Messages

1

General Magic / Re: Magic is a complicated game.

« on: December 13, 2021, 09:14:04 am »

Couldn't agree with you more ApothecaryGeist.

This game is wild some times. That's a large part of its charm and those nuances are what a lot of people enjoy.

But as my mother used to say, "Good manners cost nothing".

No one is going to be correct 100% of the time, but everyone can be courteous 100% of the time. The former is inevitable, the latter is a choice.

2

General Magic / Re: Losing interest?

« on: December 07, 2021, 10:19:01 am »

I'm not losing interest in the game, just losing interest in the new cards and perpetual hype.

I'm kind of at the point where I'm ready to just stop collecting. I've got a box of cards that has enough playable jank in it to build commander decks for as long as I desire and if I never bought another card again, it wouldn't matter. I can get games in with my friends with the stuff I already own. I've mostly ignored spoilers from the last year or so and I honestly don't feel like I've missed out at all. It's a wonderful place to be. I might pick up the odd single here or there, or have a night of draft with friends, but mostly I'm happy with where I'm at.

This wasn't the case a few years ago. I used to massively enjoy spoiler season(s), looking at every card and getting excited. It was easier when you only had to do it a few times a year.

One thing I will say that has been a positive from the massive influx of products though is the amount of reprints that will inevitably come with it, and the price drop that happens as a result.

More product = more reprints = more good.

There have been a lot of cards reprinted in the last few years that I'd previously considered too expensive for my own personal preference that I've now picked up as a result of reprints.

Greed used to go for £10+ and now it's 50p. Same for Goblin Bombardment. Same for Greater Good. Same for many, many more. The amount of precons means Sol Ring is now the cheapest I've ever seen it. You love to see it.

If you can find that sweet spot between keeping an eye out for singles that you're interested in without getting bogged down in the perpetual hype, you're on to a winner in my opinion.

3

General Magic / Please help me find the references

« on: December 02, 2021, 11:46:25 am »

Hi all,

As I'm sure some of you will have seen, there is a new secret lair coming that is based around Fblthp and Where's Wally? (or Waldo if you're not from the UK).

As a child, I loved Where's Wally? so I'm toying with the idea of picking up my first secret lair.

I've attached a picture of the artwork for ease of access, and you can see the images in decent resolution on the secret lair website (https://secretlair.wizards.com/uk/product/696695/fblthp-completely-utterly-totally-lost).

The artwork across these cards forms a panorama, each with a hidden Fblthp, but also containing a bunch of other references to other Ravnican cards or characters.

I like the idea of making a commander deck that contains all of the referenced cards, probably with 5 colour Niv Mizzet as the commander.

As this kind of thing is fun and something that a lot of people enjoy, and because I'm just one person and am likely to miss a lot of references, I thought I'd open it up to everyone here.

So, what characters / cards can you see represented within this art?

4

Commander Discussion / Re: Use Grave-Hate People

« on: November 19, 2021, 05:26:32 pm »

I would go as far as to say most archetypes have pieces of graveyard hate that they can include in their deck while still being in keeping with their own strategy / game plan / synergies.

Whether you're in Lands, Artifacts, Enchantress, Big Idiot Creatures, Super friends, Tribal, there will likely be something that can keep graveyards in check while still synergising with your deck.

At the very least, if I can't find anything like this for a deck (for example, I struggle with Izzet Spellslinger), I'll stick in a scavenger grounds. The cost of inclusion is very small (it enters untapped, can tap for a colourless and the only time you'd really prefer a basic is in your opening hand / early game) and it might save your ass.

I tend to build decks with the philosophy that I'll include at least one answer to any situation I am able to in the colours I am in, even if it's just a utility land. That way, I never feel like I'm in a situation where my deck was literally powerless, its just that sometimes I don't draw the answers I need. When I lose, I want to be in the position where I know that if I had a DT in my hand I could have done something to help. As long as there was a chance I could have stopped it, I'll happily take my beats. Sometimes you have all the answers, and sometimes none. The only way to guarantee you can't answer a problem is to not put the answer in your deck in the first place. Everything else is just part of the game.

