2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Im looking for a larger image of this card
    Some variations in full art:

    You can buy the original prints:

    To find art that looks similar or the same in different sizes, you can just copy/paste the picture in Google-Image Search and look what you get:

    Google-Image-Search Result

    And if you find nothing, you can just try to enlarge the image with software.
    Plenty of free "image-enlarger" that might work for you and try out.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Stranger things secret lair spoiler and upcoming secret lairs
    More partner ...

    yea cause that turned out so balanced and well ...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on An elder god cycle in Crimson vow?
    Quote from Ferret »
    It would be nice to see some HP Lovecraft inspired things, but seriously, what would the Cthulhu card be like?

    20/20 Trample, unblockable, vigilance, reach
    When you cast Cthulhu, sacrifice ten creatures or Cthulhu is exiled

    Thats basically Eldrazi

    They are the entire eldritch horror HP Lovecraft inspired monsters, tentacles and all included.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Crimson vow previews start on October 28th
    Quote from cyberium_neo »
    Wait a sec... so several PW involved in this ritual, including two of the old walkers (Teferi/Sorin), against a bunch of monsters who're likely weaker than Emrakul's crisis, and still the ritual failed? Am I missing something?

    Sorin doesnt give a damn about the people anymore, they basically deserve all suffering by now.

    Teferi is only there as a plot device as hes the "time-magic" dude.

    The plane is full of vampires and monsters, theres actually no reason why "humans" have any higher ranking to be protected, if anything they could go for a mass-exodus of the plane, so all humans simply leave, Innistrad is super hostile for humans anyway, so unless you completely purge all vampires and monsters, they will suffer forever.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Survey - Your Collection
    Fishing for emails ?

    Good try.
    Posted in: Opinions & Polls
  • posted a message on Crimson vow previews start on October 28th
    Sounds like freeing Emrakul (Imprisoned in the Moon) is a proper solution to the vampire problem.

    Just PURGE the plane.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Innistrad Double Feature and Commander Collection Black
    Quote from Magiqmaster »
    LMAO... very well said! Despite what Maro has said many times, about the fact that each product is not meant for everyone, I can't help but think that it sounds a bit shallow, but rather a company quote he has to say in order to appease the crowds on that subject.

    Its short for, we produce all kinds of products, throw them at the customer and wait what sticks.

    Its also a lazy way to have an excuse for terrible product, as they can distract and simply say "Then buy the other".

    Why quality control if you can just do that instead ?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Innistrad Double Feature and Commander Collection Black
    Quote from Dontrike »

    Either? Choose two of one and one of the other? Again, back when blocks were a thing that's how it happened and yes both Innistrad 3 sets will be large sets, but the solution definitely isn't "here's another product."

    The irony is that WotC produces these "issues" of not having a block of 3 sets anymore, then "fixes" the issue they produced with another product to sell the same cards in new packaging.

    Its absolutely hilarious, but if just 1 person buys this product, it will embolden them in their path.

    (They kinda did that in the past, like with the Premium all foil Shards of Alara packs, which had cards of all the sets in the block, so it was a 3-in-1 thing)

    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Innistrad Double Feature and Commander Collection Black
    So these packs are basically just glorified REPACKS of their own product ?

    Amazin ... a new low ...

    Why spend time and effort making new cards when you can just put the old stuff in a new pack and sell it again.

    Seriously question who exactly buys into these products, somebody clearly does, but absolutely everyone i know is only buying singles by now, as the sheer avalanche of product completely alienated the experience.

    If you are a completionist and want a full set, Magic is more expensive then ever (and not by a small amount, but by multiple factors).
    At this point you can only really buy into very specific stuff and ignore all the rest.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on K- pop foxes and Yakuza Nezumi?
    Quote from Flisch »

    The K stands for Japanese.

    Its "Korean Popular Music".

    People might put all kinds of asian pop-music into the genre still.


    I would think they go just a bit more about technology and the human culture in here, and ditch the entire "spirit" part more.
    There might still be a faction in Kamigawa that is more about their former religion, with spirits in the mix, but spirits probably wont be a major part anymore, as the Kami-war is over.

    Some equipment is probably guaranteed, even simple commons just for limited.

    Kamigawa also had a bunch of artifacts with effects, hopefully we get some interesting new ones here.

    If they now go the route of 10 2-color factions just like they basically always do now, we might get a handful of cards for all kinds of them.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on How can you be "competitive".
    Well, if your deck is only reactive with removal and does not do anything pro-active itself, then you are at the whim of randomness to "not lose".
    Its obviously a better bet to roll on winning than not losing.

    If a deck has to draw its Doomskar just to "not lose" , its probably not a viable deck in that metagame.
    If a mass removal is winning you a game that hard, you can pack 4 more in, and with 8 copies, drawing one has a pretty good chance, especially with mulligans.

