I had a natural evolution from a UW standard delver deck that was my own concoction to a UWRB modern burn that turned to a UWR modern midrange. Only things I ever got from the net were ideas to put in remand and electrolyze.
So how exactly would my deck be perceived in these circumstances when it has 99% of the cards a netdecked UWR list would have?
This; I brew. I brew a lot, before, after, and during rotations and the additions of new sets. I love to brew. Casual, Legacy, Modern, Standard, EDH, anything. It's why I love Limited so much, especially Draft.
I also like to play competitively. Every format and metagame has it's established archetypes that do well that have better chances against some decks than others. Just because someone brews within that context doesn't mean they're 'netdecking'. So let me say; archetype =/= deck list. There's a difference.
For instance, I had a strong hunch that Control - as it's retaining some of its strongest cards - would have a solid foothold going into Theros Standard. So I started with U/W brew. After realizing that mana isn't quite as bad people think going into the new format, and with the addition of new cards to the Theros spoiler, I came up with a U/W/R list.
You know what? A LOT of other people, big names and unknowns, have had very similar ideas and have posted decklists resembling both versions that I brewed. That doesn't make them the exact same deck - in fact they've all had key differences - and it definitely doesn't mean that anyone was just netdecking. It means that competitive players have the ability to grasp certain nuances of a format that not everyone else can in the same way, and will use that to the best of their ability. Sometimes those little nuances lead builders astray, and sometimes they're just what they needed.
I guarantee that once the metagame shapes up, my lists will change. Maybe I'll switch to a different deck. Maybe the format will indeed call for Mizzium Mortars in my list, as I suspect it might, to displace some number of Magma Jet. What may seem to you like a small change in fact radically changes how the deck might play; do I Mortar your Stormbreath because I'm at 7 and I think you have a burn spell in hand, or do I hold it a turn and Overload it to wipe your board so I can slam my finisher without much resistance the next turn? I don't get that same choice with Magma Jet, but it has it's own function as early removal with the ability to dig through my deck. But in the end, they're both 2-mana red burn spells. Does that aspect of tuning actually strike you as boring?
I just don't find this aspect of competitive play boring in the least. Just because I'm not trying to break the format with a rogue brew all the time, doesn't mean players like me aren't actually brewing and having fun playing within established archetypes.
I'm one of the extremely lucky ones getting mine at MSRP, and I'm waiting to see where the price goes from here. Since it's entirely improbable
the price is going to tank, it's nothing but pure win for me.
What in the world are you talking about? The legend rule was interactive because it made the legends and clones you played have effects on the legends the other guy had. Those effects came outside of the combat phase. This change takes away the interactivity by making your legends not have effects on other players' legends. The change reduces interactivity to make the game more fun and intuitive for new players. The people lashing out at the change, then, are probably the same people who though Mana Leak was good for standard.
I'm pretty much one of those guys; I dislike this rules change, I liked Mana Leak while it was in Standard even when I wasn't playing it. I understand the reasons for the constant shifts towards overall casual appeal - the same reasons the video game industry has been heading that way for a long time - but I really don't like it. But I don't think it's the end of the world. I can live with it.
And also, on the other hand, one side of me delights at some of the outright stupid and ridiculous things I can pull off now. Excuse me while I go Liquimetal Coating someone's Bolas, use Agent of Bolas to animate it, Clone the animated Bolas, and use my newly Cloned Bolas to blow up their Bolas... and now I don't lose my copy of Bolas before I get to actually do anything.
It's not playable in Modern, EDH, Legacy, or even Pauper, either. It's definitely Limited fodder. Playable-in-core-set-limited fodder, but fodder nonetheless.
Abundant Growth GG
Sorcery Common
Search your library for up to two basic lands and put them into play tapped. These lands do not untap during their controller's next untap step.
maybe then, Signets would be fair. Until then, though, three mana for two colours or two mana for one are the best anyone should hope for.
Abundant Growth is already a card name, and a recent one too.
But I agree that signets would be busted - at least in limited - right now, and as far as the design goes, once was fine to test the idea out, but twice would just not have been a good move.
