I teach math to high school students. As a educational tool, I'm not sure. The question is of course, what do you want to teach?
As an above poster put it, playing games is a great way to encourage social interactions and build friendships. As a way to teach math, critical thinking, or strategy I'm skeptical. Highly motivated students will definitely gravitate to it and enjoy, however students who already struggle with these key areas will spend a lot of time trying to just remember how to play.
There are however many fun out of box games that are simple to understand and play, but have great depth of variety, strategy, and fun. I am thinking of games like Rumikub, Sequence, traditional card games, TicTacToe Ten (personal favorite), and more.
These games are easy enough for all students and are quick to learn and play.
Now if you had a dedicated club and lots of interested students and a nice collection of starter decks, then yeah this could be fun. I just see those types of students as probably already proficient critical thinkers. However, I don't know your mix of kids so it might be just the right fit.
Let me make sure I have it straight:
So if I steal the equipment, even in response, the equipment still attaches to the creature. I would need to reactivate the equip ability to move it off.
If instead the creature happens to be an artifact and I steal that instead, than the equip ability fizzles because of an illegal target.
I am trying her out in a few of my blue EDH decks as tech againist Blightsteel Colossus and other badies. Namely she seems like a good fit for Azami decks. Anyways...
I know Magus of the Unseen will be good to borrow opponents' artifact creatures on my turn. I also figure I can activate in order to remove an attacker during their turn. Here's my question:
If I use Magus of the Unseen IN RESPONSE to an equip activation, when the equip ability RESOLVES, will it still attach?
Ok so, I've gotten some good replies from y'all. Thanks for the input. If a situation like this arises again, I will stand my ground on choosing to not reply.
Follow up question, is there anything in regards to tabletalk that does cross the line?
Understand, I fully get the merits of being political in multiplayer games. I totally agree with this, and enjoy the interactions. But have you ever had a situation where players communicated unfairly or inappropriately?
For example,
I've played a few games where two friends prior to the match agree to gang up on the other player(s) before settling things between them. ~Personally, I sometimes try to kill my buddy first
Another situation that burns me up is when a rude or obnoxious player takes advantage of a newer player or a young player by demeaning there plays/deck/skills. They do this to divert attention away from the fact their own board state is weak and the "newb" could actually kill them. This doesn't help build a community IMO.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
Which one was it? Did you tell him that you won't answer and if he's afraid of you attacking him he should tap you down? Or did you answer his question?
I answered his question by saying if he didn't like the possibility then he should play accordingly. Essentially saying I was giving him no guarentees of peace. He didnt like that answer so he tapped. However my original intent in asking "attack step?" was to see if he or anyone wanted to do anything about Wydwen. At the tim I honestly hadnt decided on who to attack. Again he was ok to ask, ok to tap during main, but his line of questioning and even how he phrased his question implied he was only going to allow me to progress to attack step if I wasnt attacking him and if I did attack him he would try to take back priority during main. However I ask attack step so that no one can complain I moved to declare attackers too soon.
I understand this as the correct and safe way to pass priority in main so no one can try to go back.
Perhaps I should clarify, I agree the opponent should ask about attacks, that is tabletalk. But after it became apparent I wasn't going to answer him and he should make his play one way or the other, he should not continue to push the question. To do so is equivalent to trying to "take back" his priority despite me giving him the opportunity to respond initially. This is where I felt he was trying to bend rules, to get the option to "go back" and take his action.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
I would say its ok to ask and have tabletalk, but continual pressuring and not allowing the gamestate to move forward until I answered is wrong.
So I've closed the poll for the original post. If you would like to read that post it's embedded in the spoiler below.
The topic has shifted to discussion on what is fair and unfair tabletalk. There is a lot of good discussion about how to take an acceptable shortcut of phases or steps. Also people are discussing how there playgroup handles tabletalk. Some groups are very open to discussing hypothetical plays. Some players fiercely defend the policy of keeping your word on a deal and punish (ingame) those who don't.
So I'd like to know what you think about tabletalk?
How much do you or your playgroup do it?
Does your group have any gentlemen's rules or limits?
Has the talk ever gotten out of hand or unsportsmanlike?
Have you ever had a situation where tabletalk seemed unfair?
On the flip side, have you ever had tabletalk turn into an epic coordinated play to bring down a indominatable opponent?
When has tabletalk been awesome or funny?