    And if a deck packs that many point removal and just reactive cards, it will struggle especially hard against variety of opponents, as the removal is not "catch-all" enough (thats why good control decks are tuned against specific decks in a metagame, and not against a field of very different decks).

    If you dont know what your opponent is going to be playing, its much better to optimize your own game plan to be as fast and consistent as possible, thats why especially aggro decks do well in a format that does not have a fleshed out metagame of decks, as speed and consistency is going to win games if the opponent does not have a proper deck.

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Questionning recent set of magic
    Yes, having more generic mechanics and wording of mechanics to allow them to work with more mechanics is much better game design than parasitic mechanics that only work with themselves.

    They realized that with "Arcane" spells and the like, but today they embrace this stuff with the gimmick mechanics.

    Rosewater especially is fully aware of the problems they introduce in game design, but hes just not acting to avoid them (or other designers just blatantly run in the same errors again and again).

    I dont like it either, but in the end, they make a mechanic, print like a Commander deck with it as a theme and call it a day, Next set is just a blink of an eye away.

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Questionning recent set of magic
    In the past Magic was about Blocks , 1 big set, then 2 smaller expansions to that set.

    That way you had a story over 9 months, much more cards, much more time to play and collect these cards and everything was slower and cleaner.

    Today, every set (with exceptions) is just 1 set, then you hop to another set, another story, the story itself is much less fleshed out, theres more product and variations of everything, so its much more of a "rush".

    And WotC is chasing that "high" on full force, with their screwed idea of pleasing everyone a little bit, its easily overkill if you commit to much to all of it.
    I personally resort to playing just on Fridays (and PreReleases on the weekend) very regularly, so its more of a constant and less too much of Magic (as you can totally burn out).

    Current set designs follow somewhat of a checkbox sheet.
    They very much tend to have at least 5 color combinations per set and often all 10 2-color pairs in some kind of theme for a set.
    Thats super cramped up for a single set, to have basically 10-factions in some kind or another.

    Planeswalker for a long time had the issue that they also followed some kind of template , 4-5 mana, +1 had to either make tokens or draw a card, -2 had to be some kind fo removal or produce some bigger card advantage, and the ultimate had to somehow win the game.
    For the first bunch of planeswalkers thats cool new stuff, but when you get the 20th planeswalker with that design template, well, it gets super boring.

    The planeswalkers that break out of these templates are either super bad, or pretty broken (playable 3 mana planeswalkers tend to be pretty overpowered).

    Most set mechanics are mainly done for Limited play. Almost all cards in a set are just useful for Limited, draft, or sealed format, all the "bad" commons and fringe uncommons and otherwise unplayable rares.

    In constructed just a subset of a set actually can be relevant, as so many cards are just flat out worse than the "mythic" in the set.
    And the way WotC designs sets, they have a metagame in mind they are planning to see, so they are aware what cards are pushed in powerlevel and they basically pre-build some decks with the cards to guess what the metagame of standard might be.
    A even smaller subset of cards is designed to be powerful or specific enough for other formats, like Modern.
    And of course theres Commander / EDH format of people that want their fix too, so each set has to have some legendary creatures for them and some toys to play with.

    That way sets can quite easily feel more and more the same, as they follow the same check boxes of card design variations.

    Lately especially WotC resorted to "gameplay gimmicks" , like Dungeons, the Day/Night mechanic and stuff like that, which are much less card-design and put some element in the game that is alien and they design it in powerlevel much more conservative, so it wont completely shake up a format ... exception to that are the "Modern Horizon" and the other super premium products, as they push powerlevel of cards intentionally to guarantee the cards will influence a existing constructed format.

    Sets are designed by teams self-contained , just a little bit of leeway between the sets and some "bridge" cards that combo with something from the new set (like you get a bunch of vampires in the werewolf set, "teasing" the upcoming vampire set).

    With the old set design of 3 sets per block, interaction between the sets in a block was given by design, today thats not the case anymore.
    That has the advantage, that if someone really does not like a sets mechanic, they will get a fresh one in a shorter time period.
    On the same coin, if someone really likes a sets mechanic, they are basically guaranteed to not get more of it for the foreseeable future.

    Especially during Covid i resorted to just buying the bunch of interesting singles of a set i wanted and nothing else.
    Normally i play a lot more Limited, so you get to play a lot more of the cards in a set, not just the tiny subset of pushed constructed cards.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How can you be "competitive".
    The 1-game system of arena is pretty terrible for "competitive" decks , as you can just get thrown against basically all kinds of decks, as nobody has to win a bunch of games in a row, and if they are losing they can just give up and quickly start another (which produces a pretty annoying system to play against people that keep doing that all the time).
    As people fire up the next game so quickly they are much less committed to the single game, and in that way its more about simply playing a lot more in quantity than in quality (but increasing your quality certainly helps too, if you have enough experience to "intuitively" make the right choice, you can play much faster and make less mistakes).