On the subject of Plasm Capture... I love it. I really do. I don't know why exactly, but it hits all the right spots for me. I'm not going to go out of my way to acquire any though when it comes out.
the guild leaders were never guaranteed cards, they may have just been put in flavor texts or other references, or left out completely. they were by no means a sure thing.
You mean guild champions; we already have the guild leaders.
Singularly: Force of Will
Collectively: 4x Bridge from Below
I traded the Force of Will for the Bridges + extra a while back, and still have the Bridges. The FoW was a little beat up but the Bridges are nice and minty, so I wasn't too upset about that. Besides, I needed the Bridges.
That would never work. A new player would take one look at the storm mechanic and question why it was considered fair to print cards like that... after he finds out how it works, of course. He'd focus on the bullet, not the gun.
And this is the part where I don't mention that I've played legacy Dredge against him before.
I like the suggestions incoming, I'll keep a lot of it in mind and try out a few different things. He's a sort-of new player, but he's at least familiar with how to game runs on a surface level. I guess it just throws me off because of how quickly I made the transition from bad newb, to newb, to competent. Most of my friends were nearly as quick as well. But we all surrounded ourselves in a competitive environment; he doesn't. I'm wondering if getting him to come to Standard FNMs would help.
I don't think intimidation will pan out so well, unfortunately. I've even sat down and used Phyrexian Arena in my Sedris EDH deck against him, and to him it chalked up to nothing more than 'another card in a broken deck'. He likely didn't realize how much power the card being in play provided.
Building a deck with Phyrexian Arena + other life-loss cards won't work by setting an example, I don't imagine. I almost always beat him with his own brews. I really want to help him become a much better player and deck builder, but I think he just wants to do things his way, with whatever cards he's pulled from boosters, rarely ever buying singles, however the list comes into his mind, skill be damned. So leaving him to his own devices will probably just cause him to stagnate. He hasn't improved in months, despite playing against me and several other skilled players at my LGS.
As for him just not wanting to put himself on a clock, I hate to degrade him, but he doesn't think that complexly about the game. He just doesn't get the idea of why you'd want to pay life to do... anything. Short of 'pay 1 life: you win the game' on a card, I don't think he'd approve of any card that utilized life loss.
It's lose-lose no matter how I go with it. Maybe it's a lost cause?
I'm going to try to explain to him that black uses life as a resource, much like mana, and that cards in hand must be viewed as a numerical resource, not just 'what you have'. I'll see how it goes. If that doesn't work, I'll try the Suicide Black/Punisher deck suggestion and let him play it against me.
EDIT: Whoops, had two thoughts run together and called mana by 'life totals' on accident.
A friend of mine told me he wanted to build a U/B EDH deck, so I told him I have a few solid cards for him that he might want to trade for; namely, I was thinking of Sol Ring, Phyrexian Arena, Oblivion Stone, etc. When he sees Phyrexian Arena, he says "Oh, I don't like to pay life to do things." No statement he's made has ever left me more speechless. Perhaps an exaggeration, but still, I hadn't expected that.
I get it. New players are apparently notorious for not liking life payments. They huddle their life totals close to them like newborn children. If they lose a point of life, it hurts them. They haven't grasped the concept of "It doesn't matter that I'm at 1 life, if my opponent is at 0".
I don't recall having this phase ever. My very first deck* that I took to FNM was a terribad version of B/R vampires during Zendikar-Scars rotation, and I jammed it full of a playset of Sign in Blood. In fact, I loved Sign in Blood. Probably a little too much, really, and I still love that card. I just don't understand his mindset at all.
So how do I explain to him that something like Phyrexian Arena is powerful? How do I show him that turning life into cards is among the strongest effects in Magic? I've thought about telling him of the dominance Necropotence decks held years ago, how great even Yawgmoth's Bargain is, and how Dark Confidant is a staple in black across several formats, but he doesn't have a competitive bone in his body. I've even thought about trying to explain the concept of Card Advantage and Virtual Card Advantage, but he wouldn't really get it. He'd have that poor, sheeplike expression that people get when they just don't understand and probably couldn't care less that they don't understand.
