Please forgive me if this is pointless for you guys, but these cards can still be played on Magic IRL, right? I have this doubt.
Dude. What the heck are you talking about, bro? PAUPER is mostly an MTGO format. Whatever you do with your free time is up to you and your local game store...
I did remember a report on a guy who top8ed a Modern MTGO daily using standard's Rakdos Deck Wins.
Falkenrath Aristocrats and Thundermaws apparently got there..
He wasn't even using clearly superior cards like lightning bolt, too, I think! I think it was even using cards like Rakdos cackler instead of goblin guide??!
Can anyone verify my statements and link me to a deck list?
I'm really proud to say that I'm playing RDW in the standard meta. RDW actually went #1 at a major star city games standard event recently, too, I believe. RDW! WOO! So - it's obviously a strong standard build.
What this says about modern is... interesting. Maybe people have gotten so "into" their modern ways thus far that the format needed a good kick in the pants (ban hammer). Interesting stuff.
What was your point in referencing the new Aristotle point to begin with? I'm confused.
I know that you're receiving a lot of flak here and there about your original post, but the intention was good and everything seemed pretty interesting to dive into. The bit about bribery from you really threw me off. Why on earth did you bring that up?
LOL. That's the first time I saw someone quote Aristotle to try and justify ripping people off.
It's not a justification. You're reading too much into it. If you think I quoted Aristotle to justify fraud, then you have no idea what the study of ethics is all about. The point was to show that good and bad are points of view, and "fraud" is not factually "bad" as you so claim. Fraud as a "bad" thing is an opinion.
Do I think that fraud is bad? Generally, yes.
Some people might argue that engaging in fraud in order to rob from the rich and give to the poor is "good."
Blanket statement opinions are not facts. I was merely backing up the guy who called you out on your inability to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions."
If I get paired up against you the round before top 8 and you are 0-7, I'm going to try to bribe you. That's me. I've only ever top 8'd once outside of an FNM.
So when you say you are going to bribe someone, you actually are not saying that you are going to bribe someone? Wink wink, nudge nudge?
Facts are not opinions. They are facts. Fraud is bad. That's a fact. Not an opinion.
Fraud can be bad for the person being ripped off, but can be good for the person doing the fraud. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Part 1: "All actions and intentions aim at some good."
Thus, responses like this to Valarin are in earnest and should not be reported:
If I get paired up against you the round before top 8 and you are 0-7, I'm going to try to bribe you.
You're trying to say that too many Magic players feel entitled by showing us that you feel unjustly entitled to a top 8 - and are willing to engage in illegal activities to get there.
You completely undermined your entire original post. Congratulations.
So please, stop (that is for everyone) saying the format is unsatble because bans happen.
What I get from this:
Even though the format is clearly unstable because a lot of bans are happening, please don't complain that the format is unstable because a lot of bans are happening.
What's important to note here is that they are actively going after good decks and taking a dump on them. That's a lot more than just being "unstable."
In pauper, they arbitrarily made post the top deck in the format. They aren't even using any brains when they make these decisions, clearly.
They hit storm because the 10-20% chance of it going off on T3 was too much.
It's higher than 10-20%. You're supposed to use your mulligans to give yourself a quick storm possibility. I've been playing storm for a while. I would say it's somewhere between 35-45% of the time that you can do some kind of storm on turn 3. 44% sounds pretty close to the mark for a player who knows how to work their deck and their build. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's even higher, what with transmutation, etc. I know that it DEFINITELY isn't some ridiculously low number like 20%.
Storm honestly wouldn't be as awesome as it is if it could only storm on turn 3 one out of five games. That's ridiculous.
Modern is stable so long as you understand their banning premise. They want decks that don't win earlier than turn 4 and don't do anything ridiculous and combo-ey
So - what you're saying is - if your deck sucks ass then it's safe?
And as per the condescending post toward me above, I'll ask you how much removal those Delver decks run? 2 or 3 Snap...maybe some Piracy Charms.