That's how I see it at least.

5

General Magic / Re: What MTG content to you watch on Youtube or listen to on podcasts?

« on: October 26, 2021, 10:32:13 am »

During the height of the pandemic, I watched a reasonable amount of MTG content.

Commander VS and LRR are my personal favourites as I feel that they best encapsulate what I love about playing magic; the atmosphere of just hanging out with friends and having a fun time, with the Magic coming second. I particularly like LRRs draft and Canadian Highlander content, but it's all great.

I Hate Your Deck are pretty good with this too, but sometimes I find the personalities a little too "larger than life" for my own reserved self.

I'll also watch Playing with Power or MTG Muddstah, but with these kinds of gameplay videos where you only get narration over the top, I'll only watch if there is a commander or archetype on display that I'm interested in. I feel like it misses something without the banter.

I also have a soft spot for Pleasant Kenobi. His sense of humour is similar to my own and I find his takes are usually very fair and reasonable. He is probably the least "WotC Shill" of all the creators that I've watched. Happy to offer criticism or praise where it is due. Plays a lot of modern and legacy too, which is a nice change of pace from commander content.

6

General Magic / Re: Any way to double energy counters?

« on: October 17, 2021, 06:57:01 pm »

If you're making an energy deck, I daresay you are already familiar with some of the synergistic cards from Kaladesh block, but just in case, or for anyone else who reads this:

Skyship Plunderer
Maulfist Revolutionary
Animation Module

These three can all duplicate counters on players as well as permanents, but are worded kind of strangely so often get missed in scryfall searches and the like.

Animation module might not be high enough impact for your strategy specifically, but if you are building an energy deck, you might well wish to include the entire module cycle (Animation Module, Decoction Module and Fabrication Module) as they work incredibly well together if you get all 3.

7

Commander Discussion / Re: Your controversial opinion

« on: September 22, 2021, 10:31:27 am »

Honestly, I don't see why a draw isn't the right outcome for that situation.

I have a similar but different story from when I'd just started Magic, which perhaps influenced my own opinion on the matter. I was playing essentially a lifegain vs lifegain deck matchup on Arena. Then suddenly I lost. I had no idea why. Looking back, I assume I ran out of cards, but nobody had ever told me that this was a rule and I'd just assumed that it wasn't, because why would you have such a rule? I honestly hadn't really thought about it, but I think had some vague idea that you'd just shuffle your discard pile back in, like in Dominion or something (I now realise that this has its own problems, primarily lands). This was also a pretty bad feeling for a new player!

The "it's necessary to the end the game" line is also bogus. I don't think you need that in most cases - these matchups are fairly unusual, and a draw makes perfect sense. Chess by the way has the same problem and they just have a three-ply repetition rule. It also doesn't actually solve the problem - there are plenty of reshuffle effects, so it's still possible for a game to go on forever (in fact, it's mathematically impossible to determine even whether a game will end, in general). I hadn't considered the case of new players so much, I guess; those won't deliberately be building decks to go on forever, which you kinda have to do. It still feels like, at best, an ugly hack - to me, anyway. As I said, a surprising number of people seem to disagree with me. 

I 100% agree with you that this rule is not intuitive in the slightest. It is so far removed and different from how most games handle this scenario that it is very jarring when you first come across it.

Similarly to a lot of people, my first interaction with this rule came about when I was relatively new to the game. My friends and I were playing some casual kitchen table magic and I happened to get through my entire deck. None of us new what the ramifications were of this. We assumed you'd either shuffle everything back in or just stop being able to draw new cards, so we searched for the answer and nope. Turns out I lose. Cool.