How do I make him see it like more experience players do? I'm all for casual play, but that isn't an excuse for not wanting to be a good player. Any advice to help me out here? Or should I not even bother?
*Okay, so my very, very first deck was an even worse Myr deck, but it was all I had with me and I hadn't intended to play that day. I was a newb, but at least I wasn't as bad as some horror stories I've seen and heard; the Llanowar Elf fetching a forest anecdotes make me shudder.
Bridge from Below is my favorite card because its flavor is spot on with how it works, the way it works is unique and interesting (and I LOVE cards that have anything powerful involving the Graveyard), the [new Modern Masters] art is gorgeous and done by one of my favorite Magic artists, and it plays a pivotal role in my favorite archetype of all time: Dredge. For me, there's nothing not to love about it.
This; I brew. I brew a lot, before, after, and during rotations and the additions of new sets. I love to brew. Casual, Legacy, Modern, Standard, EDH, anything. It's why I love Limited so much, especially Draft.
I also like to play competitively. Every format and metagame has it's established archetypes that do well that have better chances against some decks than others. Just because someone brews within that context doesn't mean they're 'netdecking'. So let me say; archetype =/= deck list. There's a difference.
For instance, I had a strong hunch that Control - as it's retaining some of its strongest cards - would have a solid foothold going into Theros Standard. So I started with U/W brew. After realizing that mana isn't quite as bad people think going into the new format, and with the addition of new cards to the Theros spoiler, I came up with a U/W/R list.
You know what? A LOT of other people, big names and unknowns, have had very similar ideas and have posted decklists resembling both versions that I brewed. That doesn't make them the exact same deck - in fact they've all had key differences - and it definitely doesn't mean that anyone was just netdecking. It means that competitive players have the ability to grasp certain nuances of a format that not everyone else can in the same way, and will use that to the best of their ability. Sometimes those little nuances lead builders astray, and sometimes they're just what they needed.
I guarantee that once the metagame shapes up, my lists will change. Maybe I'll switch to a different deck. Maybe the format will indeed call for Mizzium Mortars in my list, as I suspect it might, to displace some number of Magma Jet. What may seem to you like a small change in fact radically changes how the deck might play; do I Mortar your Stormbreath because I'm at 7 and I think you have a burn spell in hand, or do I hold it a turn and Overload it to wipe your board so I can slam my finisher without much resistance the next turn? I don't get that same choice with Magma Jet, but it has it's own function as early removal with the ability to dig through my deck. But in the end, they're both 2-mana red burn spells. Does that aspect of tuning actually strike you as boring?
I just don't find this aspect of competitive play boring in the least. Just because I'm not trying to break the format with a rogue brew all the time, doesn't mean players like me aren't actually brewing and having fun playing within established archetypes.
the price is going to tank, it's nothing but pure win for me.
I'm pretty much one of those guys; I dislike this rules change, I liked Mana Leak while it was in Standard even when I wasn't playing it. I understand the reasons for the constant shifts towards overall casual appeal - the same reasons the video game industry has been heading that way for a long time - but I really don't like it. But I don't think it's the end of the world. I can live with it.
And also, on the other hand, one side of me delights at some of the outright stupid and ridiculous things I can pull off now. Excuse me while I go Liquimetal Coating someone's Bolas, use Agent of Bolas to animate it, Clone the animated Bolas, and use my newly Cloned Bolas to blow up their Bolas... and now I don't lose my copy of Bolas before I get to actually do anything.
It's not playable in Modern, EDH, Legacy, or even Pauper, either. It's definitely Limited fodder. Playable-in-core-set-limited fodder, but fodder nonetheless.
Abundant Growth is already a card name, and a recent one too.
But I agree that signets would be busted - at least in limited - right now, and as far as the design goes, once was fine to test the idea out, but twice would just not have been a good move.
On the subject of Plasm Capture... I love it. I really do. I don't know why exactly, but it hits all the right spots for me. I'm not going to go out of my way to acquire any though when it comes out.
It's the mythic land that's been spoiled for a while.
