Fandom Legends: Magic Arena
 
Treasure Cruisin' Amulet's End
 
Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Shattering Spree
    I only run it in a mono-blue sea monsters theme deck because it looks suitably spooky. Other than that bit of flavor it's really hard to justify.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Healing card to Ghave Guru of Spores deck
    If your deck is heavy on black, Gray Merchant of Asphodel can do some work. Even more work if you have any notable ways to recur or reanimate him. Similarly, if you can loop mid-sized creatures, Siege Rhino is a perfectly fine beatstick that can buffer up your life total. Otherwise, I'm big on all the sacrifice lifegain and the big X spells already mentioned in the thread.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Quote from RxPhantom »
    Quote from Fenrir Rex »
    Quote from RxPhantom »
    You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.


    Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.


    It's a tall order because it's absurd. Scooping to deny someone a win that they rightfully earned is bad form, to put it mildly. Why even play at all if you're so willing to change the outcome by ceasing to participate? Are you playing with children, or people whose egos are so fragile that they'd be shattered by losing fair and square? Why do you have to manage other players' feelings?

    For our recurring example, Insurrection is an 8-mana spell that needs a certain board state to close a game out, and if someone engineers it, they deserve the win and their effort shouldn't be invalidated by someone taking their ball and going home. What you're talking about isn't meta-politics. No, what you're talking about is kowtowing to whiners with thin skin so you can indulge your self-image of the selfless, fun-preserving martyr of your playgroup. It's all about you, not them.


    First, I believe that everyone's feelings are important- it's not about managing them, it's about recognizing them and playing with them in mind. As for ego, everyone's ego is fragile- the thread is full of people who are upset by the very concept of a corner-case of magic rules giving them an L. Otherwise your hypothetical questions are bunk since you know literal nothing of my groups, which is cute, but not particularly helpful for discourse.

    As for my personal corner case within a corner case, (Reminder: my board state being the only one that turns an Insurrection into lethal, by taking my own L and removing my permanents the game continues and it isn't my overextension that ends it), it is the very definiton of meta politics: recognizing that the feelings from one game will absolutely bleed into the next. By taking the L I had two players that considering it a sacrifice play and were more inclined to work with me in the next game, and one who was indifferent (though probably would've been out for my blood if not able to re-use his mana on the insurrection turn- but even if that were the table's decision, I'd take two friends and one "enemy" easily). Edit: Though unimportant to the example, the insurrection player did still ultimately win this game, for those concerned with the injustice of it all.

    Back to ego, you're of course entirely correct that being the "fun-preserving martyr" is 100% all about me. Preserving the perspective of being the player who is "fun first" in every game is a big part of my identity as a commander player and it's entirely ego- but the good news is that, unlike a lot of other ego-driven magic mentalities, I at least need the input of others to validate it. You're welcome to assume whatever you'd like of the rest of the playgroup, though the continued assumption of the "whiners" they must be from literal one example is hyperbollically entertaining.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Quote from RxPhantom »
    You can dress it up by calling it "tactical," but scooping to deny value is scummy, and no amount of flowery language will ever convince me that it's a noble act. If a player casts a game-winning Insurrection and you can't stop it in-game, then that player earned the win. Shuffle up and start a new game. Like adults.


    Or, if the majority of people at the table want you to scoop so the game doesn't end, you scoop, like an emotionally developed individual who cares about the meta-politics of the table. Though, admittedly, that's an impressively tall order for a lot of players.

    I think threads like this are great arguments for building less interactive decks. Who wants a big Commander-like win by stealing all the creatures on the board and turning them back on their owners when they'll just invalidate you anyway. Build early turn combo decks so that tactical scoopers can only speed up your inevitability. I suppose I'm mostly just amazed that this topic even has two sides.