Forgetting about echoing truth and serrated arrows much? Regardless of whatever they are running main in delver, they always have more removal in the sideboard. The top decks therefore regularly have like at least 6-8 removal cards possible after sideboarding.
You basically said that your delver deck can't deal with a 2/2 creature hitting the board. I'm sorry if my comments seem too harsh.
Those combo decks pushed out creature based builds that couldn't deal with them or race them.
Um, but that logic applies to cloudpost decks, too. You have to race a cloudpost deck before it stabilizes.
People are just flat out ignoring the fact that cloudpost decks are now going to have spots open to deal with aggro decks. Post can deal with storm and infect, so I don't think it's in any way shape or form a stretch to assume that they'll continue to dominate. I would say it's a totally logical conclusion, and no fantasies about affinity or goblins are going to take away from that logical conclusion.
I know personally that cloudpost is very soft to goblins and many other of the decks I mention, WotC is certainly not handing it the format on a silver platter as you suggest.
Bringing up goblins as an alternative really just kind of reinforces what I'm saying, because I really don't see this as a way for goblins to suddenly go tier 1.
We'll see what happens with the meta game. I think it's erroneous to assume that various aggro decks are going to automatically jump out of the woodwork and balance out the post situation. Post is going to adapt to whatever situation it finds itself in.
I don't think cloudpost/delver decks are particularly unbeatable and as some of the fast decks that were pushed out of the format by storm and infect (because even the fastest weenie deck can't race a turn two or three storm/infect kill without drawing into its lucky sideboard card), will end up winning
This analysis completely disregards the fact that a lot of slots are now freed up in post decks to deal with aggro. You're trying to analyze the impact that current post builds will have on the future meta. It's garbage in garbage out.
I really believe that people who complain about Cloudpost just don't play the format enough
I'm not sure that you fully understand why a lot of people are complaining. I know why the other people on my buddy list and myself are. It's not that Cloudpost is too powerful (though it is pretty good), it's that they basically nuked all the top decks in the format except for post builds. Nerfing or obliterating two of the three (I guess 2 of the 4 if you include delver) top decks is madness. It's completely arbitrary and unfair.
So this isn't even necessarily about the relative strength of each deck. It's about complete unfairness. They just handed the format over to post on a silver platter for the moment.
Delver is sloooooow without a T1 Delver. It is the main deck I pilot, and is prone to getting beat if your opponent can stick even one 2-3 power threat because of a lack of removal.
What kind of horrible delver build are you running? You can't even deal with one relatively small creature?
Dude. What the heck are you talking about, bro? PAUPER is mostly an MTGO format. Whatever you do with your free time is up to you and your local game store...
You're right. I mean - I have nothing else to say here - you're just right.
He wasn't even using clearly superior cards like lightning bolt, too, I think! I think it was even using cards like Rakdos cackler instead of goblin guide??!
Can anyone verify my statements and link me to a deck list?
Lightning bolt CLEARLY >> searing spear
I'm really proud to say that I'm playing RDW in the standard meta. RDW actually went #1 at a major star city games standard event recently, too, I believe. RDW! WOO! So - it's obviously a strong standard build.
What this says about modern is... interesting. Maybe people have gotten so "into" their modern ways thus far that the format needed a good kick in the pants (ban hammer). Interesting stuff.
Very true. But from my testing, RDW builds can be a bit quirky in the modern scene. Anyone have better results?
Maybe I'm just mad about losing to a bunch of kiki-jiki decks in play testing. GRUMBLE!
What was your point in referencing the new Aristotle point to begin with? I'm confused.
I know that you're receiving a lot of flak here and there about your original post, but the intention was good and everything seemed pretty interesting to dive into. The bit about bribery from you really threw me off. Why on earth did you bring that up?
You clearly said that you will bribe someone to get into a top 8. That's a bit more than "entertaining a thought without accepting it."