He's talking about now, after they took the 'no mythics as prerelease promos' during Innistrad block.
Why would he be the champion? He's the planeswalker for the set. It'd be awkward to have a 9-card legendary creature cycle.
EDIT: Nvm, I'm an idiot. That says plains. T_T
You mean guild champions; we already have the guild leaders.
Singularly: Force of Will
Collectively: 4x Bridge from Below
I traded the Force of Will for the Bridges + extra a while back, and still have the Bridges. The FoW was a little beat up but the Bridges are nice and minty, so I wasn't too upset about that. Besides, I needed the Bridges.
And this is the part where I don't mention that I've played legacy Dredge against him before.
I like the suggestions incoming, I'll keep a lot of it in mind and try out a few different things. He's a sort-of new player, but he's at least familiar with how to game runs on a surface level. I guess it just throws me off because of how quickly I made the transition from bad newb, to newb, to competent. Most of my friends were nearly as quick as well. But we all surrounded ourselves in a competitive environment; he doesn't. I'm wondering if getting him to come to Standard FNMs would help.
Building a deck with Phyrexian Arena + other life-loss cards won't work by setting an example, I don't imagine. I almost always beat him with his own brews. I really want to help him become a much better player and deck builder, but I think he just wants to do things his way, with whatever cards he's pulled from boosters, rarely ever buying singles, however the list comes into his mind, skill be damned. So leaving him to his own devices will probably just cause him to stagnate. He hasn't improved in months, despite playing against me and several other skilled players at my LGS.
As for him just not wanting to put himself on a clock, I hate to degrade him, but he doesn't think that complexly about the game. He just doesn't get the idea of why you'd want to pay life to do... anything. Short of 'pay 1 life: you win the game' on a card, I don't think he'd approve of any card that utilized life loss.
It's lose-lose no matter how I go with it. Maybe it's a lost cause?
I'm going to try to explain to him that black uses life as a resource, much like mana, and that cards in hand must be viewed as a numerical resource, not just 'what you have'. I'll see how it goes. If that doesn't work, I'll try the Suicide Black/Punisher deck suggestion and let him play it against me.
EDIT: Whoops, had two thoughts run together and called mana by 'life totals' on accident.
A friend of mine told me he wanted to build a U/B EDH deck, so I told him I have a few solid cards for him that he might want to trade for; namely, I was thinking of Sol Ring, Phyrexian Arena, Oblivion Stone, etc. When he sees Phyrexian Arena, he says "Oh, I don't like to pay life to do things." No statement he's made has ever left me more speechless. Perhaps an exaggeration, but still, I hadn't expected that.
I get it. New players are apparently notorious for not liking life payments. They huddle their life totals close to them like newborn children. If they lose a point of life, it hurts them. They haven't grasped the concept of "It doesn't matter that I'm at 1 life, if my opponent is at 0".
I don't recall having this phase ever. My very first deck* that I took to FNM was a terribad version of B/R vampires during Zendikar-Scars rotation, and I jammed it full of a playset of Sign in Blood. In fact, I loved Sign in Blood. Probably a little too much, really, and I still love that card. I just don't understand his mindset at all.
So how do I explain to him that something like Phyrexian Arena is powerful? How do I show him that turning life into cards is among the strongest effects in Magic? I've thought about telling him of the dominance Necropotence decks held years ago, how great even Yawgmoth's Bargain is, and how Dark Confidant is a staple in black across several formats, but he doesn't have a competitive bone in his body. I've even thought about trying to explain the concept of Card Advantage and Virtual Card Advantage, but he wouldn't really get it. He'd have that poor, sheeplike expression that people get when they just don't understand and probably couldn't care less that they don't understand.
How do I make him see it like more experience players do? I'm all for casual play, but that isn't an excuse for not wanting to be a good player. Any advice to help me out here? Or should I not even bother?
*Okay, so my very, very first deck was an even worse Myr deck, but it was all I had with me and I hadn't intended to play that day. I was a newb, but at least I wasn't as bad as some horror stories I've seen and heard; the Llanowar Elf fetching a forest anecdotes make me shudder.