run, do they really help you? I usually lose game 1 and they should really accelerate you if you are on the play game 2 (which i also lose)
They can. When used in conjunction with Simian Spirit Guide you can sometimes power out a Turn One Reality Smasher on the draw. I've actually pulled it off. Quite fun, a bit inconsistent.
"It would be bad" isn't actually very constructive.
Correct, it isn't destructive either. It's an opinion, it's subjective and nothing else. Why it would detract is what we'd like to hear. Then some of us will share why it will help.
I did repply to this in depth.
What do you think of my humble sugestion for fixing modern:
1. Ban some cards froma ffinaty so you do not need dedicated sideboard hate in every deck in modern.
2. Ban all cards related to storm.
3. Untap all the blue cantrips that where to good because storm was in the metagame. (Ponder and preordain.)
I'm not a big fan of going multiple bans from Affinity. If any card was to be chosen it would need to be Cranial Plating and nothing more.
Storm is fine, the meta isn't overrun with this deck right now. No bans necessary
I am for unbans but not both Ponder and Preordain. Just one and see what happens, then maybe the other.
Opening up sideboard size very well could lead to the unban of some cards. I think this could increase the variety of the Meta.
"It would be bad" isn't actually very constructive.
Correct, it isn't destructive either. It's an opinion, it's subjective and nothing else. Why it would detract is what we'd like to hear. Then some of us will share why it will help.
Is this promted from the article om Starcity Games?
No, my thread pre-dates that article from today. Wouldn't doubt if Mark Nestico got part of his idea from this thread. I do like that article as it supports my position though.
You are asking, of course, a general question, rather than a Modern question.
Actually no I'm not. This would be Modern specific. Other formats could find their "sweet spot".
Also 20 may seem "absurd" to you but seems perfectly legitimate to me. Don't use a feeling (subjectiveness) you have as an absolute truth(objectiveness), I won't do it either then. I'd prefer to let the data do the talking when I poll. 16 or 20 would seem logical as that could be 4 or 5 entire playsets of cards. When I poll, I will try to include as many choices as I can, including numbers BELOW 15 in case we have people out there that would like to see a reduction in SB numbers. I will try to do something like 0,3,5,8,10,12,15,16,17,18,19 20. If I can I will go individual numbers from 0 to 20 (or 25 if it will allow me to.) If anyone would like any input on how I set the poll up please feel free to make constructive suggestions.
Actually it helps fair decks more than combo because combo has to maintain a certain level of core cards to be able to go off. Fair decks don't have that necessity.I don't think it would invalidate any strategy any more than they have been already. Game ones will still be heavily favored by the combo player. Beyond that, I can't imagine a major change in the post board games. Maybe 2 or 3 percent on the plus side for fair decks for wins, maybe. But I think a larger number of games will actually be played out rather than silver bullet and you lose and no silver bullet, I lose. It will still be mostly chance. It would be a change yes and it would likely be messy for a while, but that happens with any change. Would it be worse than the Treasure Cruise debacle or the eldrazi mess, I doubt it. MTG is a living game, every aspect of it has to be able to evolve or it will not flourish.
Well put. It would simply allow for more interaction. Magic is a game of action and reaction, take away options and there are less reactions. This could open up some doors for certain decks as well. I see the benefits far outweighing any negatives presented so far.
I'm also leaning towards a poll with multiple choices of SB cards so we can get some numbers and get an average as well.
Maybe for some fantasy words yes. But for everyday English language words his mispronunciations are not intentional, he just doesn't know how to say them. And he very well may be covering for it by saying he does it on purpose. I'll know my answer if I get a response back.
Yes, he also does regular words wrong on purpose. I will go find an instance where even says "I know it is X, but I like saying Y to mess with you people" in non-live videos. It was in a Modern Against the Odds a couple months ago with blue.
Don't know the fellow and how he speaks but you should watch the EU coverage sometimes or play in an European GP, you'll get hammered by the finest vintage of Globish with various flavors who'll probably make that guy feel like some erudite orator.
I hear you. I can excuse non-native speakers at times though. Having a wide audience like Saffron Olive has means you have influence over multitudes that listen. Might as well set a correct example while you're at it. Again, just wanting the community to sound "professional" if you take my meaning. Even though its just a game. And a damned fun one at that.
He said he does it on purpose. Even last night, he said we will be pronouncing Kaladash wrong to rile up the viewers (Kal-E-dash like he pronounces Kal-E-tas for Kalitas). He also knows he gets complaints about it, but it is what he likes to do, he said, so I don't think you will be swaying him at all.