It's not a justification. You're reading too much into it. If you think I quoted Aristotle to justify fraud, then you have no idea what the study of ethics is all about. The point was to show that good and bad are points of view, and "fraud" is not factually "bad" as you so claim. Fraud as a "bad" thing is an opinion.
Do I think that fraud is bad? Generally, yes.
Some people might argue that engaging in fraud in order to rob from the rich and give to the poor is "good."
Blanket statement opinions are not facts. I was merely backing up the guy who called you out on your inability to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions."
Then what exactly did you mean when you wrote this:
So when you say you are going to bribe someone, you actually are not saying that you are going to bribe someone? Wink wink, nudge nudge?
Fraud can be bad for the person being ripped off, but can be good for the person doing the fraud. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Part 1: "All actions and intentions aim at some good."
Thus, responses like this to Valarin are in earnest and should not be reported:
This isn't the first time that I have seen quotes similar to the above in response to Valarin's discourse.
* * *
You're trying to say that too many Magic players feel entitled by showing us that you feel unjustly entitled to a top 8 - and are willing to engage in illegal activities to get there.
You completely undermined your entire original post. Congratulations.
What I get from this:
Even though the format is clearly unstable because a lot of bans are happening, please don't complain that the format is unstable because a lot of bans are happening.
What's important to note here is that they are actively going after good decks and taking a dump on them. That's a lot more than just being "unstable."
In pauper, they arbitrarily made post the top deck in the format. They aren't even using any brains when they make these decisions, clearly.
Good deck? Nerf it.
It's higher than 10-20%. You're supposed to use your mulligans to give yourself a quick storm possibility. I've been playing storm for a while. I would say it's somewhere between 35-45% of the time that you can do some kind of storm on turn 3. 44% sounds pretty close to the mark for a player who knows how to work their deck and their build. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's even higher, what with transmutation, etc. I know that it DEFINITELY isn't some ridiculously low number like 20%.
Storm honestly wouldn't be as awesome as it is if it could only storm on turn 3 one out of five games. That's ridiculous.
So - what you're saying is - if your deck sucks ass then it's safe?
Comforting.
More like
"I like the Mona Lisa. It's not for sale. What other da Vinci originals can I obtain?"
How do you pronounce Fblthp anyway?
Forgetting about echoing truth and serrated arrows much? Regardless of whatever they are running main in delver, they always have more removal in the sideboard. The top decks therefore regularly have like at least 6-8 removal cards possible after sideboarding.
You basically said that your delver deck can't deal with a 2/2 creature hitting the board. I'm sorry if my comments seem too harsh.
Um, but that logic applies to cloudpost decks, too. You have to race a cloudpost deck before it stabilizes.
People are just flat out ignoring the fact that cloudpost decks are now going to have spots open to deal with aggro decks. Post can deal with storm and infect, so I don't think it's in any way shape or form a stretch to assume that they'll continue to dominate. I would say it's a totally logical conclusion, and no fantasies about affinity or goblins are going to take away from that logical conclusion.
Bringing up goblins as an alternative really just kind of reinforces what I'm saying, because I really don't see this as a way for goblins to suddenly go tier 1.
We'll see what happens with the meta game. I think it's erroneous to assume that various aggro decks are going to automatically jump out of the woodwork and balance out the post situation. Post is going to adapt to whatever situation it finds itself in.
This analysis completely disregards the fact that a lot of slots are now freed up in post decks to deal with aggro. You're trying to analyze the impact that current post builds will have on the future meta. It's garbage in garbage out.
I'm not sure that you fully understand why a lot of people are complaining. I know why the other people on my buddy list and myself are. It's not that Cloudpost is too powerful (though it is pretty good), it's that they basically nuked all the top decks in the format except for post builds. Nerfing or obliterating two of the three (I guess 2 of the 4 if you include delver) top decks is madness. It's completely arbitrary and unfair.
So this isn't even necessarily about the relative strength of each deck. It's about complete unfairness. They just handed the format over to post on a silver platter for the moment.
What kind of horrible delver build are you running? You can't even deal with one relatively small creature?