The original post:
Ok so quick background: I was playing a 4-person pickup game of EDH at my LGS on a Sat morning. No League points or prizes or anything up for grabs. I was playing my janky random coin-flipping mono red deck for lolz. Another player was playing a casual UB Wydwen, the Biting Gale deck. The third player, the "opponent" was playing a serious Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient artifact combo deck. The fourth player had already been eliminated by someone. We were having a pretty goodtime. The Kurkesh player was ramping and doubling red mana which was fun cause I got to cast big fun cards like Scrambleverse which amused the UB player because he ended up with most of the stuff.
At one point I get to cast Unwilling Recruit stealing Wydwen with a massive +25 bonus on an otherwise empty board. The Kurkesh player knew I had this card in hand actually because we laughed about it back when he first started doubling mountains. Anyways the spell resolves and I casually announce "attack step?" At this point the Kurkesh player becomes serious and asks me if I am attacking him because if I plan on it he will respond by tapping down the creature with his Tumble Magnet. I respond that he can't tap after I have declared attackers , it will be too late to stop it at that point. So he asks me again if I plan on attacking him. I respond by asking if he was passing priority for the main phase. He just repeats his question.
At this point I say that he can't ask me that ahead of time, it would be againist the rules. He replies that its just table talk and it's normal and not a big deal.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase. He then decides to make the correct play and tap down the creature. Honestly, I hadn't decided who to attack yet. I did feel like lying and telling him I'd attack the UB player and then attacking the Kurkesh player anyway, but that's not my style.
So how do y'all feel about this situation. Obviously he made the "correct play" in the end, but was it just "tabletalk" or was he trying to circumvent the rules for his advantage?
Fury of the Horde and Waves of Aggression don't work in this deck, as it won't be a main phase when they resolve. Thanks to RiverWolf13 for pointing out this issue.
No it is ok for this deck. Narset has the clause "Until end of turn, you may cast" So you use those spells on second, third, or fourth main phase, etc.
I was saying those spells don't work with Hellcarver, which is why I am interested in Narset.
This deck idea is similiar to a legacy build I use with Hellcarver Demon. You may want to try him out as additional copies of Narset. Due to his six power, you can often win with the additional attack steps alone. Nice build though with the serum powder and pull from eternity to use as an Entomb effect.
The biggest issue with Hellcarver though is the timing of when you can cast the spells. Due to this, you can only use Savage Beating and World at War to gain additional attack steps. All the rest contain the "after this main phase" clause which effectively negates the spell's effect.
EDIT: whoops, I see your reanimate spell is Goryo's Vengeance which can't hit Hellcarver. Though I will be interested to try out some of your cards in my legacy version to see if I can't speed up a tad bit more.
Ok so let me explain the "infinite combo in detail to help out. As before, Hellcarver Demon has attacked multiple times in one turn thanks to Savage Beating being revealed and cast multiple times due to being played and shuffled back in thanks to Emrakul, the Aeons Torn.
At this point, we make a few assumptions that will continue to always be true throughout the combo.
(1) I have no cards in hand. This is due to Hellcarver requiring you to discard your entire hand.
(2) Besides Hellcarver Demon, the only cards that are not exiled are 2 copies of Emrakul, and 4 copies of Savage Beating
(3)In order to keep attacking and thus continue the combo, I must reveal at least one Savage Beating each attack step, else it would be possible to fizzle.
(4)I will always choose to cast all revealed cards and always take my extra attack steps.
So there are a couple of scenarios to try out.
(1) Hell carver attacks. I have one Emrakul in play, one Emrakul and one Savage Beating in deck. The other three Savage Beatings are in the graveyard. I sacrifice Emrakul, reveal and cast the two cards in my deck. The Emrakul that died triggers a graveyard shuffle putting three copies of Savage Beating and Emrakul in deck. The other Emrakul and the one Savage Beating resolve.
I use the one extra attack step to attack, I sacrifice the new Emrakul and reveal the top four cards of my deck and cast them. The second Emrakul shuffles the one Savage Beating and itself back into the deck. The revealed Emrakul goes into play and three Savage Beatings resolve and give me three extra attack steps.
The board and deck state are now identical to the original scenario, go back to the top, rinse and repeat.
*this exact scenario will also work with 2 copies of Savage Beating in the graveyard and 2 in deck.
(2)Both Emrakuls and one Savage Beating are in the deck. Three copies of Savage Beating are in the graveyard. Hellcarver attacks and reals the top three cards. Both emrakuls are cast along with one Savage Beating. Both Emrakuls resolve and one of them is put into the graveyard due to the legend rule, triggering a shuffle effect. The deck now has one Emrakul and at least one Savage Beating like in scenario number (1).
