2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Mana Drain Explain please.
    It's important to note that if you Mana Drain something during your own first main phase (or any part of your own turn before the second main phase) you will end up getting the mana during the second main phase of the same turn, not during the main phase of your next turn. This could be good or bad, depending upon what the player might want to do with the mana. To avoid this problem, a player can simply go "go to combat and/or go to second main" have his opponent say "ok" and then that player gets the mana during his next turn.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Magic 101: How Creatures Die
    Quote from Jenesis
    I'm confused as to why you chose a lot of obscure, old cards to use as examples when you could have used recent Core Set ones, such as Tor Giant/Hill Giant, Goblin Hero/Gray Ogre, Merfolk Assassin/any random 1/1, and Eater of Days (has a bunch of irrelevant text). Time spent looking up the cards is time not spent reading the article. This isn't about dumbing down the examples to make them more palatable to beginners (though it helps); this is about stripping away everything that doesn't contribute directly to the point you're trying to make.

    The alternative would be indicating the p/t of every creature in an example where damage/toughness is relevant, and writing out every relevant ability in the body of the article itself.


    Fair to a point. On the one hand, not having reread cards does make it more efficient. On the other, I like to vary the cards used because it makes people actually read the cards, which is something people sometimes don't do. It also requires people to sometimes realize which things are irrelevant in an example (though not always). I chose Eater of Days in particular because he has such a terrible drawback from coming into play, I thought that maybe the reader might go "hmm, if I regenerate, does that mean he comes into play again and I have to lose 2 more turns?" So really, his extra ability wasn't irrelevant in that sense because it creates another path that players need to realize that they should not go down. Additionally, the article is meant to be more timeless rather than current, so cards that are current today won't necessarily be current in a few months. Being primarily a Vintage player, I like using older cards out of a sense of nostalgia. But, yeah, Merfolk Assassin probably wasn't necessary.

    After answer questions in the ruling forums for about a year or so, the biggest problem was with players knowing what the ruling is rather than why the ruling is what it is. Simply applying by rote when using the same cards over and over doesn't ensure players understand the why. They need to be able to recognize that Shock and Electrostatic Bolt will interact in the same way. Is there like a major difference for those cards? No. But, they need to know "normal damage allows for regeneration" not "Shock allows for regeneration."

    I would personally excise all mention of regeneration from the first half of the article, save the section explaining "bury"; you'll get to it in due time, though it's not a big deal either way. However, there were a few other diversions that made me wonder "why is this here?" Do you really think a reader who needs to be reminded what power and toughness is would care about such a thing as "Vintage"?


    I actually care a lot about Vintage. The point is more that seemingly trivial rules can actually have significant outcomes in some situations. Knowing these semi-corner cases can be the difference. But, yeah, the regeneration thing was excessive early on. If I had more time to just make the article absolutely perfect, I would have changed/edited/removed that, but I didn't so, it just stayed how it was.

    All versions of STP say "Remove [...] game," so I'm not sure which "old versions" you mean.


    The comparison was more Swords to Plowshares to Iona's Judgment rather than new and old Swords to Plowshares.

    I didn't like Example 9. It's one thing to say "Hypothetically, let's put some things on the stack and see what happens," but it's another to present it as a game scenario. Bizarre and implausible setups are fine for Rules Advisor tests, but for a simplified beginner's example, it's confusing because who would ever do that? especially since you don't explicitly mention it as a dumb play mistake until the end. (And you went to lengths to make Example #7 realistic-sounding, too.)


    I think Example 9 was fairly important because it reinforces the idea that regeneration has to resolve first before it can allow the creature to do any regenerating. Also, I don't find it all that implausible for a novice player (namely, those who might be interested in this article) to try such a thing.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Quote from SorrowsJudge
    I enjoy Magic 101. It really teaches me how to teach the game well. However, I have a few little problems with this one:

    Problem #1 is either phrased poorly or explained poorly. The way it's worded, the Centaur is blocked by the Assassin. Barry casts the Electrostatic Bolt (why wasn't it shock? Shock's the go-to 2 damage spell). The way the solution is worded gives the impression that the Assassin is destroyed in the combat damage step, then the two damage from the Bolt kicks in, destroying the Centaur. In reality, the Bolt will deal 2 to the Centaur. In the combat damage step both are destroyed at the same time. I feel that the answer is slightly misguiding.


    Yeah, I probably could have worded that better.

    Anyway, my suggestions:
    #1. Use the same cards. People learn best when they can relate the new knowledge to something they've already seen.
    #2. On a similar note, use simple cards. Electrostatic Bolt = Firebolt = Shock in every example. The flashback doesn't relate to what's being taught, the "instead deal 4" doesn't relate to the problem either.


    I addressed this above, but since two people have mentioned it, I'll keep in mind for future articles. Again, I have previously shuffled things up some to make sure there is understanding rather than just doing on the part of the readers (this will always be true in the problems at least). I guess, considering that, perhaps the problems at the end should have different cards, but the examples should remain relatively static. I guess we'll see.

    #3. The article's a bit long. How about a two-parter for something like this? I feel overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge being pushed at me, and I'm sure a newer player would too.

