Cantrips are powerful and fun. "Mystery Box" ones are merely reasonable, but we do have some of those in the form of cycling cards. Ones that let you choose the card, like ponder, are extremely dangerous. In general though, we've kept most of the card draw in our auction block at moderate power level - or require jumping through hoops (like Ordeal of Thassa). This is because we like to mostly have control over the auction, so that each player has a chance to buy the game-winning cards. With a lot of card draw, you get fun surprises that can feel awesome - but you lose control over the skill-based experience.
That said, we love the card draw effects and always try to snap them up. It just depends on the experience you're looking for. I have a hunch we'll be making a second auction block that plays very differently from the one in the article too.
As for going to 0, yes - it's super dangerous. You can afford to do it when bidding on a creature (because the auction ends after a creature is purchased and you'll get 3 gold at the start of the next turn, before the next auction) but if you do it while it's not your turn and bidding on a non-creature, your opponent can pick free cards off the top of the deck. If you do it while it's your turn, they only have to pay 1 gold per card (because they still have to raise your bid of zero). It's an added layer of risk/reward strategy.
-
- Stairc
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 1 month, and 1 day
Last active Mon, Feb, 5 2018 10:18:16
- 8 Followers
- 5,231 Total Posts
- 222 Thanks
-
May 6, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to Play15% means that answers are rather rare. You usually only get 1 or 2 each game. Our auction block is built around that, with few creatures being must-kill targets. If you run a higher power block, or just one with higher variance of power (more must-kill creatures compared to the other ones in the block), 25% could absolutely be the correct number.Posted in: Articles
Also, yes, if you run out of cards in the auction block you shuffle both graveyards in and use them as the new pile. -
May 6, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayWhy don'y you give it a try and let us know how it goes? I'd be interested to find out.Posted in: Articles
-
May 5, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayYou're correct. I'll see if I can get an editor to change it.Posted in: Articles
-
May 4, 2015
Stairc posted a message on High Stakes Magic - A New Way to PlayAbsolutely, there are lots of great things to discuss here.Posted in: Articles
The situation where all players have 0 gold while the auction is continuing has not ever showed up in testing but it does need an answer. The reason it almost never happens is because when one player is at 0 gold, the other player only has to spend 1 gold to buy each card that shows up. The auction is probably going to end before one player runs out of gold.
The current rules about neither player bidding, which say to auction again, are designed as a safety valve so that if a designer includes a useless card in his block - players have an inbuilt way to say "let's not play with this card". However, it does create problems when both players have 0 gold. I'd either suggest either immediately ending the auction if both players are at 0 gold, or change the rules so that bidding "0" is a legitimate first bid - and that if no one raises the bid the player that bid "0" gold gets the card for free. Both would solve the problem, though the second is more elegant (since it just tweaks an existing rule rather than adds a brand new rule).
For constructing an auction block, there are no limits whatsoever. You can build a block however you like. You can build it singleton, like Commander, or you can put in 10 copies of a card you like. You can also shuffle several booster packs together and try playing with their contents. The only limits are what you think will make the best experience for your players. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Dark Lord
24 Lands
4 Crumbling Necropolis
4 Reflecting Pool
4 Cascade Bluffs
4 Sunken Ruins
4 Vivid Crag
4 Vivid Marsh
19 Creatures
4 Stillmoon Cavalier
3 Goblin Outlander
4 Sedraxis Specter
2 Sower of Temptation
2 Wydwen the Biting Gale
4 Shriekmaw
17 Other Spells
4 Blightning
4 Cryptic Command
2 Nicol Bolas
2 Broken Ambitions
4 Volcanic Fallout
1 Wild Ricochet
Blightning plus Sedraxis Specter makes it very hard for 5CC to win, espescially after sideboard. Combine that with all your pro-white guys and their walls don't mean anything. Volcanic Fallout, Blightning and the Specters make life hell on faeries, there's basically no way they can beat you.
BW tokens is basically a bye with all the fallouts and pro-white/pro-black coubled with the fallout. Kithkin falls into a similar category. An early blightning is also great against rush decks, since it can take a major chunk out of their aggression, usually nailing spot removal they need to press an attack or a planeswalker/glorious anthem.
Sower of Temptation and Wydwen the biting gale are both excellent. Wydwen is my plumeveil, it comes down at instant speed to nail a creature and is VERY hard to kill. Oh, and it can attack. Sower can slow down rush and make things very painful for reveillark.
Finally we come to Nicol Bolas. With no broodmate dragons or demigod of revenge, he seems a LOT better here than crual ultimatum. He's almost impossible to kill with damage, since he starts with so many loyalty counters and has an awesome ability that nabs him +3 counters. That ability kills lands (!!!) enchantments, artifacts and even planeswalkers. Yum. He also can permanently steal creatures, slowing the opponent's rush to a crawl. Also, if he ever gets his ultimate ability off (a distinct possibility with all that card discarding action in the deck and permission spells) it puts cruel ultimatum to shame. Your opponent looses everything and you can just keep destroying their lands as you ramp up to your next ultimate. The card basically reads:
Nicol Bolas 4UBBR
At the beginning of your upkeep put a badass counter on Nicol Bolas. At the beginning of your turn, if you have two or more badass counters on Nicol Bolas, you win the game.