Maybe for some fantasy words yes. But for everyday English language words his mispronunciations are not intentional, he just doesn't know how to say them. And he very well may be covering for it by saying he does it on purpose. I'll know my answer if I get a response back.
I like the poll idea but could/would you make it clear about a swap cap please. I'm not sure if you're totally on board with the idea but the issue/concern of transformative boards seems pretty universal.
I am also thinking about the wording of the poll itself. I can do a simple keep 15 vs. more than 15 vote or I can offer numbers 0,5,10,15,16,20 or something like that. I am not adverse to transformative sideboards but a cap of 20 would be the max I would think.
I think it's likely arbitrary. Like you said 16 or 17 is too close to 15. 20 adds another playset of something. Adding one or two cards doesn't feel like your increasing your odds much, a full playset is more of a statistical dent.
It is indeed entirely arbitrary and anyone who thinks it was devised by Magic's greatest minds testing and retesting is deluding themselves. I've played this game off and on since '94 and never saw any evidence supporting a concerted effort was put in to perfect sideboard size. 15 is 1/4 of 60, plain and simple.
@rcwaspy
75 cards is more than enough to use to decide whether or not you're going to care about that deck and to what extent.
That is your OPINION, not a fact. I disagree entirely. Just because you feel one way doesn't make that reality. I feel 75 isn't enough. Reality is what ALL players think/feel. A poll would start to get us some hard data. I will be starting one this weekend.
Another one of my thoughts as well.
Not as strong but possibly playable for tutoring aBlightsteel Colossus.
RG Tron loved having Eye of Ugin to fetch up a big boy.
Now Affinity could theoretically tutor up one copy of Wurmcoil Engine or Mindslaver.
They can. When used in conjunction with Simian Spirit Guide you can sometimes power out a Turn One Reality Smasher on the draw. I've actually pulled it off. Quite fun, a bit inconsistent.
I'm not a big fan of going multiple bans from Affinity. If any card was to be chosen it would need to be Cranial Plating and nothing more.
Storm is fine, the meta isn't overrun with this deck right now. No bans necessary
I am for unbans but not both Ponder and Preordain. Just one and see what happens, then maybe the other.
Opening up sideboard size very well could lead to the unban of some cards. I think this could increase the variety of the Meta.
Poll coming soon.
Correct, it isn't destructive either. It's an opinion, it's subjective and nothing else. Why it would detract is what we'd like to hear. Then some of us will share why it will help.
Do yourselves a favor and read up.
No, my thread pre-dates that article from today. Wouldn't doubt if Mark Nestico got part of his idea from this thread. I do like that article as it supports my position though.
Actually no I'm not. This would be Modern specific. Other formats could find their "sweet spot".
Also 20 may seem "absurd" to you but seems perfectly legitimate to me. Don't use a feeling (subjectiveness) you have as an absolute truth(objectiveness), I won't do it either then. I'd prefer to let the data do the talking when I poll. 16 or 20 would seem logical as that could be 4 or 5 entire playsets of cards. When I poll, I will try to include as many choices as I can, including numbers BELOW 15 in case we have people out there that would like to see a reduction in SB numbers. I will try to do something like 0,3,5,8,10,12,15,16,17,18,19 20. If I can I will go individual numbers from 0 to 20 (or 25 if it will allow me to.) If anyone would like any input on how I set the poll up please feel free to make constructive suggestions.
Well put. It would simply allow for more interaction. Magic is a game of action and reaction, take away options and there are less reactions. This could open up some doors for certain decks as well. I see the benefits far outweighing any negatives presented so far.
I'm also leaning towards a poll with multiple choices of SB cards so we can get some numbers and get an average as well.
If you can find it, please link it. Thanks.
Maybe for some fantasy words yes. But for everyday English language words his mispronunciations are not intentional, he just doesn't know how to say them. And he very well may be covering for it by saying he does it on purpose. I'll know my answer if I get a response back.
I am also thinking about the wording of the poll itself. I can do a simple keep 15 vs. more than 15 vote or I can offer numbers 0,5,10,15,16,20 or something like that. I am not adverse to transformative sideboards but a cap of 20 would be the max I would think.
It is indeed entirely arbitrary and anyone who thinks it was devised by Magic's greatest minds testing and retesting is deluding themselves. I've played this game off and on since '94 and never saw any evidence supporting a concerted effort was put in to perfect sideboard size. 15 is 1/4 of 60, plain and simple.
@rcwaspy
That is your OPINION, not a fact. I disagree entirely. Just because you feel one way doesn't make that reality. I feel 75 isn't enough. Reality is what ALL players think/feel. A poll would start to get us some hard data. I will be starting one this weekend.