    On the flip side, problems #3-8 are excellent, and overall the article is chock-full of things that every Magic player needs to know.


    Yeah, it's a little on the long side. I'm not sure what I would cut out though, as I like to get everything in one space so players don't have to search around for their answer to questions. I guess two parts wouldn't have been terrible though.

    Thanks for your comments.

    ----------------------

    If anybody has ideas for future articles, I'd be interested in hearing those.
    Posted in: Articles
  • posted a message on Magic 101: How Creatures Die
    This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Magic 101: How Creatures Die. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
    Posted in: Articles
  • posted a message on Math of Drawing into Top 8
    Is there some sort of mathematical formula that one can use to determine whether you can draw into the top 8? I've always heard that if you win all of your rounds to the point that there are 2 rounds left in the tournament, you can always draw in at X-0-2.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on The End.
    Thanks for your service to this site.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • posted a message on Close to a complete set of Zendikar...
    Quote from endlesschris
    What are you talking about? Redeem the set you fool. The fetches are worth way more in real life.


    Yes, but the set as a whole sells for slightly more online, at least based upon current prices. Full Zendikar sets are going for 97ish right now while full sets on eBay are going for 95-120ish, meaning the transaction costs ($8 to redeem, 9% from eBay, 3% from paypal) make it seem like selling on MTGO is optimal, at least in terms of risk and effort. If I could sell in person, then perhaps not.
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on Close to a complete set of Zendikar...
    It's $8 to redeem, right? (between shipping and the redemption fee?)
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on Close to a complete set of Zendikar...
    So, I'm getting close to a complete set of Zendikar. Originally I was going to redeem and then sell what I got, but now I'm considering just selling it online for tix. Is there some special procedure that is typically done for this or does the other person have to literally pick all 200 odd cards in the trade? Also, I thought there was a limit to the number of cards that could be in any transaction, so how does that work? Anything else I need to know? Thanks.
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on Non-full card art Zen basic lands?
    Quote from jkoopa
    Yeah you still need the full art lands though to redeem ZEN.

    I'm just assuming but I think it's just for ZEN. Cause its very difficult to get the regular lands, cause can only be found in the pre-constructed decks.

    Trying to get the basic land from the other sets should be a lot easier since they can be found in a regular booster pack.


    Great. Thanks for your help.
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on Non-full card art Zen basic lands?
    Quote from jkoopa
    if you are trying to redeem your collection.. you don't need the half art lands


    Yeah, I happened to see that in MTGO chat a little bit ago. I'm presuming you do need the full art lands though? I finally managed to get all of them (amazingly, I was still one short until about 40 drafts) regardless, but I'm just curious. Is this true for all sets or just this one?
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on New Magic 101 Article Topic?
    Some time in the coming days or weeks I'm considering writing another Magic 101 Article (it's been quite some time). What would you find most useful? A higher level article (if one is possible) on something already covered like the stack and triggered abilities or something else completely? Is there some aspect of the rules that some of you have trouble grasping even after it has been explained before?

    My general goal with these articles was/is to explain really important concepts with high precision but in easy to understand terms. I start with very simple examples and then add more complicated factors to flesh out all the nuances of the rules. I then have a few review/quiz questions at the end along with a summary of the absolute most important points to try to make sure that most everything I explained was understood.

    Any suggestions would be appreciated. Note, however, that I may just do my own thing, regardless of what is posted here, but I wanted to give you guys the chance to suggest ideas in any case.

    Oh, I did this thread a while ago, but I figured things have probably changed at least a little bit in two years, so here's a new thread. One of the suggestions I liked was this:

    Quote from Anniek
    Maybe you could do something with things (mostly creatures) dying. A lot of players seem to get confused about what indestuctible can do, what regeneration can do, and which 'creature deaths' they can and cannot respond to. You could cover the differences between 0-toughness, lethal damage, 'destroy', 'sacrifice'. Which are SBE's, which can be prevented with regeneration, etc.


    But, obviously, I'm open to other ideas and there's no reason I can't write more than one article, if I have the time, patience, etc.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Pre-Gameplay Experience RoE Commons Eval/Spec (Completed: Post 24)
    Thanks for posting this. I disagree with a few assessments, but very solid overall.
    Posted in: Limited Archives
  • posted a message on Doublepost vs No editing after a mod
    This is really not hard. The point of the no double posting rule is to prevent spam. If the "double post" is spam, punish it. If it's not, let it go.

    The fact that this has gone of for three pages is fairly amazing.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • posted a message on What to expect from my first FNM
    You're allowed to look at your card picks during the draft at Regular REL (as long as it hasn't been disallowed ahead of time):

    Quote from Magic Tournament Rules »
    7.7 Booster Draft Procedures

    ...

    Players and teams may not look at their drafted cards between or during picks at Competitive and Professional RELs. At Regular REL, players are allowed to review their drafted cards between or during picks as long as they are holding no other cards at the same time. The Head Judge may choose to disallow this provided he or she announces it before the first draft. Between boosters there is a review period in which players may review their picks.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Trader Bots?
    These programs are typically purchased or designed yourself. Additionally, I have read that many of them are dishonest, so I would do some significant research before using one, otherwise you could end up losing the contents of your account.
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.