I think the marketing of this set is hurting casual gamers, but the casual gamers that get fun out of the mechanic themes and other card themes will enjoy it. Landfall, Vampire and Ally decks will have their niche in a fun casual environment, while Spike will get his fill implementing key cards in this set as per normal.
I think Alara was less focused in this sense and while being a good set for more experienced deckbuilders, I find it difficult to imagine casual players hailing Alara as the must-have set. The mana base is the most difficult aspect of the game for casual players, even with Alara's multitude of options it's still a setback that prevented the block from truly shining for my casual play group.
I have faith in this set that once we get past the "I MIGHT PULL LOTUS w00t!" nonsense that the strong casual qualities in this set will become more clear to see.
I played magic since revised but didn't start taking my game seriously until middle school when I got back into it. My pastor, who also played magic, was very smart with the game and coached me over and over on how to play right and analyze the board positions carefully.
I think board analysis is the most crucial because my current friends who are still new at the game consistently making the mistake of overestimating their opponent's side of the board, then choosing not to attack or take action as a result. I strive to implement my mentor's teachings by constantly showing my friends when to attack, how to not become intimidated by what they see sitting on the other side, etc. Newer players will feel comfortable building an army for "the big attack" but will lose because they passed up all the chances to chip in damage early on.
SUMMARIZED: Strive to properly evaluate the state of the game. Without knowing what's actually going on, you won't know how to effectively use what you have.
What I've also learned is to know how I play and take advantage of my play style, while also taking the time to learn others. I kept trying to play blue back in the day, but my pastor kept trying to explain I was a "green player" and I am more suited for building a well-oiled engine of a deck build with less choices involved. I still do best to aggro and other straightforward strategies but have grown to become proficient with most of the popular builds and archetypes. By playing builds I usually run against, I learn how my opponents will make their decisions when playing against my deck. Netdecking, btw, has the advantage of learning how others will play against you but if you become too comfortable with it, your skills will lessen because you aren't allowing yourself to grow into your play style that way.
SUMMARY: Learn to grow into your play style, but continue to play others so you can understand what people are playing against you.
I heard discussions from other players that in recent tournaments judges have been ruling that you are still in the game as long as you have any unresolved life gain abilities on the stack.
This sounds totally bogus and too obvious for me, and I'm like 99.9% sure these players are thinking of lifelink (since it's static) but this is what strikes my curiosity the most. I just want the comfort of confirmation from other experts.
The torch specifically says that the torch does the targetting
On a side note, no cards choose target(s), only players choose target(s).
The torch gives the equipped creature the ability, however you should not confuse the creature's new ability as the torch's just because the torch will be doing the damage. When a creature is given an activated ability by a card, said creature will be the source of the ability as far as targets are concerned, but not necessarily the effects.
As straightforward as the issue is, I feel it's an important card to discuss because the nature of the abilities for this card are unusual and therefore worth discussing like this. I also liked Soul's Fire because as mentioned in this thread it is worded similarly.
Always announcing what's going on for your side of the table is a good habit that may annoy your opponent (who the hell cares? They're stuck with you until the round is over) but will have positive outcomes that will help your play and give your opponent less of a chance to question things.
ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO ANNOUNCE EVERYTHING METHODICALLY: opponents sometimes psychologically battle you by trying to announce or "guess" your next move, or otherwise frequently comment on your plays by offering excess info or otherwise just plain making conclusions that may interrupt or ruin your train of thought. That garbage cost me several matches back in the day, so if you ever plan going pro or anything like that you have to perfect your practiced method in ignoring your opponent's psycho-babble. This form of cheating (imo cheating) is easier to lose to than doing some sleight of hand with the cards or other forms of fooling around with the physical part of the game. Mostly because it's harder to prove to a job your opponent is doing that.
A rule is a rule, but you continue to try to debunk the rule with over-the-top scenarios with sketchy players using even sketchier tactics. Also, I'm calling Straw Man argument on you too, but that's beside the point.
Player B should have no reason to wait until your opponent tries to play a new spell. If he's paying attention, (but in all your previous arguments we need to assume no one is looking at the cards, or the table for that matter), and wants to respond to the trigger, a more realistic player B will see the land played and then say, "in response to your creature's landfall trigger..." It makes no sense for player B to wait until the opponent tries something else. If Player A rushes into playing his next card, Player B will still be in the right because players should be giving space to allow people to respond to what happens, which again is common sense (but according to your previous concerns, it appears to prove the case players won't be using that either).