That said, it being so unconventional is partly why I love it as a rule. Magic in general is a game that comes under a relative amount of criticism due to its archaic rulings. Resource management is the big sticking point here. A lot of newer games handle resources in far more graceful and intuitive ways that Magic does, and we've all been in situations where we've been mana screwed. But I love this aspect of the game. I love that no matter how well my deck is built, variance always plays a part and I am never guaranteed for that not to happen. For me, these little quirks leftover from the early days that are too ingrained in the game to ever be changed give the game so much character and give us so much insight into the games history and growth that I love them, even if they are weird or counterintuitive.

I also like the "can't draw you lose" rule as it makes things like Mill and Lab Man viable win conditions. Variety is the spice of life as they say, and being able to close out games in ways other than combat is only a good thing in my opinion. Magic as a game is often praised for being inherently well balanced (as a set of rules, not talking about individual busted cards here). Every archetype has strengths and weaknesses. If you were never in danger of being milled out, suddenly things like life gain become incredibly more powerful (obviously there are other ways to beat life gain decks too, this is just and example).

I personally think that having the game result in a draw would feel more like an ugly hack. I would feel incredibly unsatisfied as a player playing games that ended in a draw after what would likely have ended up being a prolonged and extensive game. I like that there are consequences to this kind of game, and even when games devolve into "who is going to draw themselves out of the game first", I find that kind of race as equally exciting and fun as the race to reduce life totals to zero. Again, this is just me though. I'm not trying to convince others to agree with me, just enjoying the conversation.

8

General Magic / Re: Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet Question

« on: September 21, 2021, 12:57:54 pm »

Hi JoHon,

Yes, this works the way you want it to.

Kalitas causes a replacement effect to trigger when ever a creature an opponent controls dies. As you rightly say, this means that when you sacrifice Generator Servant, it will be exiled.

However, Generator Servant's mana ability doesn't require it to die to trigger, it simply requires you to sacrifice Generator Servant as part of its cost. You will still get the two colourless mana and if you use it on a creature, it will still get haste for the turn.

If we compare it to something like Doomed Dissenter, we can see an example of wording where a creature specifically needs to die (i.e. hit the graveyard) for its ability to trigger.

Hope this helps.

9

Commander Discussion / Re: Your controversial opinion

« on: September 20, 2021, 01:09:00 pm »

It's also worth mentioning that from a flavour perspective, one could argue that the "lose when no cards in library" rule makes perfect sense.

From a flavour point of view, playing a game of Magic is supposed to represent two (or more) Planeswalking wizards having a magical battle. The library is supposed to represent the individuals mind, made up of the spells they know how to cast.

It does, until you actually think about it.

Sure, my deck represents the spells I know. I can't cast anything not in my deck. That makes sense. But then, what does it mean to have four copies of a spell in my deck rather than only one? Surely, knowing more spells is better... but putting more spells in my deck is not. Rather, the power of my deck is more like the average of the spells in it.

It also doesn't explain why you would lose. So I forgot all my spells... so what? How is this different to having only five land cards left in my deck? If my board state is still sufficient that I can win, why do I even need to cast spells?

Perhaps more importantly, what then does it mean to draw cards? I no longer "know" the cards in my hand... but I can't cast them unless they are in my hand? Drawing too many cards is the same as forgetting all my spells (except I have to draw them to cast them)? They've moved into some sort of short-term memory but my lower-level brain functions have shut down?  Honestly, it makes very little sense, and that's fine because it's just a game with a bit of theming and a lot of abstraction, but in that case I don't think one should make silly game rules off the back of it.

*shrug* I may be the only person who sees it this way but, hey, you asked for unpopular opinions.

You definitely make some good points here.

From my point of view, I think there are a few things at play here.

I think a library representing a wizards mind is supposed to me more of a representation than a one to one comparison. It's more of a thematic way to explain what is going on "in universe" and doesn't need to answer every single eventuality with a concrete comparison. Playing four of a card doesn't mean "I can remember how to cast this spell exactly 4 times and once I've done that I will forget how". It's more in line with "this is a spell I am comfortable with and can cast with relative ease". If we look at it like this, I feel that it makes more sense.