*this scenario will work with 2 or 3 copies of Savage Beating in the deck as well.
Notes: It is possible to have 1 Emrakul and zero Savage Beating in deck and still combo, provided you already had an extra attack step built up, since you will reveal 4 Savage Beating every other attack step.
It is not possible to have the deck arranged any other way since 2 Emrakuls guarentees a shuffle putting something back in the deck.
Does this qualify as a repeatable loop that I may shortcut "infinitely" to deal lethal damage to an opponent that has a very high life total?
My concern is the fact that the cards are in the deck not in the graveyard, play or hand. It is impossible however to not reveal tbe necessary cards.
So I have a quirky legacy reanimator deck based around Hellcarver Demon. The goal is to use Shallow Grave to blitz Hellcarver to CAST Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and win on the extra turn. I know this works, that is not my question.
In order to ensure that I fin Emrakul, I run (tutors of course) but also Savage Beating and World at War. These are the only two cards that will give extra combat steps in the middle of combat. Admittedly, W[/card]orld at War is a bit restrictive but it still works. I know this combo works. That is not my question.
My question is this:
Suppose my opponent has managed to gain 1,000,000 life (infinite life). Also suppose I have been fortunate enough to land damage on him or her with Hellcarver. I find multiple copies of Savage Beating and cast them. I also cast any Emrakuls. When I use my extra attack steps, Emrakul will be sacrificed and shuffle the graveyard into the library along with the Savage Beatings after I reveal/exile the top six cards. As I continue to attack, I reveal Savage Beating and Emrakul repeatedly. This will cause several turns to be built up, but more importantly I will be stacking more and more attack steps. The cards I do not cast are exiled and remain so indefinitely. After awhile my library, board, and graveyard will only consist of two Emrakuls and 4 Savage beatings. This will mean as long as I choose to keep attacking and landing damage, I will accumulate an increasing number of extra attack steps. Additionally, because I have 2 Emrakuls, Iam also guarenteed to always find a Savage Beating shuffled into my deck.
Based on the composition of the deck and understanding I will always choose to keep attacking and damaging, I have in effect gone infinite damage with Hellcarver.
In official tournament play could I reveal during a shuffle effect to my opponent and or judge and have such a situation ruled as infinite damage for the sake of killing my opponent in a timely manner since he or she has 1,000,000+ life?
Would I win?
Would I get a slow play call againist me?
Thanks.
I know this situation is rare, but the deck often is able to "go infinite damage" during playtesting.
I built a Ruhan deck in the past that utilizes some of the super political cards used in the Zedruu Commander deck. I added many political auras as well that don't steal creatures, but rather make them an unwilling ally.
For example:
Ok snarkiness aside, I have been waiting to play this card in Constructed since it came out. Before that, I never noticed that tick of players because none of my high school friends did it. (I guess we were just too relaxed playing kitchen table Magic.) This card has serious potential, way better than Raven's Crime, it's even instant speed!!
Here's hoping Duel Commander allows silver-bordered in the near future too!
Definitely agree that Village Cannibals takes the cake. The horror here is amplified by the amazing flavortext. In the same vein, I'd also pick Villagers of Estwald. The best horror is the kind that lurks, waiting for you.
I like many of the arts chosen, but I think the flavortext is a crucial piece that can magnify horror.
As an above poster put it, playing games is a great way to encourage social interactions and build friendships. As a way to teach math, critical thinking, or strategy I'm skeptical. Highly motivated students will definitely gravitate to it and enjoy, however students who already struggle with these key areas will spend a lot of time trying to just remember how to play.
There are however many fun out of box games that are simple to understand and play, but have great depth of variety, strategy, and fun. I am thinking of games like Rumikub, Sequence, traditional card games, TicTacToe Ten (personal favorite), and more.
These games are easy enough for all students and are quick to learn and play.
Now if you had a dedicated club and lots of interested students and a nice collection of starter decks, then yeah this could be fun. I just see those types of students as probably already proficient critical thinkers. However, I don't know your mix of kids so it might be just the right fit.
Let me make sure I have it straight:
So if I steal the equipment, even in response, the equipment still attaches to the creature. I would need to reactivate the equip ability to move it off.
If instead the creature happens to be an artifact and I steal that instead, than the equip ability fizzles because of an illegal target.