A real player isn't going to see a land drop on his opponent's side fully knowing about the landflall trigger, then wait until another spell is about to be played then shout "Hey Yugi you forgot about my trap card!" or something else equally amusing. In order for your example to make sense, player B has to not be paying attention to his opponent - which is inexperience or otherwise known as poor play. A tourney is a tourney and if you're there to win or gain experience, not paying attention tells others that you're not serious about what you're doing there in the first place.
I think in the case for aggro red/green may be the better combination due to some great potential side cards and also the ability to stick around late game. (Overrun continues to grow stronger as a game-ender with each new standard format rotation creating a more limited environment...)
I was also thinking goblin could make a comeback with the instigators; and with a goblin that pumps AND gives haste in standard there's a chance we can get some good goblin decklists. Red/black goblin is harder to do now that all the good black goblins are gone, but the color combo may yet hold water since Blightning is essential for cornering opponents early on with a low hand and life total.
My preferred aggressove strategy has always been to empty the opponent's hand and board with stuff like Duress and Blightning, THEN pummel with decent-sized creatures. Man, if only ANY three-costing land destruction still existed, then just maybe...
Establishes a good enough point, but the comment about players attempting to play budget is borderline offensive to a degree. I happen be a guy to not always have the money for the $15-30 win-now cards.
Anyway, my only constructive criticism for this article is that I was looking for more specific card analysis examples that were going toward your earlier theme of comparing how a good player and a new player analyze cards, and was disappointed to find it became more about aggro not having enough steam to win against good resource-oriented strategies, which is a given. You also spent too much time driving the point home that there are people who goldfish, which is another point that doesn't have much life to it beyond those words.
Your Force of Nature vs Kitchen Finks example was superb, I might add.
The concern keeps going back to, "well if no one is paying attention to what the heck is going on in their own game..." which is why it will be difficult for anyone to sympathize with that cause. Cheaters will use *anything* to cheat whenever possible, and cheaters especially love to take advantage of new rules and mechanics to exploit the less educated. This falls back on the responsibility of the player to keep up with the current state of magic (new rules included if any), and for goodness sake keep track of what your opponent is doing. You only have one person to keep track of, and there are plenty of methods to keep things fresh in your mind while reminding your opponent you're paying attention.
If your opponent does not keep the habit of announcing everything, repeat back to yourself or opponent everything he's doing that he does not announce. If he inquires as to why, encourage him to announce his plays. But as an mtg player it's ultimately your responsibility to be keeping track of where things are and what's going on. No one is going to do that for you.
I guess the big issue is, why is it such an issue that people can't keep track of one opponent? Is anyone really afraid landfall will create some kind of cheat-heavy environment in which players will try to sneak in their lands, bay of pigs style? (And by that I imply that it wouldn't work so good.)
I also think the reactions to a simple 2HG rule are a bit excessive. To help make it easier, imagine it like this - two players have "separate" life totals that are represented by one shared total. In other words, the competitive format was designed to play in a style that as long as one member of the team is alive, the whole team stays around. It makes a lot more sense than a team game where individual team members can get taken out of the game, and the way life totals work make a lot more sense since most cards deal with a single opponent. (Imagine blasting a spell at one of the giant's two heads, it doesn't make sense the blast harming both heads when you only aimed at one.) Common sense, really, I guess the only thing that spurs players to complain is the math involved. And as mentioned before, no one is forcing anyone to play 2HG.
My only issue with the winning card is this - if you play it after your combat, haste doesn't really matter for it anyway right? So why doesn't it just say haste? Few cards would change that anyway.
I think Alara was less focused in this sense and while being a good set for more experienced deckbuilders, I find it difficult to imagine casual players hailing Alara as the must-have set. The mana base is the most difficult aspect of the game for casual players, even with Alara's multitude of options it's still a setback that prevented the block from truly shining for my casual play group.
I have faith in this set that once we get past the "I MIGHT PULL LOTUS w00t!" nonsense that the strong casual qualities in this set will become more clear to see.
I think board analysis is the most crucial because my current friends who are still new at the game consistently making the mistake of overestimating their opponent's side of the board, then choosing not to attack or take action as a result. I strive to implement my mentor's teachings by constantly showing my friends when to attack, how to not become intimidated by what they see sitting on the other side, etc. Newer players will feel comfortable building an army for "the big attack" but will lose because they passed up all the chances to chip in damage early on.
SUMMARIZED: Strive to properly evaluate the state of the game. Without knowing what's actually going on, you won't know how to effectively use what you have.
What I've also learned is to know how I play and take advantage of my play style, while also taking the time to learn others. I kept trying to play blue back in the day, but my pastor kept trying to explain I was a "green player" and I am more suited for building a well-oiled engine of a deck build with less choices involved. I still do best to aggro and other straightforward strategies but have grown to become proficient with most of the popular builds and archetypes. By playing builds I usually run against, I learn how my opponents will make their decisions when playing against my deck. Netdecking, btw, has the advantage of learning how others will play against you but if you become too comfortable with it, your skills will lessen because you aren't allowing yourself to grow into your play style that way.