    For proper competitive tournament structures you want to win as much as possible, so your deck has adapt to a known metagame of decks.
    You dont just build a random deck that you consider good, you have to know what you are up against or what the tier 1 competitive decks are, and then make your choices to beat them as much as possible.

    Every deck will have some weakness against especially super fringe specific strategies like mill, you can just beat mill by surviving the mill, you have to be faster than them.
    If they take like to turn 7 to win with mill, you need to win faster. If you are control, you need counterspells or answers to survive and even then you still need some kind of win option that beats them in a reasonable time frame if you cannot completely control the game.

    The speed of a deck is a big factor in competitive magic in all formats at this point.
    With the diverse strategies its basically impossible to have a plan against all decks in a control deck, against some opponents your win chance might be super low, which is fine, if your win % is high against the kind of decks you expect to see.

    You are in a spot of casuals decks with a mild competitive mindset, as winning games is obviously rewarding and better than losing all the time.
    That all said, your win % basically should be 50%, you lose as much as you win, unless you really get an edge over the metagame you play against.

    Especially in Arena players just lose a game and dont really think about "why" they lost and what they could have played different.
    Often players make some mistakes that lose them games, but they never see these mistakes or they simply dont know about a rules interaction or delaying a play, in paper form you talk with your opponent and they point out what happened or you might discuss with them, so its much more natural to improve simply by realizing what your options are.

    In Arena playing with Full Control to decide when to play cards is a thing thats a bit annoying, but almost mandatory to have all the needed control to optimize what you would want to do.
    If the game just auto-skips the turn as it knows you dont have any plays, the opponent will know that as well, as they notice the super fast skip. In full control you can have only lands in hand and still pretend to have something.

    If you can record your games with a video capture or stream (even if its just you, simply to have it on video) , you can quickly re-watch a game like a replay and sometimes figure out some grave mistakes, or plays where you see, doing something different could have been the better play.

    Regardless of that, current Magic set design produces decks that are quite "snowbally" , so they really dominate a game if they make their plays on curve and do what they supposed to do. If an opponent struggles a bit, even just missing 1 land, that can easily be a massive drawback. Over a single game that can be the deciding factor, but over multiple games, you might have the edge, they have the edge and the truly interesting games are the ones where its almost even and tiny decisions make the difference (or a lucky topdeck, but to get to the point of the lucky topdeck, you have to make decisions that allow you to win the game at that moment).

    For some people its all just about winning. These people will resort to cheating to get the wins if they have to, and get angry if they lose, like they feel entitled to win.
    Thats a very bad mindset to have, but in the end its nice to win, but not at all cost, you have to have as much fun as your opponent after all.

    The true joy of competitive Magic is self-improvement.
    To make your own plays more intuitive, see the "best play" ahead of time and know your opponents decks and their options to plan ahead.
    Theres still randomness and hidden information in the game, so you cant win all games, but skill ensures you will win more games over a longer course of matches (and winning challenging or super close games is much more gratifying than steam rolling people all the time).


    For specific metagames the "interaction" can be on many different levels.

    You want interaction inside of a game , they play something you play removal, or a creature on your own.
    Thats a basic interaction you get in Limited formats all the time (so that might appeal to you a lot more).

    In constructed formats you tend to get more streamlined extreme decks, one-dimensional decks are pushed to optimize something and that should win them the game, like a mill deck that only focuses on milling as fast as possible, while they have no interaction to creatures or anything of the opponent, all they do is bank on winning their way.
    So the "interaction" with them is to put specific answers to their extreme strategy in your sideboard.
    So yes, you might basically 70%+ lose game 1, but with the sideboard, you might be favored to win, so you can 2-1 them, as you play more games with your sideboard after all.

    If a mill deck is very prevalent in your expected metagame, you might even put the sideboard hate in your maindeck to improve game 1 (especially if its a flexible card that you might be able to tutor, or a single card that you can afford to ignore).

    So the interaction is on a meta-level of building the deck in the first place.
    The deck choice itself gives you a % chance to win a match, just changing a single card in a sideboard might shift that % chance in your favor.
    The less extreme the opponents strategy, the harder it is to find efficient hate cards for the sideboard against them.
    The 1-dimensional decks are overall more "stupid" and usually people play them that want to think less about a metagame, or they expect that nobody expects their deck and has no hate cards against them, such a "Rogue" deck can win a tournament as it surprises them (but if its winning, more people might start playing that deck, and the metagame shifts again).

    Having played a match a lot of times gives you experience of specific interactions, that might give you some win % over an unprepared opponent.

    So competitive decks have a bigger focus on mastering knowledge about a metagame, preparing for that with your own mastering of your deck in these matchups and then opt for tiny changes that might give you an edge in the mirror matches.

    People often just want to play everything on curve all the time and almost give up if they struggle just a little bit.
    But over a lot of games, you simply dont curve out all the time, you will struggle, and the skill is to squeeze wins out of close games, thats the games you will remember, not the ones where you just steamrolled the opponent with no resistance.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.