It sounds like your real question is, "Do you have to cheat to win a GP?" Cheating sure helps your chances - for now, anyway. Most opponents let such "mistakes" slide when they ought to call a judge instead. Judge calls are the only way to detect a pattern of consistent, small cheats. When the community gets over the notion that "judge call = douche move," honest players will start to see better results.
In Finder, go to the folder where Cockatrice is located, right-click on Cockatrice, and Open it from the context menu. This time, the dialog box should be different - there's a button to open the app despite the warning. After the first time you open it this way, it will open normally.
If you don't get that option, go to System Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> General. There is a section called "Allow apps downloaded from:" with options "Mac App Store," "Mac App Store and identified developers," and "Anywhere." Make sure it's not set to "Mac App Store." Either of the other two options will work. I use "Mac App Store and identified developers." You may have to click the lock icon in the lower left corner to change this setting.
Dailies are the cheapest way to practice. 2-mans are slightly more expensive, but they allow you to keep your decklist under your hat, if that's important to you (the Magic Online website publishes lists that finish 3-1 or better in a Daily).
I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. After a certain point in multiplayer, you can generally tell when you can't reasonably win a game due to lack of resources. At that time, you can either just flat out quit... which I'm not a fan of, not at all! Youu can sit and do nothing to affect the game, and suffer an inevitable slow death. Or, you can gain a minor victory by choosing who wins when you can't, and do whatever you can to end the game in the matter of your choosing. If you take this third option, it even opens up routes to yourself winning the game if done right, because you're essentially painting a bullseye on a blissfully thankful target, giving yourself the space you need to recover from setbacks.
Letting stupid stuff end the game in an opponent's favor when you were in a decent spot, though? I'm not a fan, unless it's something really, really stupid. Like, give everyone a 50 card hand on turn 7 stupid.
Don't get me wrong. I've played kingmaker more than I like to admit. It's far more satisfying than conceding. It's also bad for the group's health. The eventual winner feels like he won because of me, not because of his skill; the loser feels like I stole his win.
All too often, my kingmaking did little more than spark a shouting match over who "deserves" to win, when we could all be shuffling up for the next game instead.
Good sportsmanship isn't just about self-control and fair play. It's also about trying, as hard as you can, to win.
That said, this particular turn-four flameout sounds relatively innocuous. Playing kingmaker is far more problematic when someone flips the switch two hours into a game. In the worst case, everyone who was still in contention feels like they wasted their time.
I used to think I was clever. When I was no longer in a position to win, I would try to even up the game between the remaining players. Really, I was just making all the eliminated players sit out longer. These days, I concede as soon as I can't win, and games in my group are faster and more harmonious.
I started during Invasion, then ragequit two weeks after Darksteel's release. Skullclamp and Arcbound Ravager were the new sheriff and deputy, and they ran all the fun out of the format on a rail.
Years later, I went to the Eventide prerelease with a handful of friends, and I've been active ever since.
Numerous poker and Magic writers have discussed leveled thinking:
Level 0: What do I have?
Level 1: What could my opponent have?
Level 2: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think I think he has?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think that he thinks that I have?
It's my opinion that a game of Magic is interactive when both players get a benefit from thinking at Level 1 or higher. I define 'benefit' here as 'the opportunity to make meaningful tactical adjustments.' When a Zoo player holds creatures to play around Wrath of God, that's interaction.
Looking at it another way, the game is uninteractive when one or both players run at Level 0. Take the Belcher v Zoo matchup, for example. The Belcher player doesn't get any benefit from playing around the Zoo player's cards. He's thinking at Level 1 (Does my opponent have Force of Will? No.) but playing the same way a Level 0 player would.
1. Do your friends have enough free time to learn deckbuilding? It's possible they have the interest and the aptitude, but not the time.
2. Are they willing to pilot the format's established decks against their brews during playtesting?
3. After each playtest match, do they take a few minutes to reflect on the cards that overperformed and underperformed?
The protocol is different from rugby and football because you can't concede in those sports. You shake hands after the game's decided.
In Magic, the handshake picks up the additional meanings "I concede" or "This game is over." It's good sportsmanship to always offer a handshake as the loser, and always return one as a winner.
If, as the winner, you're absolutely hellbent on offering first, at least wait until after your opponent concedes. Don't extend the hand with your alpha strike. Don't try to concede the game for him.
Handicaps are important for tournaments, too. They give average-to-decent players a chance to break into high-level competitive play. Further, a random (within reason) handicap is more exciting than a static one.
I'm a mediocre player. If I were paired against Jon Finkel at a Grand Prix, I know I have about a 30 percent chance of winning the match. Me, steal a win from Finkel? That's exciting. It makes me want to go to tournaments above my skill level and learn to become a better player.
