All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Magic Market Index for June 8th, 2018
 
Ravnica: The Living Guildpact
 
Magic Market Index for June 1st, 2018
  • posted a message on Have to pay to play?
    You know you can play ladder without any payments, right? Earning 500 coins for Quick Constructed is a matter of a few games. The prices of Competitive Constructed and Quick Draft are a bit off, but there should be some pricing update coming in July, I think.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on The problem with jerks running the clock [since the June update]
    I don't think Stoogeslap was talking about waiting for topdecks. There are literally people walking out on the game to do their laundry or whatever, waiting for the system to drop them, while you have to passively stare at the screen for five minutes.

    I have a certain amount of time I can devote daily to playing Arena. If I have to wait 2-5 minutes for somebody to get dropped, several times per day, it's reducing the amount of time I am actually playing and number of games I do play. I am winning those games, sure, but it's FtP and there are no real rewards. I am playing just for the sake of enjoying the game. This is the exact opposite of that.

    The argument of not liking Lantern Control just doesn't hold. As long as the cards are legal and the plan wins you games, any deck is acceptable. And what is a "hair-pulling deck" anyway? If I know I can't win against something (and I admit, the lack of post-SB games in ladder and quick constructed is an issue sometimes), I just GG and concede on the spot. No reason being salty and making somebody else's day marginally worse just because I didn't have "fun".

    The number of times people ran the clock on me has slightly increased over the past week. It's still not statistically significant (I just find it funny that most of the time it's people running full-on UW/Esper builds with 10+ PWs and ~100% rare manabase, losing against some FtP goblin with monoR artifact ramp), but it's happening ever more often. Yet I don't think there is a way to distinguish between unsportsmanlike behaviour and connection issues, so this is just not going away.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on The problem with jerks running the clock [since the June update]
    Is this really that much of a problem? I must admit I encountered such behaviour, but I think it didn't happen to me more than two, three times since the Dominaria patch. Granted, I have been losing two out of three games (to the goddamned RB aggro) since Kaladesh was introduced (I guess that's what you get for trying to run an off-meta deck on principle).
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Im new to Magic
    Hi! I think the first thing you need to do is think about what is it that you want from playing MtG. Some people like to play casually, some are competitive. What you should do really depends on where you want to get in the game. I'd say the first thing you should do is simply play, find out what you enjoy, what play styles you prefer, whether you actually want to attend tournaments (and at what level), etc., etc. Talk to people, find out what are the possibilities in your area. You can usually find quite a few helpful and willing people in your community who will help you navigate deckbuilding, formats and getting your hands on the cards you want.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Exploration & Cloudstone Curio
    Thanks! However, I still don't see the difference between Exploration's allowing you to play one extra land and Muldrotha's allowing you to play one of each permanent type from graveyard per turn explained in the rules. I mean, it says right there that continuous effect generated by a static ability is dependent on the permanent being on the battlefield and re-casting Exploration makes it a new object. (I am not arguing with anyone and I can see the augmenting/granting distinction, it's just that I can't see it in the rules. Maybe I just got hit over the head too many times.)
    I get that I shouldn't be linking land drops with permanents granting them, but it's not stated explicitly anywhere. Am I still missing something?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Exploration & Cloudstone Curio
    That distinction makes sense. Is there also a section in Comprehensive Rules talking about this?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Exploration & Cloudstone Curio
    That's a good point, High Ground is a clear example. I just assumed cases like Exploration and Azusa would behave similarly to Muldrotha, to use a recent example.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Exploration & Cloudstone Curio
    Well, that's counterintuitive. Thanks for the answer. I guess the change made the game less broken, it just feels that it works in a different manner than everything else.

    No Derevi shenanigans for me then.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Exploration & Cloudstone Curio
    We had a discussion about the interaction of Exploration and Cloudstone Curio in our EDH group today. The more general idea of the question was whether the extra land drops from cards like Exploration - i.e. permanents that allow you to play additional lands - accumulate if you somehow return the permanent in question to your hand and get it onto the battlefield again.

    For sake of simplicity, let's imagine a hypothetical board on which I have:
    Exploration
    Cloudstone Curio
    Enchanted Evening

    I assume that when I play a Forest, it triggers Cloudstone Curio, as it is not an artifact, and since everything is an enchantment, I can bounce the Exploration. Can I then, after replaying Exploration using the Forest play another Forest, bounce Exploration again and repeat this ad nauseam (or for as long as I have lands in hand), or does the enchantment simply allow me to play two lands instead of one and checks how many I have already played independently of it being on the board?

    I get that this is explained by rules 305.2a-b and I assume that what Exploration does is a continuous effect as per rule 613.10, but I just don't know how this works in practice.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Gaea's Blessing
    What? Where's the Rebecca Guay artwork? I'm gonna riot!

    All jokes aside, I really do prefer the old art. And I think the card's iconic enough to be kept intact. At least it's a reference.
    Will this card be useful in standard? Probably not. But I am still trying to make more or less classical Baron deck work in Commander with some (albeit very limited) success, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Danitha + Blackblade
    Vicious Offering.
    We haven't seen the entire spoiler yet, but I think that between Vicious Offering, Wizard's Lightning and Seal Away in the set and the cards already in Standard, there will be enough cheap answers for Danitha not to be broken. We'll see, everything depends on the meta. If everybody relies on creature-based tactics, then sure, this is something definitely worth trying out.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on Commander 2017 announcement -- Only 4 decks, based on popular tribes, not color wheel!
    Regarding the Sol Ring ban topic, I just want to point out that Sheldon stated that the MTGO changes will not affect paper multiplayer Commanader, i.e. the format we talk about here. Source: http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18600

    And to not be entirely off-topic: quite a few people here suggested Eldrazi as the unexpected tribe. Doesn't that mean that people expect them? I hope it's something much more improbable, like homarids or beebles.
    Or at least clerics. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Mothership - Full set
    Well, I'm gonna go "meh" on this one. It's not that the set is bad, it most definitely isn't. I just don't enjoy the aesthetics of vehicles and pilots and all that jazz. Not to mention energy counters. Mechanic is just fine, but the new pictures on cards? Not my cup of tea. There are quite a few cards for my casual cube in the making and commander decks, though. I'm just happy for all of you who actually like the set as a whole.

    One more thing: Revolutionary Rebuff. You all seem to like it. Why? I started playing back when Counterspell was a thing. Mana Leal is a perfectly fine common for both limited and constructed. Was it really necessary to nerf it this much?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Tone of the Announcement Day Video
    Sure, it's not perfect. You're right that the enthusiasm seems awfully staged, but they are trying real hard here. It's not easy doing this on camera. The first time I was made to "perform" this way (yes, it was a cooking show, why do you ask?), it looked even worse. That's what you get when you make people with zero experience with public performance to do this kind of thing.
    Also, regarding the video, I really appreciate that they did it in one take. That's a major pain to pull off, even if it is something this simple.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Lands in the set
    Quote from SpinifexV ยป
    This is a thread about Kaladesh, look at the [KLD] tag in the title.


    Damnit! I could have sworn this was about Conspiracy. Thanks for pointing that out, sorry to interrupt the discussion.

    To not be totally off-topic: Since Wizards are trying to keep the numbers of allied and enemy lands in standard equal (but not equally efficient), I hope we'll see 5 uncommon and 5 rare lands again, finally getting enemy fastlands. Or enemy lands to complete any other cycle. Anything would be nice. Just give me two more efficient lands for my highlander Grin
    Posted in: Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.