As for wild ricochet? It's usually a counterspell at worst and often swings some cryptic command card advantage in your favor. It's also a fantastic way to deal with banefire and cruel ultimatum.
Slavery makes economic sense too but its barbaric. Why should we spend time trying to end starvation if overpopulation is the problem? If you think that letting people die is going to solve the problem, how is bad government spending even a problem? People get poorer, economies get weaker, people attackeachother or can't afford food and then they die. So everyone wins!
What?
Bocephus, just what do you consider progress or worthwile? You think dying sooner is better? FIne, kill yourself. Death is a part of life. Is stopping crime good? Murders? After all, death is a part of life. SO is huinger, disease, poverty... I mean, you've effectively attacked everything from medical research to I-Don't-Know-What. What do you possibly consider progress?!? What are these more important things we should be spending money on?!? Seriously, what is there left to spend money on. money doesn't fixz problems, you need ideas to do things better. What on EARTH do you consider worth pursuing?
Oh, and as for Captian and Mystery... I'm not ignoring you guys =). But I'm just so confused here with Bocephus I can't get around it.
Basing an economy on the amount of gold we have is like basing it on the amount of spotted owls. Neither has actual inherrant value to everyone. Actually, the owls might make more sense, since they can at least be eaten if your starving.
The gold standard is a bad idea. And believe it or not, we actually had market crashes before we were taken off the gold standard. True, they weren't as bad. That's because the market wasn't as big. The bigger the market, the farther it has to fall. That's the price you pay for sucess. Why is gold the magic commodity that fizes all our problems? It isn't, and it just inflates the gold market. Ironically, putting currencies on the gold standard inflates the value of gold beyond what it should be, since the gold now takes on a larger significance and countries seek to acquire it instead of spending their time and money on reasearch. The governments are forced to tie up cash in gold instead of keeping it moving building schools and such. That's bad. Very Bad. And it doesn't solve many problems in the market, if any at all. Either way, the downsides of the standard far outweigh the gains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True. It can buy more valuable things. It takes more dollars but we can buy more value. That's how economies work. This means people get more for their buck. Sure the healthcare budget costs a lot more now, but we can cure things now that we couldn't then. So you live longer. That's good. And we have internet. Also good. If you want to save some money, cancel your internet subscription and sell your computer. You'll have an easier time dealking with the rest of your bills. Free yourself of the burdens of your much-hated progress =)!
I'd like to wait for other replies before I respond to the Coke thing. But may I ask for clarification? Why would you laugh me out the door? Companies buy failing companies all the time, because they're asset base can handle it. Banks are jsut failing companies. Why laugh me out?
Moreover, if any aciton god takes inavlidates free will - he can't take any actions at all. In that case, he doesn't matter. Since this can't be true for a religion to make sense, god needs to take actions. The actions he takes affect stuff. Those actions, or lack therof, cna then be considered under a moral lens.
That has nothing to do withy anything. Besides the fact that that statistic is terrible (what housing market, what location, what kind of house, what are the fixtures, is ths an average a median or some other thing, etc.) the very statement is completely inapplicable.
Investorrods.com defines standard of living as follows:
"The financial health of a population, as measured by the quantity of consumption by the members of that population. The measure most frequently used to estimate standard of living is gross national income per capita. One drawback to the standard of living measurement is that it does not take into account some factors which are important but hard to quantify, such as crime rate or environmental impact."
It's not about the money. It measures what people have, not money. Money doesn't matter. It's about what people are consuming. If no one has any income but everyone has a mansion apiece and eats fantastic meals overy day... Their standard of living is GOOD. Likewise, if the costs of a single grain of rice is ten dollars but everyone makes a trillion dollars a second... Again, the standard of living is good.
Not only is your statistic terrible and bad in the first place, since the housing market has changed its role since then, it's completely inapplicable to standard of living.
As for the drawback, it jsut proves my point. Standard of living is trying to be concerned with actual impact on a person's life. Crime doesn't have a cash value, so they have trouble quantifying it... But if they could they would. That they're concerned with these sorts of things demonstrates they're not concerned about cash - they care about results.
Translation - I choose not to respond to your ideas because I'd rather sit comfortably in the dark and make menacing statements about how I'm right and you'll never see it then actually take a chance that I might be mistaken.
Even the poorest people in America today live far better than the middle class several hundred years ago. The middle class today are far richer than kings in the middle ages, despite the kings being worth trillions upon trillions by today's standards. There wasn't anything to spend their money on!
Though prices have gone up the quality of pretty much everything has vastly improved. that's what standard of living means. The reason two incomes are helpful to support a household (they aren't required, just check single parents of which I know quite a few) is because with all the modern empowerment of women (which is good) people have been able to buy more things. So they did. People spend in accordance with what they have. Prices and quality also go up to what people can and are willing to pay. Check what the people sixty years ago had to live without and you'll see where all the extra money is going. Check their diseases, lifespans, entertainment, career prospects - all that jazz. Then you'll se a bit where the money is going.