I am trying her out in a few of my blue EDH decks as tech againist Blightsteel Colossus and other badies. Namely she seems like a good fit for Azami decks. Anyways...
I know Magus of the Unseen will be good to borrow opponents' artifact creatures on my turn. I also figure I can activate in order to remove an attacker during their turn. Here's my question:
If I use Magus of the Unseen IN RESPONSE to an equip activation, when the equip ability RESOLVES, will it still attach?
Thank you
Out:
In:
Let me know what y'all think.
And actually you need to look at his Scars of Mirrodin art as well.
Follow up question, is there anything in regards to tabletalk that does cross the line?
Understand, I fully get the merits of being political in multiplayer games. I totally agree with this, and enjoy the interactions. But have you ever had a situation where players communicated unfairly or inappropriately?
For example,
I've played a few games where two friends prior to the match agree to gang up on the other player(s) before settling things between them. ~Personally, I sometimes try to kill my buddy first
Another situation that burns me up is when a rude or obnoxious player takes advantage of a newer player or a young player by demeaning there plays/deck/skills. They do this to divert attention away from the fact their own board state is weak and the "newb" could actually kill them. This doesn't help build a community IMO.
I answered his question by saying if he didn't like the possibility then he should play accordingly. Essentially saying I was giving him no guarentees of peace. He didnt like that answer so he tapped. However my original intent in asking "attack step?" was to see if he or anyone wanted to do anything about Wydwen. At the tim I honestly hadnt decided on who to attack. Again he was ok to ask, ok to tap during main, but his line of questioning and even how he phrased his question implied he was only going to allow me to progress to attack step if I wasnt attacking him and if I did attack him he would try to take back priority during main. However I ask attack step so that no one can complain I moved to declare attackers too soon.
I understand this as the correct and safe way to pass priority in main so no one can try to go back.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
I would say its ok to ask and have tabletalk, but continual pressuring and not allowing the gamestate to move forward until I answered is wrong.
The topic has shifted to discussion on what is fair and unfair tabletalk. There is a lot of good discussion about how to take an acceptable shortcut of phases or steps. Also people are discussing how there playgroup handles tabletalk. Some groups are very open to discussing hypothetical plays. Some players fiercely defend the policy of keeping your word on a deal and punish (ingame) those who don't.
So I'd like to know what you think about tabletalk?
How much do you or your playgroup do it?
Does your group have any gentlemen's rules or limits?
Has the talk ever gotten out of hand or unsportsmanlike?
Have you ever had a situation where tabletalk seemed unfair?
On the flip side, have you ever had tabletalk turn into an epic coordinated play to bring down a indominatable opponent?
When has tabletalk been awesome or funny?
The original post:
Ok so quick background: I was playing a 4-person pickup game of EDH at my LGS on a Sat morning. No League points or prizes or anything up for grabs. I was playing my janky random coin-flipping mono red deck for lolz. Another player was playing a casual UB Wydwen, the Biting Gale deck. The third player, the "opponent" was playing a serious Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient artifact combo deck. The fourth player had already been eliminated by someone. We were having a pretty goodtime. The Kurkesh player was ramping and doubling red mana which was fun cause I got to cast big fun cards like Scrambleverse which amused the UB player because he ended up with most of the stuff.
At one point I get to cast Unwilling Recruit stealing Wydwen with a massive +25 bonus on an otherwise empty board. The Kurkesh player knew I had this card in hand actually because we laughed about it back when he first started doubling mountains. Anyways the spell resolves and I casually announce "attack step?" At this point the Kurkesh player becomes serious and asks me if I am attacking him because if I plan on it he will respond by tapping down the creature with his Tumble Magnet. I respond that he can't tap after I have declared attackers , it will be too late to stop it at that point. So he asks me again if I plan on attacking him. I respond by asking if he was passing priority for the main phase. He just repeats his question.
At this point I say that he can't ask me that ahead of time, it would be againist the rules. He replies that its just table talk and it's normal and not a big deal.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase. He then decides to make the correct play and tap down the creature. Honestly, I hadn't decided who to attack yet. I did feel like lying and telling him I'd attack the UB player and then attacking the Kurkesh player anyway, but that's not my style.
So how do y'all feel about this situation. Obviously he made the "correct play" in the end, but was it just "tabletalk" or was he trying to circumvent the rules for his advantage?
No it is ok for this deck. Narset has the clause "Until end of turn, you may cast" So you use those spells on second, third, or fourth main phase, etc.
I was saying those spells don't work with Hellcarver, which is why I am interested in Narset.