I also don't think a library is supposed to represent memory, but ability. It's not a case of "what can I remember to cast" but "what do I have the ability to cast". If my opponent has driven me insane (milled me), my ability to cast spells is gone. It's not that I don't have the memory, it's that I don't have the capacity.


I kind of see it like this:


I run 4 copies of opt = I'm a wizard capable of quick thinking and decision making. I can assess my capabilities and limitations quickly to help me better find the right answer for my current situation.

I run 3 copies of Genesis Ultimatum = This is a spell I have studied extensively as I believe it will help my beat my fellow wizards. But it is harder to cast. I have to exert a lot more resources to do it.

I run a copy of Lurrus = It's a spell I've read about, but it's not key to my plan. Might come in handy one day though.



Within the context of this flavour analysis, I see drawing cards as simply thinking. If my opposing wizard has just cast a spell that summons a dragon, I need to think of what I can do about it. I might already have the answer at the forefront of my mind (in my hand). I might think of a way to kill it (draw a removal spell), think of a way to summon my own creatures to fight it (draw my own dragon spell), or might not think of anything relevant by the time it has killed me (draw nothing that helps). Again, to me it's not a case of memory, but ability, and isn't a direct one to one comparison.


I also think losing the game with 0 cards in your library is absolutely the right choice from a gameplay perspective too. Milling yourself out entirely is incredibly easy if you are trying to, and a lot of cards, decks and archetypes look to make use of a stocked graveyard. The potential to mill yourself out and lose as a result does a lot of work for balancing these kinds of decks. If you could just dump your whole library in your graveyard and not be punished for it, you'd be at a significant advantage. I see it as a similar rule to the maximum hand size rule. The game needs inherent ways to balance it, and if you want to flout those rules, you need to play specific cards to allow you to do so (for example Lab Man and Reliquary Tower respectively).

Also, I hope it comes across in my replies, but I am by no means saying that my view point is the correct one and anyone else who holds a different view point is wrong. This is just how I see it, both from a flavour and gameplay perspective. It's all personal conjecture.

10

Commander Discussion / Re: Your controversial opinion

« on: September 19, 2021, 12:40:14 pm »

Mill is a perfectly fine strategy and totally not a feel bad. Actually, I play a lot of graveyard decks so... Keep them mill decks coming 

Funnily enough, my apparently-unpopular opinion is that mill is the worst thing ever. Not just because it's "feelbad" and makes for unfun play patterns (it does), but because I just think the decking rule makes no sense. The idea that trying to draw a card should lose you the game seems completely random to me (particularly given that in most formats, there is no limit on deck size!), and the fact that this weird oddity then became a semi-feasible wincon is particularly galling.

The fact that there were cards in Alpha that made the opponent draw cards (like Ancestral Recall and Braingeyser) show to me that the possibility to mill out the opponent was considered legitimate from the very beginning of the game.

The original text of these cards even say "force opponent to draw", which kinda tells me that they knew it could be a "bad" thing for your opponent in some situations.

I don't see the rule of losing when you have 0 cards in your deck as any more "random" than the rule of losing when you have 0 life. They are just two different ways you can lose the game.

It's also worth mentioning that from a flavour perspective, one could argue that the "lose when no cards in library" rule makes perfect sense.

From a flavour point of view, playing a game of Magic is supposed to represent two (or more) Planeswalking wizards having a magical battle. The library is supposed to represent the individuals mind, made up of the spells they know how to cast. It's why so many card draw/cantrip spells are themed around concentration and clearing the mind and why so many mill cards are themed around insanity. Mill is your way of confusing your opponent, unraveling their mind,  so that they can't access the spells they know. If your library is empty, so is your mind. You have nothing left to cast, so you lose the battle.

Obviously this role playing aspect of the game doesn't mean anything in modern competitive magic, but it makes sense when you consider how old the rule is and how much more of a thing the flavour representation was back then.