No.
No.
No. No. No. No.
You're way is saying that we should ignore the pursuit of knowledge "a.k.a. education" and just sweat out a manufacturing economy. If you deny this, you don't even know what your own ideas are! Why should we spend billions on education when we don't value knowledge? It makes no sese.
My whole purpose which i thought I had made abundantly clear is that we should put every effort into building giving every single person the chance to become brilliant. We should put all our efforts into quality educaiton for everyone, giving each person, no matter how poor, the chance to be all that they can be. The whole point is to give everyone the chance to get a 3.0, supporting everyone in our pursuit of discovery. Then, people who are so lazy or dense that they can't even get through algebra would find other ways to work - either in manufacturing or something else.
I'm not saying we should abolish manufacturing, saying become a scientist or die. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we should try to get everyone who can be a scientist and wants to be a scientist, regardless of their economic circumstances, into the field. Science is more beneficial to a nation than manufacturing, so we should focus on it - giving more support to the scientific community and encouraging the education system.
That, is my concept - getting everyone who can to expand their minds and unleash the collective brilliance of humantity; rather than using them as mindless beasts of burden.
Whazzaaa number two! How on earth is that a correlation to anything?!? You admit that there is less proportional unemployment now than then, which supports the idea that things have gotten better as we've moved away from manufacturing. And then pull a random reason for the unemployment out of abosultely nowhere. Unemployment is caused exclusively by lack of manufacturing? What? What?
The reason that the amount of people is up is because more people are living, not because of a higher percentage. The nubmers themselves can't be compared - only the proportions. And everyone's standard of living, even the poorest, is far far improved since then. Why? Because of new inventions!
Um... Not exactly true. A focus on creating the best climate for ideas to come forth will benefit everyone. Everyone neds to have acess to the best education and opprotunities to think up something new. People who can't do this will do something else. Like all that manufacturing to make the dozens and dozens of new ideas. It just makes sense. Ideas enrich humanity, we should focus on them. This will level the playing field, not tilt it. Everyone will have acess to be all that they can be. If they can't be all that much, they'll have something to do too.
--------------------------
Bocephus, you might be resolved to plug your ears to other arguments - believing that your mind can't be changed in an online debate. I don't think that's true. I come to this forum not to waaste my breath on stating frozen opinnions, I come here to discuss important issues with smart people - trying to improve my understanding.
You're obviously a smart guy Bocephus, but I can't have a discussion with you if you aren't willing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.
So let's get back to it shall we? But with som real discussion to find the truth, not just to state opinnions.
Very true. But wouldn't the company be able to hire all those soon-to-be-downsized accountants? Maybe even the very ones who made the deals. Coke could even establish a seperate division for the finances. But it's true that I'd much rather have professionals focus on what they became great at... It's just that these particular professionals have proved the most idiotic of all =)!
But, as for the getting involved with unfamiliar businesses... I think it was more the desperate rush to spend all those below-inflation federal loans that led to this frenzy of new securitization.
Well Bocephus... I'm not sure what else to say. I don't know how else to respond to a statement like that. Specilization has always been the civilizing force in humanity, it's been what has allowed people to do what their best at and be rewarded for it - not spend all their time being mediocre at everything. It's about as basic as you can go for the ideas of trade, but you seem to think that this is a bad idea! While I can understand that you're scared of other country gaining control over our hearts and minds by denying us keypads or staplers, I have a hard time reconciling that beside the incredible good that trade brings us. Look em up, the most powerful nations in history have been centers of trade - they haven't shunned it. Trade leads to prosperity, prosperity leads to increased power and standard of living. And seriously, do you think any nation is going to corner the entire food market? Even if that did happen, which it can't since different foods need geographic diversity, what are you afraid of? That that country will try to randsom food to us? Well then the free market kicks in and someone else starts offering food at a lower price. Country A is eaten alive by competition and the world returns to order. Also, if they were so specialized as to provide all the food for all the world, they'd be equally dependent on our trade!
Mutually profitable trade tends to stop wars, not encourage them. If we're allready making a big profit, why destroy eachother's cities and lower everyone's profits?
Bocephus, you even dislike the idea of coming up with new ideas - callign it stupid and wasteful. How on earth can you think that advancing man's knowledge is wasteful or unproductive? WHere do you think all these machine's came from?!? DO you think the keyboard your typing on popped magically into existance. Or have we somehow reached the magic point in time where we have everything we could ever need and now we should just keep making more of the same old stuff without ever improving - since everything is already so percect?
And that is why I say, "Whaazaa".
It's so much better than the movie except for the ending and a bit of buttercup's character (she's a little ditzy in the book). However, it's by far one of my favorite books of all time... If not my favorite book altogether. If you love stories, you'll love this - the perfect storm of everything a high adventure book should be.
And if you love the movie... You're in for such a treat. Discover the classic, you'll read it again and again and again. I know I have.