Let's say I played in a hypothetical chess tournament with handicap rules. I'm paired against Kasparov, and the rules start him with only one knight. He'll still grind me into the dirt in two games. If my LGS is really competitive, it might be twenty years before my first Top 8 at Friday Night Chess. I don't want that.
In single-elimination events, if a match is still going on at the completion of the five additional turns... the game continues with an additional state-based effect of "The player with the lower life total loses." I would apply that.
+1 for this answer.
I would hesitate to use a coin toss. Players are prohibited from randomly choosing a winner, and using a coin could give them the wrong impression.
I always return a handshake, and I always offer one after I lose. I never offer one on a win. If I win and my opponent doesn't offer, I'll say something like "It was nice to meet you" instead of "Good game."
This formula comes from playing a ton of Starcraft - in that world, typing gg "for" your opponent on a win is one of the worst insults imaginable.
If you do this, why wouldn't you run say 6 lands and 54 threats? Or even 4 lands and 56 threats in an aggro deck? Then there's always issues like Sphinx's Revelation where drawing a land actively prevents you from drawing closer to the rev. Just think, you could have perfect mana in a 3 color aggro deck every time like this. Run two shocklands and two checklands. Draw 3 lands in your opening hand and you're guaranteed a shock so everything comes in untapped. Certainly this wouldn't make a deck like Naya Blitz dumb at all. It would only be running 56 threats with guaranteed perfect mana.
Yeah, that format gets degenerate quickly. You see a lot of
If you don't get that option, go to System Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> General. There is a section called "Allow apps downloaded from:" with options "Mac App Store," "Mac App Store and identified developers," and "Anywhere." Make sure it's not set to "Mac App Store." Either of the other two options will work. I use "Mac App Store and identified developers." You may have to click the lock icon in the lower left corner to change this setting.
Don't get me wrong. I've played kingmaker more than I like to admit. It's far more satisfying than conceding. It's also bad for the group's health. The eventual winner feels like he won because of me, not because of his skill; the loser feels like I stole his win.
All too often, my kingmaking did little more than spark a shouting match over who "deserves" to win, when we could all be shuffling up for the next game instead.
That said, this particular turn-four flameout sounds relatively innocuous. Playing kingmaker is far more problematic when someone flips the switch two hours into a game. In the worst case, everyone who was still in contention feels like they wasted their time.
I used to think I was clever. When I was no longer in a position to win, I would try to even up the game between the remaining players. Really, I was just making all the eliminated players sit out longer. These days, I concede as soon as I can't win, and games in my group are faster and more harmonious.
Years later, I went to the Eventide prerelease with a handful of friends, and I've been active ever since.
Seems strong in older formats, but hoodie is banned in nightclub.
It's my opinion that a game of Magic is interactive when both players get a benefit from thinking at Level 1 or higher. I define 'benefit' here as 'the opportunity to make meaningful tactical adjustments.' When a Zoo player holds creatures to play around Wrath of God, that's interaction.
Looking at it another way, the game is uninteractive when one or both players run at Level 0. Take the Belcher v Zoo matchup, for example. The Belcher player doesn't get any benefit from playing around the Zoo player's cards. He's thinking at Level 1 (Does my opponent have Force of Will? No.) but playing the same way a Level 0 player would.
2. Are they willing to pilot the format's established decks against their brews during playtesting?
3. After each playtest match, do they take a few minutes to reflect on the cards that overperformed and underperformed?
In Magic, the handshake picks up the additional meanings "I concede" or "This game is over." It's good sportsmanship to always offer a handshake as the loser, and always return one as a winner.
If, as the winner, you're absolutely hellbent on offering first, at least wait until after your opponent concedes. Don't extend the hand with your alpha strike. Don't try to concede the game for him.
I'm a mediocre player. If I were paired against Jon Finkel at a Grand Prix, I know I have about a 30 percent chance of winning the match. Me, steal a win from Finkel? That's exciting. It makes me want to go to tournaments above my skill level and learn to become a better player.
Let's say I played in a hypothetical chess tournament with handicap rules. I'm paired against Kasparov, and the rules start him with only one knight. He'll still grind me into the dirt in two games. If my LGS is really competitive, it might be twenty years before my first Top 8 at Friday Night Chess. I don't want that.
+1 for this answer.
I would hesitate to use a coin toss. Players are prohibited from randomly choosing a winner, and using a coin could give them the wrong impression.
This formula comes from playing a ton of Starcraft - in that world, typing gg "for" your opponent on a win is one of the worst insults imaginable.
Yeah, that format gets degenerate quickly. You see a lot of
56 other cards
and
2 Thoughtseize
1 Show and Tell
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Lotus Petal
2 Dark Ritual