    Comes down to the playgroup in question again, doesn't it? It seems like spite scooping is more likely or common among particularly cutthroat groups, where denying a trigger could actually decide a game, so early game combo decks might not even be unwelcome. Such decks don't tend to earn you many friends though, but that's probably not your priority. It's pretty clear that this is an uncommon practice though, so it's mostly in the hypothetical.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Quote from Ken Carson »
    Quote from Fenrir Rex »
    Quote from Kerry »
    Quote from Fenrir Rex »
    I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.

    The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.

    I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.

    Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.


    That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.


    Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.

    Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.


    I imagine your group feels pretty unfun to new players.


    An amusing conclusion to come to from all of one (rare) example, but no, we haven't gotten any negative feedback from new players and tend to rotate new people in regularly. In fact, as a general rule, opening up politics and house rules to be as kind as possible to the greatest number of players has resulted in a lot of people leaving the table happily who might otherwise be quite the opposite. Admittedly, being purportedly nice people and having good food and drink does tend to help. Put salt on your food, not into the game! But I am a bit lucky and my good fortune isn't the topic of the thread.

    On topic, the feelings taken from one game to the next, even if people try not get "meta" in that regard, are clearly the driving force in the issue. A concession in response feels bad for the player on the receiving end, and results in them carrying over that grudge (whether that's in not playing with the player again, or as likely focusing down that player) while my rare concessions have been driven politically to "save" other players at the table. What I struggle to understand are more generic spite plays. What kind of benefit is there in just denying triggers or other plays that only harm the "offending" player, without offering any kind of benefit to the rest of the table?
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Quote from Kerry »
    Quote from Fenrir Rex »
    I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.

    The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.

    I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.

    Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.


    That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.


    Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.

    Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    Quote from Alexev »
    Quote from Fenrir Rex »
    I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.

    The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.

    I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.

    Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.


    And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.

    Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?


    I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.

    The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.

    Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Talk - It is conceading fair play to you?
    I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.

    The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.

    I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.

    Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Command the Dreadhorde (Carlos Romao Spoiler, fully revealed)
    Quote from SilverWolf_27 »
    This comes after the Finale of Eternity, which shows Lili in direct opposition to Bolas. That means that the Raven Man now has the Veil and the Dreadhorde, wonder what he's after...


    Lili appears to have three story beats: working for Bolas commanding the Dreadhorde, turning the Dreadhorde against Bolas (as seen in the set trailer if you haven't watched it), and her directly attacking bolas in the new finale card. I suspect this is actually depicting the second, the moment in the trailer where she takes control.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Shattering Spree
    I felt bad ulting him off of doubling season, but he durdles quite ineffectively without it. Just not a good time for anyone.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Feather the Redeemed!
    Quote from A_E_I_Own_U »
    I don't understand why people are so excited for this card. It isn't that good of a card. Standard and Modern wont play this. Is it that good for commander? Did she have some sort of lore that people are all silly about?


    It's both. She does things in Boros that other Boros commanders don't, essentially giving the least tricksy color with the least amount of card advantage an avenue for both. As for lore, she's a character from back in the original Ravnica block that people have been waiting to see a card for. Combined, that's a slam dunk for the Commander crowd.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on "It looks like rain"
    Well, the codename for the Kamigawa sets were "Earth, Wind, and Fire," they're missing one of the four elements, so obviously it's a return to Kamigawa. Or it's an allusion to tears, and "Tears" was the codeword for Shadows Over Innistrad, so instead, it's a return to Innistrad.

    Or, you know, nothing because this kind of vagueness serves no particular purpose.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Persistent Petitioners (Strictly Better MTG Spoiler) - mill common
    And you Arena players were tired of rats decks.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Glorybringer and basilisk collar
    Yes.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on When the staples don't fit.
    I find myself doing this on occasion, but it never becomes a problem for me because my deck building methodology is extremely flexible. Staples are staple for a reason, and if a commmander unquestionably "should" be able to take advantage of a staple,and for some reason can't with the current build, I will reevaulte the entire deck with this in mind- typically adding the staple in and editing the rest of the deck to fit it. 95% of the time, this ends up being to the decks benefit, and the "error" is user-based rather than in the staple.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.