SUMMARY: Learn to grow into your play style, but continue to play others so you can understand what people are playing against you.
This sounds totally bogus and too obvious for me, and I'm like 99.9% sure these players are thinking of lifelink (since it's static) but this is what strikes my curiosity the most. I just want the comfort of confirmation from other experts.
On a side note, no cards choose target(s), only players choose target(s).
The torch gives the equipped creature the ability, however you should not confuse the creature's new ability as the torch's just because the torch will be doing the damage. When a creature is given an activated ability by a card, said creature will be the source of the ability as far as targets are concerned, but not necessarily the effects.
As straightforward as the issue is, I feel it's an important card to discuss because the nature of the abilities for this card are unusual and therefore worth discussing like this. I also liked Soul's Fire because as mentioned in this thread it is worded similarly.
ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO ANNOUNCE EVERYTHING METHODICALLY: opponents sometimes psychologically battle you by trying to announce or "guess" your next move, or otherwise frequently comment on your plays by offering excess info or otherwise just plain making conclusions that may interrupt or ruin your train of thought. That garbage cost me several matches back in the day, so if you ever plan going pro or anything like that you have to perfect your practiced method in ignoring your opponent's psycho-babble. This form of cheating (imo cheating) is easier to lose to than doing some sleight of hand with the cards or other forms of fooling around with the physical part of the game. Mostly because it's harder to prove to a job your opponent is doing that.
Player B should have no reason to wait until your opponent tries to play a new spell. If he's paying attention, (but in all your previous arguments we need to assume no one is looking at the cards, or the table for that matter), and wants to respond to the trigger, a more realistic player B will see the land played and then say, "in response to your creature's landfall trigger..." It makes no sense for player B to wait until the opponent tries something else. If Player A rushes into playing his next card, Player B will still be in the right because players should be giving space to allow people to respond to what happens, which again is common sense (but according to your previous concerns, it appears to prove the case players won't be using that either).
A real player isn't going to see a land drop on his opponent's side fully knowing about the landflall trigger, then wait until another spell is about to be played then shout "Hey Yugi you forgot about my trap card!" or something else equally amusing. In order for your example to make sense, player B has to not be paying attention to his opponent - which is inexperience or otherwise known as poor play. A tourney is a tourney and if you're there to win or gain experience, not paying attention tells others that you're not serious about what you're doing there in the first place.
I was also thinking goblin could make a comeback with the instigators; and with a goblin that pumps AND gives haste in standard there's a chance we can get some good goblin decklists. Red/black goblin is harder to do now that all the good black goblins are gone, but the color combo may yet hold water since Blightning is essential for cornering opponents early on with a low hand and life total.
My preferred aggressove strategy has always been to empty the opponent's hand and board with stuff like Duress and Blightning, THEN pummel with decent-sized creatures. Man, if only ANY three-costing land destruction still existed, then just maybe...
Anyway, my only constructive criticism for this article is that I was looking for more specific card analysis examples that were going toward your earlier theme of comparing how a good player and a new player analyze cards, and was disappointed to find it became more about aggro not having enough steam to win against good resource-oriented strategies, which is a given. You also spent too much time driving the point home that there are people who goldfish, which is another point that doesn't have much life to it beyond those words.
Your Force of Nature vs Kitchen Finks example was superb, I might add.
If your opponent does not keep the habit of announcing everything, repeat back to yourself or opponent everything he's doing that he does not announce. If he inquires as to why, encourage him to announce his plays. But as an mtg player it's ultimately your responsibility to be keeping track of where things are and what's going on. No one is going to do that for you.
I guess the big issue is, why is it such an issue that people can't keep track of one opponent? Is anyone really afraid landfall will create some kind of cheat-heavy environment in which players will try to sneak in their lands, bay of pigs style? (And by that I imply that it wouldn't work so good.)
I also think the reactions to a simple 2HG rule are a bit excessive. To help make it easier, imagine it like this - two players have "separate" life totals that are represented by one shared total. In other words, the competitive format was designed to play in a style that as long as one member of the team is alive, the whole team stays around. It makes a lot more sense than a team game where individual team members can get taken out of the game, and the way life totals work make a lot more sense since most cards deal with a single opponent. (Imagine blasting a spell at one of the giant's two heads, it doesn't make sense the blast harming both heads when you only aimed at one.) Common sense, really, I guess the only thing that spurs players to complain is the math involved. And as mentioned before, no one is forcing anyone to play 2HG.