The biggest issue with Hellcarver though is the timing of when you can cast the spells. Due to this, you can only use Savage Beating and World at War to gain additional attack steps. All the rest contain the "after this main phase" clause which effectively negates the spell's effect.
EDIT: whoops, I see your reanimate spell is Goryo's Vengeance which can't hit Hellcarver. Though I will be interested to try out some of your cards in my legacy version to see if I can't speed up a tad bit more.
At this point, we make a few assumptions that will continue to always be true throughout the combo.
(1) I have no cards in hand. This is due to Hellcarver requiring you to discard your entire hand.
(2) Besides Hellcarver Demon, the only cards that are not exiled are 2 copies of Emrakul, and 4 copies of Savage Beating
(3)In order to keep attacking and thus continue the combo, I must reveal at least one Savage Beating each attack step, else it would be possible to fizzle.
(4)I will always choose to cast all revealed cards and always take my extra attack steps.
So there are a couple of scenarios to try out.
(1) Hell carver attacks. I have one Emrakul in play, one Emrakul and one Savage Beating in deck. The other three Savage Beatings are in the graveyard. I sacrifice Emrakul, reveal and cast the two cards in my deck. The Emrakul that died triggers a graveyard shuffle putting three copies of Savage Beating and Emrakul in deck. The other Emrakul and the one Savage Beating resolve.
I use the one extra attack step to attack, I sacrifice the new Emrakul and reveal the top four cards of my deck and cast them. The second Emrakul shuffles the one Savage Beating and itself back into the deck. The revealed Emrakul goes into play and three Savage Beatings resolve and give me three extra attack steps.
The board and deck state are now identical to the original scenario, go back to the top, rinse and repeat.
*this exact scenario will also work with 2 copies of Savage Beating in the graveyard and 2 in deck.
(2)Both Emrakuls and one Savage Beating are in the deck. Three copies of Savage Beating are in the graveyard. Hellcarver attacks and reals the top three cards. Both emrakuls are cast along with one Savage Beating. Both Emrakuls resolve and one of them is put into the graveyard due to the legend rule, triggering a shuffle effect. The deck now has one Emrakul and at least one Savage Beating like in scenario number (1).
*this scenario will work with 2 or 3 copies of Savage Beating in the deck as well.
Notes: It is possible to have 1 Emrakul and zero Savage Beating in deck and still combo, provided you already had an extra attack step built up, since you will reveal 4 Savage Beating every other attack step.
It is not possible to have the deck arranged any other way since 2 Emrakuls guarentees a shuffle putting something back in the deck.
Does this qualify as a repeatable loop that I may shortcut "infinitely" to deal lethal damage to an opponent that has a very high life total?
My concern is the fact that the cards are in the deck not in the graveyard, play or hand. It is impossible however to not reveal tbe necessary cards.
In order to ensure that I fin Emrakul, I run (tutors of course) but also Savage Beating and World at War. These are the only two cards that will give extra combat steps in the middle of combat. Admittedly, W[/card]orld at War is a bit restrictive but it still works. I know this combo works. That is not my question.
My question is this:
Suppose my opponent has managed to gain 1,000,000 life (infinite life). Also suppose I have been fortunate enough to land damage on him or her with Hellcarver. I find multiple copies of Savage Beating and cast them. I also cast any Emrakuls. When I use my extra attack steps, Emrakul will be sacrificed and shuffle the graveyard into the library along with the Savage Beatings after I reveal/exile the top six cards. As I continue to attack, I reveal Savage Beating and Emrakul repeatedly. This will cause several turns to be built up, but more importantly I will be stacking more and more attack steps. The cards I do not cast are exiled and remain so indefinitely. After awhile my library, board, and graveyard will only consist of two Emrakuls and 4 Savage beatings. This will mean as long as I choose to keep attacking and landing damage, I will accumulate an increasing number of extra attack steps. Additionally, because I have 2 Emrakuls, Iam also guarenteed to always find a Savage Beating shuffled into my deck.
Based on the composition of the deck and understanding I will always choose to keep attacking and damaging, I have in effect gone infinite damage with Hellcarver.
In official tournament play could I reveal during a shuffle effect to my opponent and or judge and have such a situation ruled as infinite damage for the sake of killing my opponent in a timely manner since he or she has 1,000,000+ life?
Would I win?
Would I get a slow play call againist me?
Thanks.
I know this situation is rare, but the deck often is able to "go infinite damage" during playtesting.
For example: